#and make it everyone else's problem while also being ableist

[mourn-and-watch]

people get angry at solas' potential redemption because anders never received that kind of treatment but i think we really. shouldn't blame his writer for actually liking their character and giving him some depth and opportunities to take his arc in different directions depending on what players think of him. there are other people responsible for all the questionable choices in anders' writing and i think it's actually a good thing their approach to morally grey characters isn't a standard for the series anymore

[hyperlexichypatia]

I've seen basically two response arguments to Kennedy's slurs about autistic people being unable to pay taxes, have a job, play baseball, go on a date, write a poem, or use the toilet.

Both the responses are good and necessary, but I think they're incomplete. The two response arguments are essentially: 1. "That's not true, there are plenty of autistic people who have jobs and go on dates and play baseball," and 2. (largely in response to 1.) "Autistic people deserve acceptance and dignity even if they can't pay taxes or write poetry or use the toilet; people's value isn't determined by their abilities or productivity."

And, again, both of these responses are true and good and necessary. But what I'm not seeing people talk about enough is why Kennedy listed those specific skills, and what he's trying to imply with them. Because, see, when people are reduced to a dehumanized stereotype, "Not everyone is like that dehumanized stereotype" isn't sufficient, and neither is "Even people who are like that dehumanized stereotype deserve respect." The problem is the dehumanization. So let's look at the list of things we supposedly can't do, which Kennedy is using to conjure an image of "Inhuman Unthinking Blob."

Having a job. This is the big one. In American culture, your value, your personhood, is solely dependent on Your Job. Are you a valuable cog in the capitalist machine, or are you a cheap cog in the capitalist machine, or are you so worthless you're not even in the capitalist machine, and therefore have no reason to be alive? So it's good and necessary and important to spell out "A person doesn't have to have a job to be a person with dignity and rights." But there's a larger question out there, which is: What, exactly, constitutes "a job"? Yes, absolutely, everyone should have dignity and rights (and material needs like guaranteed housing, food, and consensual healthcare). But also, most disabled people, including ""severely"" disabled people, can and do perform productive labor benefiting their communities. It's just often labor that capitalist society doesn't classify as "a job," like caregiving, studying, or making art. It's important to say that people shouldn't need "a job" in order to deserve rights or resources. It's also important to point out that disabled people have been doing labor this whole time, just without the dignity, rights, or pay associated with "a job." In a socialist utopia where everyone had their material needs guaranteed, labor would still be done, and a lot of it would still be done by disabled people. That's important. Disabled people's contributions to society matter. And erasing that is something ableists do on purpose -- excluding the labor done by disabled people from the category of "job" is integral to excluding disabled people from the category of "productive" and thus the category "worthy of life."

Paying taxes. This is the most transparently ridiculous one, because absolutely everybody in the U.S. pays taxes. Poor people pay taxes (too much). Rich people pay taxes (nowhere near enough). Undocumented immigrants pay taxes. You buy a Snickers? It's priced $1.79 but you pay $1.92. That's a tax. You live somewhere? You're paying property taxes. You rent your home? How do you think your landlord pays their property taxes? From your rent. You're paying property taxes. You have a crappy underpaid minimum wage job? You're paying FICA. Everybody pays taxes. What Kennedy probably means to imply is "They're too poor to owe federal income taxes." Politicians love pretending that "taxes" means "federal income taxes" so they can claim to "lower taxes" while shifting the tax burden somewhere else (cf. Trump's attempt to claim that tariffs aren't taxes). And. And also. There's another subtle implication in there, that I see a lot from parents and ableists. Because of the deep intersection of ableism and classism, Kennedy is implying "They're too poor to owe federal income taxes" (therefore they're inferior) but also "They're not smart enough to do something complicated like file a tax return." When ableists talk about disabled people who "can't take care of themselves" or specifically "can't pay their bills" or "can't pay taxes," they're intentionally trying to conflate an economic state (having enough money to pay bills/taxes) with a cognitive ability (having the skills/executive function to manage money, budget, pay bills on time, or file a tax return). Kennedy probably doesn't file his own tax return either. I'm sure he has an accountant for that. Presumed-neurotypical people are allowed to do that. The world is full of rich people who lack executive function or money-management skills, whose wealth insulates them from the consequences of that, because they can either afford to just lose money, or they can afford to hire someone to handle it for them. The world is also full of poor people for whom one missed payment has ruined them. The world is also full of disabled people for whom one missed payment has gotten them declared mentally incompetent, institutionalized, or placed under guardianship -- by abled family members who probably hire an accountant to manage their own money. Again, all this is deliberate. Kennedy and other ableists/classists/eugenicsts are intentionally trying to conflate "lacks money," "lacks money management abilities/skills," and "lacks General Intelligence" as one more-or-less interchangeable phenomenon (Note: If you've read this far and haven't figured out my angle yet: There is no such thing as "General Intelligence" and the very concept is harmful).

Write a poem. Again, this is deliberately ambiguous wording -- pretty much anyone can write a poem, including people who can't write or speak. Have you ever expressed an idea in which the words you used had an additional meaning on top of their literal meaning? Boom, you can write a poem. Maybe not a good one. But Kennedy didn't say that autistic people's poetry is bad -- plenty of neurotypical people's poetry is bad too, after all. There is a somewhat positive stereotype floating around that neurodivergent people are creative. We may be tragic, burdens on society, our parents' heartbreak, worthless, stupid, subhuman, but at least we're creative. Probably due to being more animal-like, "closer to nature." And neurobigots like Kennedy absolutely hate this stereotype. No matter how much dehumanization the "positive" stereotype is rooted in, we cannot have any positive attributes at all. They must never let us forget that we have no redeeming value whatsoever. We must be rendered as completely lacking in thought, feelings, expression, and creation. I'm seeing some echos of 18th century racism, too -- a common belief among 18th century white Europeans was that even if non-Europeans were superficially clever, they could produce no "higher culture," no great art or poetry or literature, because they were intrinsically a lower tier of human. This seems to be the root of Kennedy's implication -- not that autistic people "can't" write poetry (anyone can), or that autistic people are bad at writing poetry (most beginners are), but that an autistic person's creative output cannot constitute true poetry, true "high culture," because it comes from an inferior mind.

Play baseball. This is an especially slippery one, because like writing poetry, it's a learned skill with gradations of skill level, not an intrinsic ability that someone does or doesn't have. Most autistic people aren't pro-level baseball players, but neither are most allistic people. And again, Kennedy didn't say "Autistic people are bad at baseball." He said that we would never play baseball. "Has ever played or will ever play baseball" is such a ridiculously low bar that even I can meet it. Technically speaking, I can play baseball. I have played baseball, in school gym class. I know how! You sit there minding your business until it's your turn to stand up, and then someone hands you a bat, and then someone throws a ball, and you're supposed to try to hit the ball with the bat, and in theory, after you fail three times, you're supposed to be allowed to sit back down again and go back to imagining wild self-insert fanfic, but the coach gives you "extra tries" out of pity, so you have to humiliate yourself with five or six attempts instead of three. Yeah. I can play baseball. So what's Kennedy going for with this one? Baseball in the U.S. is associated with two things: American identity, and idyllic midcentury childhood. If autistic people can't participate in America's Pastime, can we really even be Americans? Do we really count as citizens? I don't think Kennedy is personally, ideologically all that committed to xenophobia himself; he's just hitched his wagon to a deeply xenophobic administration because they indulge his medical conspiracy theories. But he knows how to align his goals to the administration's. He knows that his boss is deeply committed to narrowing and restricting who counts as "an American," who's not really part of "our culture," who's not really a part of baseball and hot dogs and the Fourth of July, if you know what I mean. Okay, okay. Maybe I'm reaching with this one. But I'm definitely not reaching with the other association he's going for: Idyllic Midcentury Childhood. All kids play baseball. By which I mean, all boys play baseball. I'm not sure Kennedy knows that girls can play it too, or that he cares. The point is, baseball is part of childhood, and autistic people are never children. We don't play, we don't learn, we don't go through developmental stages, we're just forever Mindless Blobs. That's why things that would be considered cruelty if done to neurotypical children aren't cruelty when they're done to us. We're not really children. We never become adults, either -- how can we, if we don't go through childhood first? You can tell we're subhuman because we don't go through the universal experiences of Real People Life.

Go on a date. Okay. This one. This is the one where I get actively angry at the well-meaning, "inclusive" responses. "Just because an autistic person has high support needs and can't do XYZ doesn't mean --" no. Stop right there. There is no such thing as a disabled person who "can't" date. There is no impairment or disability that prevents someone from dating. There are people -- autistic and otherwise, disabled and otherwise -- who for whatever reason, choose not to pursue dating. Maybe they're aromantic, maybe they're loners, maybe they have religious objections, maybe dating just isn't something they're interested in. Fine. That's their choice. But there is no such thing as a disabled person who "can't" date. There is no such thing as a disability that renders people incapable of romantic relationships. There is no such fucking thing as being "too disabled" or "too severe" or "too profound" or "too high support needs" to have a romantic relationship if two or more people want one. That is not a thing that exists. That is a thing ableists made up. There is no such thing as an autistic person who "can't" go on a date. There are autistic people who aren't allowed to go on dates, because their family or caregivers control them, infantilize them, restrict their freedoms, or treat them as mindless blobs. But all disabled people (yes, all) can pursue romantic relationships. All disabled people (yes, all) deserve the human right to pursue romantic relationships if they choose to. With other disabled people. With abled people. With whomever. And yeah, dating doesn't necessarily have to be romantic or sexual, but let me be perfectly clear -- disabled people, autistic people, "high support needs" autistic people have a right to have sex, too. A multiply disabled autistic person who needs 24/7 assistance deserves the absolute, unreserved right to have wild, kinky, balls-to-the-wall, whole-chicken sex with the entire starting lineup of the Detroit Lions, if xe so chooses to, and if said Lions are on board. We should not accept the premise that there is any such thing as a disabled person who "can't" go on a date.

Use a toilet without assistance. This is the Kennedy playbook trump card, but unlike some of the other claims, this one is actually true. There's no such thing as a disabled person who "can't" date, but yes, there are in fact plenty of disabled people, including autistic people, who need help with using the toilet. So what's Kennedy going for here? He's trying to evoke two things: Disgust and infantilization. We have a visceral disgust around excretory functions. Needing to eliminate waste reminds us that we're animals made of meat, not the higher intellectual beings we pretend to be. Everyone poops. So we do it in private, we describe it with euphemisms, and if someone needs help with it, well, they're not keeping up their end of the social compact to collectively pretend we're not animals with animal bodily functions. So people who need assistance with the waste process are disgusting, subhuman, a violation of imagined purity. And of course, they're babies. Babies wear diapers. Babies need help using the toilet. So an older child or adult who needs diapers or toileting help is basically a big baby. We have entire election cycles centered on "Which candidate has incontinence issues?" as a proxy for "Which candidate is a big baby unfit to lead?" as though someone's bladder leakage has any bearing on their wisdom or policy positions. And of course, since people who need help with toileting Are Babies, we're meant to assume that they can't do any of those other things, either. They can't even use the toilet, let alone write poetry or go on a date. In reality, plenty of people who need toileting help are writing poetry and going on dates. One of the biggest misconceptions that holds disabled people back from education or, in some cases, from basic communication, is this myth of linear "developmental stages" -- that if someone isn't "smart enough" to master an "easier/earlier" skill, then they can't possibly be "smart enough" to master a completely unrelated skill that some abled person thinks of as "more advanced." This is literally the primary barrier to communication access for speech-disabled people, and the reason nonspeaking people who type to communicate are so often disbelieved -- if someone isn't "smart enough" to master a "baby skill" like talking, they can't possibly be "smart enough" to read and write! Nevermind that for many speech disabled people, reading and writing are much easier than speaking. And if someone isn't "smart enough" to use the toilet unassisted, they can't possibly learn any advanced topics at all, because they must the "mind of a baby." (The only people with the minds of babies are babies. A 50 year old with incontinence has the mind of a 50 year old.)

So. To sum up: Kennedy is intentionally evoking the concept of autistic people as The Abject Unthinking, and neither "Plenty of autistic people can do those things he says we can't do" nor "Disabled people deserve respect and dignity even if they can't do those things" fully addresses the dehumanization he's trying to conjure. Maybe I'm just jaded, too, about calls for "respect and dignity" for disabled people that don't challenge the concept of The Abject Unthinking. I see behavioral therapists, institution staff, and parents pursuing adult guardianship talking about "respect and dignity." I see articles about how to restrain and forcibly drug people with "respect and dignity." Ableists literally murder disabled people in cold blood in the name of "respect and dignity." I don't know what "respect and dignity" means to these people, but it's sure not synonymous with "bodily autonomy" or "civil rights." By this point, I consider "respect and dignity" about as meaningful as "thoughts and prayers." All disabled people can, and deserve the right to, express themselves. All disabled people can, and deserve the right to, make their own decisions about their own bodies. All disabled people can, and deserve the right to, participate in their communities. All disabled people can, and deserve the right to, pursue relationships with other people of their choice.

[1stposition]

Ngl can y’all pack up this “stud who couldn’t pick up her gf” trend on tik tok cuz it’s seriously lame as fuck. I know y’all r tryna be funny and I can usually take a joke but I failed to see what’s funny..

Y’all continuously expose yourselves as weirdos because why am I seeing comments full of 101 repackaged homophobia and misogyny???!!! Wrap it up.

All it takes is ONE stud to go viral on the internet for yall to start comparing studs to men, dogpiling them, invalidating their identities, spreading anti-black, misogynistic, and homophobic rhetoric, and start reinforcing toxic ideas of masculinity AND IM SICK OF ITTTTTT.

Bc why the fuck r yall comparing her to jojo siwa?? is yall fuckin for real?????? A lot of yall needa reflect on why y’all hold masculine women to the same standards as cis men QUICKLY

EVERY DAY yall get online bashing stud/butch lesbians and giving hetero mfs the green light to target and shit on them and it fucking infuriates me. It shows that yall view them as a performance, not individuals that have broadly unique relationships with masculinity. Y’all shove your heteronormative standards of masculinity onto studs and put them in a box as if they exist for your amusement.

Leave that woman alone bc it’s seriously getting annoying that we have to keep telling yall to RESPECT MASC LESBIANS. Quit degrading her because YOU’RE insecure about your masculinity and feel the need to belittle someone to feel better about yourself. It’s sad loser behavior. I hope she’s not reading yall hateful ass comments and feeling bad about herself. Y’all know that the shit yall post online can hurt people and it’s fucked up y’all don’t care.

Also idgaf about the “it’s because she got stood up by a man” SOOOO????? What does that have to do with yall projecting your insecurities onto someone else?????? Why do yall hold masc lesbians to this standard of being better than men at everything????? That’s an internal issue, deal w it and stop making it everyone else’s problem.

And to the fems that r hating, I’m disappointed yet again but not surprised bc for whatever reason so many of yall feel the need to make it known u view masc lesbians as inferior to the rest of the community and I will never understand it. Y’all r too dumb to realize how stupid u sound when u say shit like “they sleeping on us fems” bc whooooooo???? Why r yall always competing w studs????? It’s mad weird

Boooo tomatoes tomatoes throwing tomatoes 🍅 👎🏾👎🏾👎🏾👎🏾

And to the mfs that r commenting “she needs to start lifting” “she’s supposed to be strong” ACCORDING TO WHOOOOO???????? LMFAO TF. WHO R UUU????? You’re a fucking nobody talking shit online. Your opinion is irrelevant and holds no value, shut up. Deadass.

Did y’all forget about the existence of disabled studs/butches while typing this nonsense??? It sure sounds like it. It’s ableist as fuck to say that physical strength is the determining factor of masculinity, cuz BULLSHIT. It’s NOT. Someone being unable to lift as much as the average man does NOT discredit their masculinity r u serious??? How someone defines THEIR masculinity is personal and not for u to validate!!

OH!!! -And fuck social expectations!!! NEWFLASH: NOBODY HAS TO CONFORM TO ANY EXPECTATIONS SOCIETY FORCES UPON THEM!!! Where tf did the “responsibilities for relationships” part even come from???? A woman (or man) can provide protection and safety for their partner in various ways, not just physical.. but to even assume that someone is incapable of being a protector because they’re not physically strong is FALSE!!! Log off!!! This is textbook ableism and ignorance at its finest

I swear if y’all just picked up a book or read an article on the complexity of stud/butch lesbians we wouldn’t need to constantly address this shit. Y’all wouldn’t call butchfemme dynamics heteronormative. Honestly, if yall just started using common fucking sense and minding your business that would solve majority of the problem. It doesn’t take a genius to tell u that masculinity is a made up concept and that it can be anything u want it to be, not just the shitty patriarchal version y’all push onto people.

I also wanna clarify I’m aware that the girl who posted the original video stated that the stud is NOT her gf and that she wishes yall would stop bashing her and gtfo out her comment section (rightfully so). I just wanted to speak out about this video that’s been circling around recently bc I’m sick of y’all disrespecting stud/butch lesbians

And real quick since the straight men think they’re hot shit for shitting on masc women and lesbians - especially shut the fuck up. Ty.

To all the studs and butches (disabled included) reading this, I want u to always remember how important your existence is to this world. I look up to u with so much admiration and gratitude. I’m happy I get to experience living on the same planet with such amazing, beautiful souls like yours. Fuck what anyone else says, stay true to yourself and continue inspiring all the baby gays and butches out there. There’s a community that cherishes u and has your back forever. I love u x 💋

[andhumanslovedstories]

I’ve been struggling lately with the feeling that my job is pointless. Intellectually I know it is not—nursing is one of those professions where you get to be real smug about knowing the value of your work. But it’s still felt very pointless. Like I’ll start a shift thinking, “what am I even doing here,” and end it thinking, “what have I actually even done.” It’s been a ROUGH couple months.

But I had a really good shift last time I worked, which was good for the soul and also a very useful data point. I got to do pain management advocacy and symptom management, met a bunch of cool patients, did education for new nurses, and had several long heart to hearts, which the kind of midnight heart to hearts that I think are the most important part of night shift, all of that while being well staffed with very pleasant and appreciative patients and coworkers, and I was still like. Pretty depressed. I had a sense of satisfaction and moments of joy and meaning, but it turns out that one good shift did not cure the depression that has been latched on to me for the last few months like some kind of fucked up mental health leech. As I realized I was still depressed and that it was still interfering with my life even when everything was going well, the sense of peace washed over me was the best I’d felt in a while. Because I was like, okay! None of my usual stuff as worked! I have no excuse not to try something new to get my brain out of the shit ditch it’s slipped into.

So I’m applying for short-term disability. I’m worried I won’t get it, and I’m not sure what the next step is if I get rejected, but I feel so much better having decided to pursue it. It’s so much fuckin paperwork for sure, to a degree that’s overwhelming except that that the form could be a checkbox that says, “you want money?” and I’d be like “THIS IS TOO MUCH.” I’m totally not writing this post instead of finishing an email to my manager. I’m definitely not writing this post to avoid dealing with coordinating all my various care providers. I’m certainly not at every moment worried that I’m secretly faking all this so I can get three to nine weeks of a cool summer vacation.

I was thinking about how I almost flunked nursing school in my final semester because I turned in assignments late for a class with a “no late homework” policy. The professor said that this was reflective of real life, where if you miss deadlines you’re just fucked. I ended up appealing my grade and passing, because frankly it was a weak reason for making me repeat a final semester when there was no issues with my actual work or knowledge. During my appeal, I was like “I also think this policy is ableist. Harsh penalties for late work hurt students with health problems, especially chronic health problems when you aren’t asking for one week off due to the flu but instead for a general and never ending flexibility. I’m not trying to make an excuse but explain why this policy is a bad one. Disabled healthcare workers are an asset to healthcare.” I’m trying to remember my own argument as I pursue help. My depression and ADHD and eating disorder do help me be a better nurse, not because like depression gives you superpowers, but because I manage my chronic illnesses every day, in ways that range from hardly noticeable to life or death. Being kind to patients means being kind to myself, and vice versa.

I’m rambling. I really do not want to do this paperwork or send these emails. And I’m not sure if I deserve the leave I’m trying to take. But I miss being love with my job. I miss enjoying it. I wouldn’t judge someone else for going on medical leave, and my job doesn’t want me to burn out or quit. It almost feels like I have to be skeptical of applying for leave because no one else is. Everyone I’ve spoken to has been very supportive, including my manager. And considering how many unpaid days off I’ve had to take lately, disability leave would be an improvement over some of my recent paychecks. All in all, short-term disability makes sense and seems like a reasonable response to circumstances. But FUCK. I wish it required like 90 percent less documentation.

[thousandyearphantombunker]

"we want more mentally ill/disabled characters with ugly symptoms!"

You guys can't handle lapis lazuli tony stark or hank pym! You guys can barely contain your ableism toward the hulk! You guys hate the good doctor for all the wrong reasons! You made fun of his speech patterns and his meltdowns wtf like I'm sorry the only autistic person you've supported have been the perfect non annoying type- but too many of especially as children are like shawn- they talk weird and don't understand what's so offensive about what they said

You guys keep saying Lapis should just be rewritten into a villain! I don't like how the show handled her but like your really gonna make the girl who shows ugly bad symptoms of ptsd into villain? You guys keep trying to make hank into a villain or rewrite his past- god forbid a character have really sevre ugly symptoms that causes them to make decisions that permanently effect the story but have them still be heroes! God forbid Ironman have npd and be a hero! Let's shame MCU Bruce for his mental illness for being unable to do things because of it! God as soon as a character with a mental illness or developmental disorder or low IQ shows actual symptoms and behaviors (ei: acts like how someone with the disorder in question acts- you know the main part of having a fucking disorder) you get pissy and pile on the shame- yeah jen you do control your anger better than bruce- you can also stand better than Charles fucking Xavier! Yeah your smarter than a guy with a low IQ want a cookie?

I'm never gonna be one of those people who tell others to stop writing disabled villains or that writing a character that deals with internalized ableism (disabled people like any group of people can be total prices of shit, and I'm sorry not everyone is content and accepting of their disabilities and some of us take comfort in characters that struggle with being angry because of their problems) but Jesus Christ when a heroic character with ugly symptoms who makes cruel decisions or has 'bratty' or 'immature' moments can we let them stay heroes? Can we let them have a disorder without piling on the shame that we are inferior because we can't do something everyone else can- because that's literally what a disability is! Can they still be heroes?

Do we have to use intellectual/developmental disability as a shorthand for anti intellectualism and being a gross annoying psycho

Do we have to make every heroic character with aspd or npd into a villain or change their disability to autism because it's 'more sympathetic' as if lack of empathy isn't a goddamned symptom of many disabilities like PTSD and autism- You can headcanon tony as having autism- that's cool by me but it's clear some of y'all do it to make him a 'woobie'- which is infantalizing btw but also it's because some of y'all are ableist toward people with npd

I hate that the only acceptable 'ugly symptoms' are things like forgetting to shower or brush your teeth every once in a while or being a bit irritable and not stuff like burning bridges or having explosive outburts

Also it's not a mental illness unless it effects your behavior?

Im not saying that we should just accept and allow mentally ill/intellectually disabled people/characters to get away with bad behaviors unpunished but can they stay heroes? Can they still be respectable?

"we want more characters with ugly symptoms"

Yet

You people get offended by low functioning autistic people existing! You get mad at them for being incontinent or nonverbal/making strange noises or having scary anger issues or IQs low enough that they will never be independent you get mad at them for not showing the 'appropriate' reactions to things they may or may not fully understand- you hate people with sensory issues -

You don't want mentally ill/disabled characters- you want characters with the labels of mental disabilities without any of the ugly strange or off putting behaviors mental/intellectual deficiencies/issues cause- you want a romantic tragedy!

You shame people with Alzheimer's for FORGETTING stuff and LOSING SKILLS 'yeah yeah you are superior to your uncle because you can remember stuff but can you remember it's a fucking disease! you people are cruel

Yes you are technically superior to disabled people because you are capable of things we aren't and you have better character and you can control yourself but guess what? Those people you hate for being incapable of that shit have disabilities it's not our faults! It's the fucking definition of a disability! Like yeah it is a skill issue and we're just 'worse' than nondisabled with us lacking self control and having lower IQs and bad mental processing- yeah it is because we're lacking in some capacity that's like the definition disability you can't say you support disabled people and then turn around and say shit about how your better than these people because you can talk or take care of yourself

Hank Pym and Lapis Lazuli should get called out for acting like assholes and pieces of shit but I am firmly against turning one of few heroic characters who actively struggle with psychosis and delusions into another 'psycho' villain and I'm firmly against saying Lapis is just as bad as Jasper and using symptoms of her PTSD as signs she should be rewritten into a villain- I want them to be held accountable not turned into straight up evil guys or dear god washing out their problematic qualities until they're palatable/relatable to a neurotypical audience to make them good guys when they are already good guys!

Can people who do bad things because of their disabilities still be heroes? Can they be allowed to get better or do they have to accept that having ugly symptoms means being the bad guy? Fucking hell this is why I side eye anyone who acts like mental illness/developmental/cognitive or mental etc disabilities are more destigmatized than physical disabilities (trust me they aren't)

Tldr let characters with ugly symptoms be heroes let your characters with mental disorders act like they have a disorder and let said characters be heroes inspite of it!

[commsroom]

this is a sensitive topic for me, so i really hate that i have to make this post, but unfortunately it keeps becoming relevant: stop infantilizing hera, and stop making excuses for it.

"well, she's literally four years old" she's been fully conscious with an adult mind for most of that, awake for most of that, and in multiple places at once for most of that. do you think that is comparable to a child's life experience, or is it maybe representative of something else?

i assume you understand why it would be wrong to call lovelace "literally two" because the fact that she is a clone is textually representative of the trauma she's been through. i also assume you understand why hera occasionally making flippant or frustrated comments about her own struggles living as an AI is different from the text telling you who she is or how you should regard her. it's science fiction, and it's a show that uses science fiction concepts in ways that resonate with real ones. the ultimate fact of the matter is that hera could've been in a lab for 30 years, or for 200 years, in a different setting, and be written the exact same way: as a sheltered, isolated adult woman without real life experiences.

hera is not a child or teenager in a natural stage of development. she is an adult who never went through the usual stages of development or life milestones, who has adult friendships and responsibilities, but who feels she is permanently ill-equipped to handle her life because no one ever taught her how, or gave her the space to make mistakes. if you don't understand why this distinction is important in discussing her trauma, that there are real, adult people who feel the same way, people who feel they've only been alive for four years, women who were never girls... then i really don't know what to say to you.

and i guess i have to say it: it's inherently infantilizing to say her peers see her the same way they see an actual child, or to say she needs them to be parental figures, especially eiffel of all people. "adult women have parents too" not ones that are 30 year old men! and parents have responsibilities to children, even adult children, that are different from the responsibilities two unrelated adults who care about each other have. it fundamentally reframes hera's most equal relationship in a way that diminishes her autonomy within it. (and if you're arguing it's all equal anyway, then what does it add? why don't you consider friendship as important?)

i know some people will dismiss that point because i view eiffel and hera romantically, but i've never argued you have to. if you want to go down that road, it says some pretty awful things about the couple of writers and actors who also view it romantically if you think she was meant to be viewed as a child, much less comparable to his child. you're inventing problems that don't canonically exist.

i just don't understand why you would make it about eiffel at all - and eiffel does not have the right to be a parent; the only thing that will heal his relationship with his real actual child is in relation to his real actual child - instead of discussing what a disabled, isolated, traumatized adult might be able to offer a disabled, traumatized kid. isn't the whole point of hera not being like pryce about breaking cycles? why make her a passive figure in her own story when her entire story arc is about taking control of her life?

there's no utility to this line of thought that doesn't further demean and alienate her, while implying she isn't ready to be a fully autonomous adult person. i don't think most people mean to be ableist, but hera is canonically a disabled woman, and i don't like where that line of thought leads. and yes, she's just a fictional character and can't be hurt by it, but everyone brings some real-world biases to how they engage with fiction. she's written as a marginalized adult person, and her womanhood is textually tied to defense of her personhood and autonomy (as well as a parallel to lovelace, also a marginalized woman.) to paraphrase minkowski - "you are going to show [that woman] some goddamned respect."

[ilikekidsshows]

Sometimes I remember how Adrien in Revelation was blamed for EVERYTHING about Marinette's Lila problems and I get fuckin pissed.

Marinette went about outing Lila in the most incompetent and ineffective ways possible for seasons on end and somehow that's ADRIEN'S fault? If Adrien hadn't given her that "high road" advice, Marinette still wouldn't have gotten anywhere because all she ever did was pointing at Lila and screaming and physically harassing Lila about her being a liar and the devil. Adrien could have supported Marinette's (ableist) ways from the start and it wouldn't have changed shit. How is ADRIEN to blame for all of Marinette's incompetence? That girl never even tried communicating any real proof to anyone else. She just expected everyone to blindly hate Lila just cause she says so. What a hero 😒

And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of the show having Marinette as good as say that Adrien was naive and straight up WRONG for thinking there is good in Lila bc apparently some people are just born demons, which she has always known but HE oppressed her in "despite how right and superior she is in how experienced in life she was from the very start" (Cause Marinette having a raging jealousy hate boner from day 1 makes her mature and wise according to this episode's message)

and that Adrien should pretty much be considering himself lucky that Marinette is so pure and forgiving that she's able to love him for that pathetic nativity even though shes so brilliant and experienced that she's above ever being wrong like him bc she's just that brilliant and right and he's native, pathetic and wrong which she will generously teach him to not be anymore by telling him what way of thinking is correct (her way. ONLY ever her way. Just like in everything else in this show, but the love square in particular)

Only for Marinette to fucking do everything Adrien is being accused of in Revelation only 1000 times WORSE when she faces Gabriel in the finale episodes. The hypocrisy in this show is just VILE now in how disgusting the double standards are.

No way is this just bad writing. You have to go out of your way to be this vicious about the double standards and rewriting everything in the show to exclusively prop up Marinette on Adrien's expense.

---

It's all this moronic thing the writers have going on, which is: “we know Lila (and Chloé) will never change because we're the ones writing this shit.” So they have Marinette treating the characters they decided are irredeemable as irredeemable, but she has no in universe justification for that. She can't see the future and know that they'll never change, but she gets to lecture Adrien (and the audience through him) that deciding a couple of children have already become what they’ll always be while the rich, middle-aged men who made them that way are cool and redeemable despite doing jack shit to treat regular people better. They were nice to one (1) person, so now all is forgiven.

And, like, that's also the thing with the finale. Marinette detransforming in front of her enemy is possibly the stupidest thing she's ever done, but the writers' commentary praises her for “choosing kindness over violence” and how Gabriel making the wish is her winning because apparently her pleading reached him and he decided to doom the world in a good way. And Marinette makes this decision that's incredibly asinine in universe, because of the outside universe context. She basically knows that's what's going on because the writers decided that's what's going on and and Marinette will shill the fuck out of their favorite child abuse OC to try to vindicate him to the audience.

[rangercorpstherapy]

There is a post about ableism in the sorcerer/siege of Macindaw books. I'm not going to reply directly to the poster because I don't necessarily think they're wrong, but there's a bigger problem I want to touch on without derailing their post.

The post by @bronze-oakleaf Sorry, but John Flannagan isn't an ableist for describing disabled people as disfigured, Will is. John, although in his usual hit-and-miss style, goes out of his way to show us that the people Will and others are afraid of are not monsters. It's been a while since I read these books, but I can remember there being a few backstories and instances in which it's made clear that Malcolm’s people are just very normal people who have fun, interests and hobbies and love each other deeply.

Will's apprehension of disabled people is very clearly presented as a character flaw. John is a children's author and cannot go into depth about how monstrosity isn't physical but something that manifests in the soul a la Victor Hugo's Hunchback of the Notre Dame. Still, I don't think any child (at least I didn't) finished reading Sorcerer and Siege thinking that disabled people were any less deserving of respect and love than others and Will kinda had a point there in the beginning.

I think the only example of bigotry where there is a high chance of it reflecting John's real-life views is the way he characterises Romani and Sinti in that horrible short story. Without going into depth the key difference here is that not a single person in the story thinks that Alyss and Will are doing or thinking anything wrong. Nuance, even if it wasn't much, visible in Sorcerer and Siege is missing.

Now I have that out of the way, this post is actually about character flaws. I'm not trying to be smug by pulling the historical accuracy card, but honestly, Will's views of disabled people are one of the few ways John established the world of Ranger's Apprentice as a Medieval society. I don't know how to say this without sounding kind of like an asshole, but if you want to critique Ranger's Apprentice flaws you also have to apply the same critique to the characters within Ranger's Apprentice. Separating art from the artists in this case doesn't really work because the art exists within the context the artist created. I don't think we have to be overly critical of characters because otherwise we're bad people and not woke, but viewing your favourite characters as flawed makes them inherently more interesting. I think viewing Will as an enforcer of feudal oppression (cop), extremely privileged (has an education and can bear arms) and classist with a very obvious disdain for those who are below him (this man should be nicer to farmers who can't read) is way more interesting than a perfect boy who fell victim his author's bigoted world view. Will, and all Rangers tbh, think they're better than other people. Rangers are smart they aren't like the uneducated masses who think wizards are real and the devil will claim your soul if you sleep lying down. But are they really?

Will is confronted with the fact he is like everyone else. He's also afraid of the “dreadful caricatures of normal people”, but why? The treatment of disabled people in Medieval society was very complex, and without getting into the nitty gritty, most of the cultural feelings towards them weren't because they were 'just ugly' but relied heavily on superstition. Will might be educated, but he still grew up in a society where disabled people were viewed as cursed, their ailment a deserving divine punishment. Him not being confronted with his hypocrisy in these books is the true moral failing of John to be honest.

Now to my final statement: pleasepleaselpleasepleaseplae let the Ranger's Apprentice characters be bad people. Because they ARE. I guess this post was a very elaborate way of saying Will isn't an UWU soft boy but a grown man with hairy balls. So are Halt, Gilan, Horace, Crowley (I didn't forget the time you enslaved a man king) and Duncan (Truly truly sick a twisted individual for sitting back and doing nothing as his daughter was sold into slavery because 'We need everyone here'. That wasn't a convenient plot point so Halt could save the day but misogyny). This doesn't mean Will isn't/can't be trans (because he is) or Cralt isn't canon (it is) for the sake of historical accuracy. I just want to say that these characters are all very privileged and classist individuals with many flaws thanks to the society they were raised in, which makes them more interesting. Remember be gay AND do crime.

[topazadine]

Identifying bad writing advice

I have seen what seems to be a backlash against the genre of writing advice in recent days. By that, I mean I saw like two posts about it within a few days of one another. That, to me, is an epidemic! We need a global symposium discussing the peoples' distrust of writing advice.

Not really, but one does need to practice caution when reading anything that tries to tell you to do something. That includes me, and even this post that you're reading.

There are tons of excellent guides out there helping to refine your unique voice rather than change it. BUT you should treat everything you read with some caution and ask if it resonates with you.

With that said, let's take a look at some warning signs that you might be getting bad advice.

Inexperienced source

You need to understand writing on a deep level if you're going to act as an authority on it. Someone who has just started writing can share their experience, but they shouldn't position themselves as an expert by any means.

Also, writing takes years to learn. Literally years. Casually writing for two years or so is not going to teach you everything you need to know so that you can share that with others.

I would also say that while you do not need formal training to be a writer, you should have some formal training to teach writing or give advice. As I'll discuss more later on, being able to do something well is very different than being able to explain how to do it.

If someone doesn't provide their credentials and their suggestions seem a little off, then they may not have the experience necessary to help you. I've shared my own credentials in several other posts so I won't belabor them, but I have written over two million words of creative writing, hold a BA and an MA, and have 15+ years of practice. I also tutored writing students for about five years.

Unengaging writing

This is pretty self-explanatory. If the advice-giver's writing is boring, or uninteresting, or hard to follow, they probably need to spend more time developing their own craft before they try to teach anyone else.

I include poor formatting in this as well. If someone is doing wacky things with their formatting that make it hard to read their guide, like using extra teeny tiny small font or enormous fonts, they are doing this more to show off how smart they are than helping you.

The "extra small super cute fonts" thing is also kind of ableist because low vision people are going to have to rachet their magnification up to 10000 to see anything. This suggests that the writer is not thinking about their audience.

Universalizing everything

The problem with advice about such a diverse craft is that it is almost impossible to target every potential need. Similarly, every advice-giver is coming from their own perspective and may not be able to see beyond their own experiences, biases, and so on.

If someone says "all good writers do this" or "always avoid this," they are likely not going to help you much.

With any advice, you should take what resonates and leave the rest. Sometimes, what resonates is uncomfortable, but you know deep down in your heart that it's true. That's common, especially if you have some bad habits holding you back but you're unwilling to fix them.

I try to always include a caveat that I am only coming from my own perspective and what I say may not apply to you. If someone writes an advice guide and tries to say that their way is the only good way to do something, or that anyone who doesn't follow their advice is a "bad writer," then they aren't thinking beyond their own nose.

Excessive prescriptivism

There are very few real rules in writing. In fact, I have distilled them down to only two that apply to everyone.

Writing needs to communicate something to someone.

Writing needs to be written so that others can easily understand (and enjoy) that message.

These two adages cover damn near everything about the craft, including the importance of grammar, spelling, syntax, and so on. For creative writing, they also consider the importance of coherent plots, understandable characters, good dialogue, avoiding infodumping, and so on.

Going further, these two rules explain that your writing should have themes and symbols meant to provide a deeper meaning without throwing it right in the reader's face, because readers don't like being lectured.

Note that these rules do not tell you how to create your characters, or how to format your writing, or anything like that. Because those things are all very context-specific, and what I suggest may not alway apply.

It's why older writers grit their teeth at younger writers bashing them over the head with "show don't tell" because there is nuance here. And you get to that nuance by writing a lot. Which is why beginner writers haven't found that nuance yet. And which is why beginner writers should not be giving advice.

Fails to explain the reasoning

Doing something and teaching something, as I said above, are very different things. Someone can be an amazing writer, but when they try to explain themselves, they fall flat. Similarly, you can be an avid reader but an atrocious beta reader because you have no idea how to identify problems and suggest solutions.

Having spent years learning craft and helping others improve, I can identify why something works or doesn't, and I can explain this in a way that makes sense. For example, my spicy mundanity post doesn't just say "mechanical descriptions are boring."

The post explains why those descriptions are unengaging, then shows examples of how to fix it, and then explains why those passages are better.

Similarly, my post on how not to write a character doesn't just say "avoid this." It explains why certain tropes are annoying and gives advice on how to fix those things.

I often link my advice back to key concepts, including cognitive load and audience, in order to demonstrate that at its heart, writing is deceptively simple: it's about communicating something to someone in an entertaining way. But there are millions of ways to do this successfully, and everyone needs to find their own path to success.

If someone just says "do this" without explaining why this is a better option, they're not telling you anything. They are just giving their opinion about what makes good writing without helping you improve.

Discouraging or elitist

Anyone who makes you feel like shit and like you can't possibly ever be a good writer ... is an asshole. Anyone who berates you for mistakes you make while learning is trying to gatekeep one of the world's oldest art forms - storytelling - for no reason other than to feel better about themselves.

You do not need an English degree or Creative Writing degree or any degree to be a good writer. You don't need formal training; (good) free advice you find on the internet, when applied systematically, can do wonders for you.

All you really need to be a good writer is time, practice, and patience. Just like anyone can pick up an instrument and become proficient if they do it over and over again, so can anyone become a great writer if they persevere.

Many people unfortunately fall into this trap of thinking that writers are some special breed of human who were innately gifted by the gods themselves. Sure, you can have an inclination toward writing, just like you can have an inclination toward anything else. But you can also brute force that talent through hard work.

Writers are not like athletes, where genetics and physical fitness and early life development all play a role in whether you can get to the Olympics. Some people just suck at sports and it's unlikely they will ever improve. I am one of those people. Rest assured I understand.

Thankfully, though, writing is much more forgiving and welcoming than that. (Though not all writers are very forgiving and welcoming.)

It may take you longer than someone "naturally gifted," and you may struggle more, but anyone can become a good writer with practice.

Those who tell you otherwise, or who tear down your work and mock you, or who insist that you need XYZ degree or skill or experience or whatever, are wrong.

Please don't listen to them. Please don't let them ruin your joy.

If you'd like to read more of my work, consider buying my book!

9 Years Yearning is a gay coming-of-age romance set in a fantasy world. It follows Uileac Korviridi, a young soldier training at the War Academy. His primary motivations are honoring the memory of his late parents, protecting his little sister Cerie, and becoming a top-notch soldier.

However, there's a problem: Orrinir Relickim, a rough and tough fellow pupil who just can't seem to leave Uileac alone.

The book features poetry, descriptions of a beautiful country inspired by Mongolia, and a whole lot of tsundere vibes.

You can also check it out on Goodreads for a list of expanded distribution.

Be sure to preorder Pride Before a Fall, arriving January 1, 2025!

If you do purchase my book, don't forget to leave a review!

Reviews are vital for visibility on Amazon and help to support indie authors like me. Whenever you love a book, be sure to let the author know! It's much appreciated.

I've also created a masterlist of writing resources that you can peruse at your leisure, all for free.

Enjoy!

[super-hero-confessions]

Y'know? After looking around and seeing all the insane white privilege shit people who "hate" Garth Ennis comics say about him or his comics and how attacked they feel when anyone tries to explain what satire is?

"A-Train is less redeemable than Homelander" "Hughie's mom is irredeemable but Homelander is redeemable" my fucking ass.

I can in 100% confidence say that they don't understand satire or storytelling in general and have no sense of basic reading or media comprehension. Without a doubt.

Most of them are just racist misogynistic ableist assholes who hide behind minorities and refuse to confront their internal bigotry. So they blame everyone else for it.

Ennis is a guy who wrote two whole comics where criticism against British transphobia was a whole ass feature and where boundaries and nuance and grief was such a important theme too. All while deep diving into how fucked up the U.S. military is and how even more fucked up weapons corporations are.

Oh and he also added a couple arcs criticizing homophobia and queerphobia and the people who hate on and make victims of queer people. In the same comics.

But "he" (said from the mouths of blatantly homophobic people that are constantly fetishizing and heteronormalizing gay people) is the one who's homophobic?

Interesting theory.

Exactly as convincing as the one claiming "Eric Kripke thinks women on top in a relationship are evil" despite that the literal first sex scene we get in the show (The Boys) has Becca Butcher on top. It's not like Billy's entire dynamic with her was highlighted with his being happily and consensually submissive to her and how perfectly fine and happy they were with this arrangement or how toxic masculinity is part of what was ruining it and hurting her. I'm sure...she was a villain right?? Queen Maeve also got on top and took control so she must have been a villain too!

This level of DUMB and self righteously full of shit and bad faith nonsense and lies makes me want to vomit.

I'm getting so tired of seeing so many stupid and arrogant people that very obviously come from a place of white privilege projecting their own insecurities and internalized prejudice onto artists and writers who are just trying to tell a story full stop. I'm so tired of it.

The Boys (comics and show) makes a lot of really phenomenal points but these dipshits can't actually be bothered to listen to any of them because they're too busy looking for things to be outraged at so they can virtue signal about it and how "superior" they or their ideas or whatever are to the author (who isn't even trying to broadcast what their views are they're trying to tell a story) when in reality they're just showing how fucking ignorant and privileged they are.

"gArTh EnNiS iS a EdGeLoRd"

No y'all are just some snobby and clueless outta touch privileged assholes that want the people around you in neat little bubbles that fit your perfect little world views so you don't have to think about confronting any that might be wrong.

If the existence of someone like "Big Bobbi" would make you uncomfortable because she's not a "uwu perfect little trans goddess girl" that fits the mold of what you think a trans woman should look like (as if all trans women should look act and think exactly alike cause that's not trans misogyny at all)?

The problem is you.

Get off the dead horse you forgot to feed and bury it already.

I'm so fucking tired of "brunch liberals/democrats". We need real fighters and people willing to listen and argue in good faith if we want actual change or progress. We need people willing to grow from being wrong instead of doubling down on it. It must be so nice to only have to focus on first world problems while you get to step on everyone else you pretend to champion for but I'm not that lucky and the same assholes would judge me and others for liking something unconventional that actually does pay attention and gives me a little comfort.

These people need to fuck off and leave us alone and stop using us as humans shields for their bullshit.

[piedoesnotequalpi]

92sies Crutchy, or: I Managed To Write About Newsies For An Actual Grade One Time And I'm Going To Make That Everyone's Problem

@chair-in-a-ditch, @make-friends-with-the-rats, and @echofive7567, ask and ye shall be received...or something. Disclaimer that I have no idea if this is particularly novel analysis; for all I know it's been discussed to death years before I joined the fandom.

So! 92sies Crutchy! You hopefully know him, you hopefully love him.

When I decided to write a paper for my disability studies class about disability representation in Newsies (i.e. about Crutchy/ie), I had to a) find relevant sources (surprisingly challenging) and b) rewatch 92sies and Livesies and take notes on every scene Crutchy/ie appears in as well as transcribe potentially relevant lines. Until that rewatch, I'd always had one question lurking at the back of my mind: why is Crutchy/ie the only newsie who bothers to pronounce Wiesel's name correctly? And through my research + reading an earlier draft of the 92sies screenplay + rewatching the movie with disability representation in mind, I found a potential answer that also explains (some of) what previously felt like inconsistent characterization.

Crutchy has no trouble being rough/rude amongst the other newsies/amongst peers - in Carrying the Banner, he fights with Mush and Blink; he's also one of the people who takes part in making fun of the Delanceys (albeit while surrounded by other newsies who would back him up in a fight and are saying worse things about the Delanceys than he is). Later, in The World Will Know, David argues against beating up scabs and claims they'll get a bad name for it; Crutchy cheerfully responds that their reputation can't get any worse ("Not only is Crutchy very aware of their already-poor reputation here, he's also happy to choose violence if it will further their mission."). Meanwhile (at least before Jack ends up in the Refuge), he is very polite to all the adults he interacts with, more so than the other newsies are: he is the only newsie who pronounces Wiesel's name correctly and says please when asking for his papes (even though he laughs at everyone else calling him Weasel), and he addresses Snyder as "Mr. Warden Snyder, sir." So, why the difference?

In one of the papers* I read as part of my research, there was a discussion of how well-rounded portrayals of disability can (and do) show how disability is not just due to impairments, but also societal factors (too many stairs, flashing lights, ableist attitudes from other people, etc.). Another paper** discussed the history of violence against disabled people (of which there is a lot) as well as how "viewing disabled people as being inherently vulnerable may cause them to be seen as 'weak' or 'helpless.'" Essentially, the way he interacts with adults is a matter of safety. In my paper, I argued that Crutchy's politeness is to keep himself from being a target for violence (which ultimately fails!): if he sparred with Wiesel, he'd draw attention to himself and potentially face consequences; if he openly defied Snyder, he'd be giving Snyder a reason to single him out in a negative way and potentially injure him further. Obviously the other newsies who do these things draw the same attention, but they are all able-bodied, which affords them a level of privilege/safety that Crutchie doesn't have (see above point about violence against disabled people being very common). This fear is verbalized somewhat in Livesies when Crutchie references the potential of being locked up in the Refuge, and obviously there he's only explicitly talking about his mobility or lack thereof, but I think there's a larger implication there of just not wanting to draw attention (and that being rude/sassy with adults while being disabled is especially dangerous, given that Livesies!Crutchie also pronounces Wiesel's name correctly).

(But Isabel, you ask, what about the sauerkraut incident? I'm getting to that.)

Going back to the quote about vulnerability, I think that ties into why Crutchy doesn't want Jack, or anyone, to carry him out of the Refuge - being carried would mean publicly acknowledging that he's a) not immune to needing help and b) vulnerable to being injured. Crutchy is for the most part treated as a peer amongst the newsies (and is asked by Jack to carry out multiple important roles in the strike, like starting a strike fund and carrying the news to other neighborhoods), and he probably does not want to lose that status.

Once Crutchy knows he's unlikely to get out of the Refuge anytime soon (and that his strategy of caution around authority figures did not keep him out of the Refuge (arguably, he was not being cautious when he was ripping up all those papers during the strike action, but see the above point about attacking when surrounded by people who will back him up)), only then does he try deliberately rebelling without the other newsies behind him: he steals a potato off Snyder's plate and spits in his sauerkraut. This still isn't open rebellion, though; this most likely happened out of Snyder's view. It is only once he is a) surrounded by other newsies, b) free of the Refuge/Snyder, and c) in a situation where the police are very clearly on his side that he is openly rude to an adult (the Delanceys don't count since they are close in age to the newsies): he tells Snyder to make friends with the rats, and gleefully slams the door of the police wagon behind him.

TL;DR: Crutchy/ie is a bastard (affectionate), but there's an added layer of calculation with respect to his personal safety that the other newsies don't necessarily have to make.

Anyway, those are my semi-organized, probably unoriginal thoughts on the matter. Enjoy, I guess.

--

*Holcomb, J., & Latham-Mintus, K. (2022). Disney and disability: Media representations of disability in Disney and Pixar animated films. Disability Studies Quarterly, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v42i1.7054

**Ralph, S., Capewell, C., & Bonnett, E. (2016). Disability hate crime: Persecuted for difference. British Journal of Special Education, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12139

[sunderwight]

because sometimes it's fun to explore a character's worst nightmare (probably) actually coming true:

fic where Jiang Cheng is a bastard

like, literally

so Yu Ziyuan marries Jiang Fengmian thanks to a political arrangement by their parents, and even though she has a huge crush on him she gets the strong impression that he doesn't like her, and she decides it must be because he's hung up on Cangse Sanren (and also because of her massive insecurities about not being a nice or "desirable" wife) but for this AU it's actually Wei Changze he's hung up on (because he's gay)

so from JFM's perspective his marriage to any woman is purely a matter of appeasing his family and producing heirs anyway, and though he liked and respected Cangse he's heartbroken that Wei Changze actually loves her and chose to be with her for-reals, rather than staying in Lotus Pier and having a secret love affair with JFM behind closed doors. in some universe JFM might have confided something of this to his prospective bride, in the interest of at least having a harmonious alliance if not an actual romance of any kind, but Yu ZIyuan isn't exactly the type to inspire confidence about these things. and to be fair, if JFM told her he was gay, she wouldn't react well

anyway, end result is that he doesn't explain or clarify anything, of course. JFM and YZY consummate their marriage and JFM sort of perfunctorily goes about his duties until it's confirmed that Yanli is on the way, and then he stops. mission accomplished, heir in situ, no more reason to force himself into hetero sex with the socially noxious woman his parents picked out! great work everybody hit the showers etc etc

Yu Ziyuan is, understandably, not thrilled about his conduct here so it doesn't do much for her growing unhappiness with her life and marriage. also she hates being the lady of a household, she just wants to fight shit and go on nighthunts, and she's not allowed to do that while pregnant so boy is she having a time of it (and so is everyone else because she is nothing if not willing to make her problems into everyone's problems). but at least she's got JFM's heir in her, right? at least that's something she can hold over that Cangse Sanren!

well of course Jiang Yanli is born and she's a girl, which is not ideal for sexist cultivation society, and she's also sickly, which is not ideal for ableist cultivation society either

so obviously, they have to try again

except that JFM was enjoying not having to perform those "marital duties" anymore and is reluctant to go back to them. which does excellent things for YZY's temperament too, so she yells and accuses him of cheating and not wanting her and makes a whole big public production of it, which of course feeds rumors that JFM really doesn't like her and also weakens her own position further because sexism and also YZY is not a likable person anyway. she's not popular in the household or sect. people still call her "Madam Yu" to her face, like you're not really "Madam Jiang" here, and there are whispers that it's her fault that Yanli came out sickly (baseless and cruel) and that she can't produce another child and that JFM's going to put her aside (somewhat more plausible)

JFM won't though, because he'd probably just have to marry another woman from Meishan Yu to fix the political fallout, which would be a lot of fuss to just break even. plus he does know that he is part of the problem here, and YZY has given him a child, so he's not actually all that bothered. he has cousins, he can adopt a more suitable heir if he needs to, or Yanli can marry a stronger cultivator into the family instead of marrying out (which breaks up that stupid betrothal with the Jin that he's not especially thrilled about)

but YZY is getting desperate here, so she convinces JFM to take to her bed at least one more time

it doesn't get her pregnant again though

so plan B, YZY finds one of JFM's more envious cousins and fucks him until it does take

this is equal parts actual pragmatism to get an heir, and Yu Ziyuan throwing oil onto the fire that is her marriage. part of her actually wants JFM to call her out or at least seem suspicious, because that would mean he actually gives a single fuck about what she does or who she does it with, even though having the whole thing come to light would pretty much ruin her. she has set herself up on a chair with a rope around her neck and a stool under her feet, waiting to see if Jiang Fengmian will either take her into his arms or kick the stool out from under her

but of course, he does neither

is he suspicious? yes. the dates don't align and some well-meaning servants have mentioned a few things to him. but he was already considering adopting one of his cousins to be his heir anyway, and this actually solves quite a few problems for him. if YZY wants to carry on with a lover who has Jiang blood, it's a win-win. she can give him plenty of heirs now, his own position will stabilize thanks to an abundance of them, and he doesn't have to fuck her!

of course it doesn't work out like that

his cousin is already suffering a crisis of conscience and backs off, and YZY doesn't take up with him again and wouldn't anyway (because it didn't work for accomplishing any of her secondary goals), and then she has Jiang Cheng and Jiang Fengmian just sort of benignly thanks her for the healthy "son" and makes nothing further of the matter. the Jiang sect tutors can handle the kid's upbringing, JFM doesn't feel especially paternal towards him but the kid's not going to want for anything either (materially, anyway) and this frees JFM and YZY both to go back to doing whatever (and whoever) they want in their free time

except

Yu Ziyuan is left in a state of perpetual frustration and anxiety about this, forever waiting for the other shoe to drop, and so she keeps trying to force it to drop. especially after Wei Wuxian turns up. she projects her own affair onto the poor kid, accusing JFM of liking him more than he likes Jiang Cheng (which in this AU is actually true, Jiang Fengmian has a lot of feelings about Wei Changze's son that he doesn't have about The Official Jiang Sect Heir who isn't even his real son), demanding to know if JFM has even heard the rumors (does he know what people whisper? about him? about Jiang Cheng? does he know?) like Yu Ziyuan is really not built for this political intrigue, shrewd strategic live-with-the-lies type stuff

for his own part, Jiang Fengmian is increasingly annoyed and put off by all of this. assuming the genre conventional standards are in play here, if he accused YZY of cuckolding him then he'd be within his rights to have her and Jiang Cheng executed. he wouldn't actually go that far of course, not only because he's been complicit in the whole thing but also because he's not that ruthless, but it's still on the table. and yet here is Yu Ziyuan, basically trying to... what? provoke him into divorcing her?

oh. well. maybe that is what she wants? what she's been trying to get with all of this? she wants him to disown Jiang Cheng and send her home in disgrace so that she can stop being his wife?

that actually would make more sense than what's really going on, in fact

but Jiang Fengmian still needs an heir and this kind of move would leave Jiang Cheng in limbo, and throw Yanli's parentage into question as well, plus it would make him the butt of a lot of jokes. so he just lets Yu Ziyuan basically move into a separate house and avoids her as much as possible, lets her do what she likes and waits for this to blow over

(it doesn't blow over)

then another problem becomes apparent. which is that Jiang Cheng is a concerning heir for the Jiang sect

the kid, understandably, takes after his mother. since she's the parent who actually spends time with him. but unfortunately a lot of that time is spent projecting all of her problems onto him. he's got a temper, he's wildly insecure, and surprisingly conservative and risk-averse. at administration and organization he's not that bad, he can at least do math, but his diplomacy skills leave a lot to be desired and do nothing to soften the blow of his mother's bad reputation. it's obvious that he desperately wants JFM's approval but JFM can't muster up much sentiment except vague disappointment for him. even as a cultivator he's just kind of average

the one benefit of marrying a powerful female cultivator with a strong will was supposed to be that she'd give him strong and talented heirs. but now he's got one daughter who can't cultivate and an adopted son who has inherited every single one of his mother's detrimental personality traits, who is actively the opposite of everything the sect is supposed to stand for, and now Jiang Fengmian is objectively worried that this kid will actually ruin his sect in the long run if/when he becomes sect leader. or at least that he won't be able to rally enough support from the internal factions to even peacefully claim the leadership role

maybe it'd be different if Jiang Cheng actually was his son, but since he's not, JFM can't help but think about the many other candidates in his family who would make more suitable heirs

and the main reason he doesn't take action, over time, is because it would still be bad for his own reputation to reveal the whole torrid controversy. at least with the way things are, nobody really wonders why his marriage with YZY isn't working out, and it's not JFM who takes the brunt of the criticism

but as time passes and Jiang Cheng gets older and YZY's miserable lashing out continues unabated, he finds himself thinking that he'd rather weather the storm of speculation about his prowess or orientation than continue to deal with this

finally, shit reaches a breaking point. something goes awry, another straw is piled onto the camel's back, and then there is a fight and finally Jiang Fengmian decides he's done living like this

so ten years later than anyone ever expected, he finally just kicks out the stool

Jiang Cheng isn't his son. congratulations, Yu Ziyuan, your wish (as JFM perceives it) is being granted. you get a divorce. you're free. go home to Meishan and live out the rest of your life however you please, and take the boy with you

of course this doesn't go over peacefully. YZY tells anyone who listens that JFM is impotent, JFM just kind of shrugs, Meishan Yu is stuck between being offended and being apologetic, but JC fails all the paternity tests so they're kind of forced to settle on the latter, which they also take out on Yu Ziyuan, but that's just the fallout among the adults

Jiang Cheng's entire world is uprooted. overnight he goes from being a sect heir to being a disgraced fatherless outcast. every fear or insecurity he ever had about his place in the world is abruptly validated

Jiang Yanli and Wei Wuxian are also upset, like up until now they have both strongly invested themselves in looking after Jiang Cheng, of supporting him as future sect leader and brother, and now that's all just... gone? and so is Jiang Cheng?

and it's extra difficult because Lotus Pier is more peaceful without Madam Yu storming in to pitch a fit once a month. but also the status quo has been totally changed around, Jiang Cheng is gone, and there are a lot of rumors and whispers and even speculation about Yanli's parentage too. the fact that some days it seems like life has improved just colors it all in this deep layer of guilt, because it's like someone wished to get rid of Yu Ziyuan and accidentally took Jiang Cheng out in the same blast. talking about it is taboo, too, so there are not a lot of chances to even sort out all the emotions involved. at one point Wei Wuxian tries to borrow a boat and go to Meishan, full of half-baked plots to somehow fix things, but he just gets caught and sent back

anyway, flash forward several years

the Lan lecture series begins

the Jiang send Yanli and Wei Wuxian to go mingle with the other young heirs and learn from Lan Qiren

and Meishan Yu sends... Jiang Yu Cheng

[sophieinwonderland]

"Changing a term isn't that hard"

Problem 1 - A divided community

Any attempt at making a new term would be met with resistance. Not from everyone, but by most. It's likely that those who use other terms would move away from the tulpa community. So instead of actually getting tulpamancers to change their term, you would be just be making a new community outside of it.

But maybe you can manage to stick around in tulpa spaces, get other people to as well, and somehow slowly change the language from the inside. But what is that language?

Problem 2 - Finding a word for everyone

Thoughtform is a bad term because its connotations are too spiritual. There is also an active spiritual thoughtform community out there right now that this will be stepping on the toes of, smashing together two largely disconnected communities.

Many feel parogenic is too broad. And willogenic presents the practice as just "willing" a headmate into existence. Both also would result in the tulpa community losing its identity, becoming yet another xeno-origin and being assimilated completely into the endogenic community.

Senpia is just never going to happen.

None of the alternatives are going to be universally-agreed upon. And having the community divided amongst multiple terms exacerbates the first problem.

Problem 3 - Domain shifts

Anti-tulpas like pointing to the shift from "natural multiplicity" to "endogenic" as an example of how you can change terms. For those that are unaware, "natural multiples" were basically the precursors for endogenic systems. Many argued that the term was ableist because it suggested systems formed from trauma were "unnatural." Which is a silly and bad faith way of framing it, since the opposite of nature is usually environmental in this context, as in the nature vs nurture debate.

But regardless, the websites that existed at the time didn't include the terms in their domain names. They could change their terms without ever worrying about this. Furthermore... most of these communities were already dying as the plural community migrated to Tumblr. The whole internet landscape was morphing in the early 2010s.

Problem 3.1 - r/tulpas

On Reddit, changing a subreddit name is literally impossible. The only possible way to accomplish this would be to have the mods delete r/tulpas and create a completely new subreddit. At which point, a huge number of subscribers are instantly lost.

As is a ton of history on the subreddit, and even some guides that never got posted anywhere else.

Problem 3.2 - Tulpa.info

While it may technically possible to change the domain, that instantly breaks every link to every single tulpamancy guide on the website in an instant.

The whole thing becomes a huge mess. Perhaps they could setup redirects, but that would require paying for the old domain as well as the new one, driving up server costs.

Problem 4 - Visibility

Any new community terms will lose the visibility of identifying as tulpas. For people who are experiencing sentient imaginary friends and looking for a community, this transitionary period will make it way more difficult to find a community to support their needs.

It also makes it more difficult for the tulpamancy community to expand and bring in new members.

Problem 5 - Academic Research

Tulpamancy is currently the primary form of endogenic plurality being researched, including an fMRI study. All other research into endogenic plurality has mostly been surveys. Finding people to take part in FMRI studies is difficult. Not everyone has a lifestyle where they can just fly off to California for a brain scan.

If research continues, there are multiple ways this could hamper it going forward.

Mixing with the thoughtform community could mean a larger spiritual influence in the community, reinforcing the idea that endogenic plurality is only valid if it's spiritual. There are plenty of studies into spiritual possession happening, and it's imperative that we match that with research into plurals with psychological origins.

Losing our identity by assimilating into the larger endogenic community through -genic labels like parogenic and willogenic will end research into tulpamancy as a phenomenon of its own.

And dividing the community means fewer people are going to be found who can take part in these studies.

A term isn't just a term

It's our identity. It's our community. It's our connection to each other. It's our websites and the resources they host. It's our ability to be seen. It's our connection to the academic research into our community and ongoing advancement in the field.

There is no genuine "pro-tulpa, anti-tulpa terminology" side. Changing the terminology as a whole would divide and devastate the tulpamancy community.

If you're fighting against tulpa terminology, you're fighting against the tulpamancy community.

[tyrannuspitch]

okay. mycroft thoughts.

(disclaimer: i'm only drawing from the first six episodes here.)

the most interesting thing about mycroft to me is how he makes sherlock more interesting through contrast and context. sherlock could easily have been him, but he really, really isn't, and you might not realise how strong and deliberate the relevant traits are until you see him next to mycroft.

i think sherlock and mycroft start off with the same basic problem: they are not like other people, and they can't connect to others in the ways they're expected to.

half of how they deal with this is the same: they tell themselves that their low empathy is objectively superior and correct, that everyone else is an idiot, and that they should be repressing all their emotions and dealing with everything in purely "rational" ways. i don't think mycroft imposes this on sherlock - i think this is a defensive reaction to external pressures, and they each would have ended up here regardless - but they definitely encourage it in each other, competing and criticising and snapping at any exposed vulnerabilities they can find.

but in the other half, they choose opposite paths: mycroft applies his intelligence to working out how to blend in and make society work for him, while sherlock rejects the idea that he should have to change himself at all, and thus rejects belonging in society at all.

mycroft's attitude is one of self-satisfied superiority. he's willing to play neurotypical social games because he's confident he can win them. he thinks his intelligence makes him superior in every way, and can fully compensate for any disadvantage he might have started with. but sherlock, while also defensively superior, is angry. why should he change himself to seem like everyone else, the same people who hate him, the very people mycroft agrees are beneath them? he often acts hostile and even less conventional than his baseline in deliberate defiance of expectations.

but also, beneath that... i think sherlock has correctly identified something vital: mycroft can blend in well enough to be accepted, but not to be liked. not to truly belong. by choosing both restrictive convention and emotional repression, mycroft makes himself even more isolated than sherlock. (think of how often we see him in huge empty rooms!) why would sherlock compromise his sense of self and dignity if he isn't even going to get to belong in exchange?

mycroft has invested a huge amount in convention and is at very least a small-c conservative, and as such i think he genuinely thinks it's "right", somehow, to be conventional. that people have a real obligation to at least appear "normal", and sherlock is being childish and unreasonable by defying it.

he's assimilated so well that he's come to represent convention itself to sherlock, even though he's the only person in sherlock's life who's Different in the same way sherlock is. which is ironic, but also, i think, makes it worse. because mycroft, the one person who should understand sherlock's feelings about not belonging, is still completely unwilling to make concessions for his differences. "if i can act normal, why can't you? how hard can it be?"

and the thing is, i do believe mycroft's behaviour comes from genuine concern. he's just unwilling to express it in any way that doesn't feel like a power play. and on top of that, he doesn't really understand why sherlock is unhappy, or how he makes it worse. he thinks sherlock being stubbornly sherlock is the entirety of the problem. he can't see that sherlock is acting in response to genuine injustices in an ableist society.

this dynamic has definitely been influenced (for the worse) by sherlock's history of addiction. it's the classic conundrum where an addict uses substances as an escape, and the world around them gets more and more prison-like in response... whether they involve literal substances or not, sherlock's coping mechanisms are dangerous and often illegal, and so of course mycroft worries for his physical safety. but the more meddling and judgement sherlock comes up against, the harder he'll insist on his chosen lifestyle.

but they do, of course, retain some common ground. embracing low empathy is the one way in which mycroft is willing to be unconventional - probably because he can justify it as "rational" and "useful". i think both mycroft and sherlock are ultimately looking for a "higher purpose" to justify their neurodivergence to themselves. but the purposes they land on are very different, because they're such different people in every other way. mycroft is entirely serving The Establishment, while sherlock, as a private detective who works with the police, isn't exactly against it, but is certainly very much outside it and frequently comes into friction with it.

[anyroads]

Really wanted to reblog a post about about the trans sports ban in the US and info to call senators, but since the OP is one of those users who blocks everyone who so much as breathes wrong near them, I can't. So I think I've hit my limit with the culture around blocking on tumblr.

I've been annoyed with the whole "you don't need a reason to block someone just do it" attitude on tumblr for a long time but I've seen other posts talking about it get dogpiled on and I have enough chronic illness and problems in my life as it is without adding to it. But man, this situation now? It's just stupid. It's self-defeating for all of us on here.

What I've wanted to write a post about is how on a site with such a large population of neurodiverse people it's ableist and just mean to indiscriminately block people. I'm not talking about blocking people who are actively mean or harassing other users, btw. I'm talking about users who just say, "eh I don't like this person's vibe" or who assume bad faith without cause and hit block instead of just moving on or asking for clarification. The OP of the post on the trans ban that I wanted to reblog blocked me because a few years ago they posted misinformation about something minor and I offered a correction as someone with experience in that field. Instead of considering what I offered or why, they blocked me - a friend later sent me a screenshot of OP saying in the notes that they blocked me because they thought I just wanted to show off (and look, I could go into why that's not true, but it doesn't matter - we had subjective experiences of an interaction that was, ultimately, innocuous, and could easily have been resolved).

This kind of "lalala I can't hear you, gonna block you" attitude is not only hurtful to others, but is ableist on a website where so many people have NDs that make communication challenging or difficult for them. It reinforces the experiences ND people have in aggressively neurotypical spaces where they aren't given the benefit of the doubt and constantly feel misunderstood and dismissed - people for whom part of tumblr's appeal is its openness to neurodiversity, who then experience the same kind of dismissal and rejection every time someone blocks them for not being able to express themselves in exactly the right way another user wants them to.

Blocking doesn't keep them off your feed, btw - as long as someone else reblogs their content you can still see it. They just can't comment on or reblog your posts or message you. Which is useful when someone is abusive, but pointless when someone just disagreed with you innocuously and you didn't like how it made you feel. That person doesn't even get a chance to clarify their meaning - they can see your content but they're shut out from your conversation. People on this site do this to autistic people daily, and then reblog posts about autism awareness. As an example of this kind of pointless behavior: I said nothing offensive or hurtful to the OP of the post I couldn't reblog today when they blocked me, they just didn't like what I said, assumed bad faith where there was none, and instead of taking a few seconds to check if their assumption was justified, blocked me like they've done with tons of others, as their reputation attests. And while I can't say it felt nice, I also haven't cared - until now, because I don't just want to reblog their post about this trans ban, I feel it's important and urgent to do so because it was a good post, and I know that because they're a popular user who blocks others with such ease and frequency, there are probably hundreds of tumblrs out there who also can't share it. And that actually hurts all of us.

This thing today actually brought up a much more important point: if you keep blocking people just because you can, then you significantly decrease the number of people who can share your content. And that matters, especially right now when that content is important information combating fascism and important to boost. We talk about the problem of too many factions on the left, and this is an example of it: tumblr users limiting the scope of their reach when trying to resist fascism because of how little they're willing to sit with the discomfort of having to try to figure out how to understand someone else, even someone whose perspective mostly aligns with theirs. Assuming bad faith and yelling at each other helps no one except fascists, because division is their best weapon and their base is cohesive. Blocking people on tumblr for not saying exactly what you want to hear just limits who can support you on posts that matter.

It's wrong that I can't reblog this post full of useful, important information about a trans ban that's going to be voted on in Congress in the U.S., just because several years ago the OP couldn't manage their emotional response to a helpful addition on their post. It's wrong that we keep telling people to just block indiscriminately and move on, and that if anyone challenges this idea they get dogpiled on. Yes, block fascists. Yes, block people who are actively hateful and harmful. But that's it. Every time a new flood of refugees from another platform comes here, we pass around posts about how the core of this site is reblogging and adding to each other's content - the idea of blocking indiscriminately goes direcetly against that. We can't keep limiting ourselves like this.

So I guess go search for posts on US Congress SB9 because apparently I can't help you until someone else who hasn't blocked me for a pointless reason posts as comprehensive a post that I can reblog.

[cowboycannibalism]

i watched When Evil Lurks (2023) yesterday and I have thoughts! also this is literally just my letterboxd review copy and pasted with a bit more detail lol

spoilers!! ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️

first of all, I am not the biggest possession horror fan. It's not my thing. But wow I was actually so into this movie I completely forgot about it being a possession movie! It was sort of a mix between zombie/disease and possession which was interesting. The very first Rotten we see is hard to look at, not normally a sight you think of when someone is possessed. Usually these movies tend to be more bone-cracking, spine breaking, unnatural bending and scary voices. Seeing the "demon"/evil manifest physically with bodily fluids and boils and rotting flesh made my stomach turn a bit which was awesome!

Secondly, I admit I'm very partial to sibling dynamics in movies, I love my siblings and I would die for them. The only people I would want to be in this apocalyptic-end-of-days situation with would be my siblings and my mom. I think the film did a great job bringing to life that tie between family, that you would do anything to protect them even if it means leaving your entire life behind including people who may be close but not willing to believe you (the ex wife and new husband). Also I couldn't help but compare them a bit to mario and luigi in my head but I blame that on me watching the Mario movie right before this 😅.

Jaime (Jimi) and Pedro are fun contrasting personalities in the scenario they get put into. Their priorities are different and even the belief they have is split, while pedro is more sure about the Rotten, Jaime is so doubtful he can't even admit if what they saw was real and that leads to problems with everyone else believing them. He's seen as the "good" brother so of course if he's saying he isn't sure of what they see, then all the other characters would believe him over Pedro, the "bad" brother with a troubled past. One of the things I loved about it was that Jaime never waivers in his faith in Pedro, he may not be sure of the Rotten/evil but he always trusts fully in his brother.

Pedro does get on my nerves with some of his choices but cmon would it be a horror movie if you weren't mad at some character for making stupid decisions? The desperation that seeps from the actor (Ezequiel Rodriguez) is so palpable that it brings out sympathy for him, he may be dumb but he's trying his best okay?

The whole story with the autistic son was a little weird and I know everyone's reviews of this say it's ableist but I saw it in a different light. The Cleaner says the demon can't figure out the minds of autistic people, get stuck in their bodies and that helps them from fully becoming possessed. To Me it feels like the opposite of what movies would usually do in where the son would be autistic BECAUSE of the demon, whereas in this movie he is "normal" when the demon takes over. It isn't a cure, it isn't saying autistic people have evil in them that needs to be fixed, but that is something that people have said for a long time and tbh its probably still a thing idiots believe in. it's interesting to see that his autism actually kept him safe for as long as it did.

Let's talk about the kills! When the wife of the landowner whacks into him with the axe, I was caught so off guard, same with the dog attack on the little girl. oh god, the throwing up of the hair and necklace by the son got to me, I probably shouldn't have been eating while watching this. This may sound weird but I LOVED the scene of the mom eating her son's brains as she's walking alongside the car Jimi is in.

The movie was so bleak and nihilistic that I felt the need to repent so this doesn't happen in real life. I wish it could have expanded a bit more on the universe, some of the characters and the disease/possession but for pacing reasons I think they did a solid job of dropping enough hints to fill in information. I love foreign horror movies and Argentina you are on my watchlist now, i enjoyed this and I think its definitely worth a watch!

Be warned there are animal and child deaths in this movie so know your triggers. It has English subtitles that aren't 100% accurate so it can get a little confusing sometimes, just pay close attention and if you want more insight the reddit threads on this movie are so great.