#at this point i fear it’s only reactionary

[justisco]

[magnusthepuppet]

if you engage in infighting, you are useless as a leftist.

if you tell people to k*ll themselves, you are useless as a leftist.

if you do not believe in somebody’s ability to change, you are useless as a leftist.

if you do not practice nuanced thinking, you are useless as a leftist.

if you are unable to have compassion for your fellow human, you are useless as a leftist.

[txttletale]

sorry this ask isnt about flags :( i saw your post about the word "trafficking" and i just wanted to ask for more clarity? is your point that we shouldnt refer to situations where someone is forced or coerced into sex work as "trafficking" (and should just consider it sex work but under duress) OR that "human trafficking" and "sex trafficking" (or other terms i may not be familiar with) should be talked about with more specificity rather than just talking about "trafficking", in which the crime is "moving people", OR that the concept of "trafficking" in its entirety is derived from the idea that people in certain places is wrong? im asking in good faith because i was under the impression that specifically when addressing sex work its important to make a distinction between people who are sex workers and people who are being sex trafficked, but admittedly my knowledge could be outdated because its not a field i have much access to.

i hope this is clear!

yeah my post is more or less in opposition to 'trafficking' as a word. obviously it is important to distinguish between people who are being directly forced into sex work and people who aren't -- but to describe the problem as ''sex trafficking'' creates an association between the movement of people and sexual slavery that can only lead to reactionary policy positions. in the vast, vast majority cases of what you might unambiguously call ''sex trafficking'', the women and girls being ''trafficked'' wanted to move to the country they're smuggled into, usually (but not always) with the promise of a job. then their passports are stolen and they are told they owe the people who brought them into the country ridiculous amounts of money. unable to go to the police due to fear of being deported, they have no choice but to work for free or for vastly subminimum wages as sex workers in an unsafe and coerved capacity. (nb: this exact thing also happens with agricultural and domestic workers).

obviously this is horrifying, but what's really important to note is that the victims wanted to enter the country and that it is often 'anti-trafficking' border-tightening restrictions that make it more difficult for them to do anything about their situation by making their presence in the country more precarious. describing this as ''trafficking'' makes it seem like the illegal immigration is more or just as troubling as the sexual (or nonsexual) slavery and effective imprisonment, when this is just obviously a reactionary position to take.

[disruptivevoib]

Long Ramble about CCCC and my overall feelings on what the album means and such

Something I find important about CCCC is like.

The fact that all three of them are, in some way, trying.

Heart is emotion, he is prone to himself and being reactionary, in the moment. Prone to the past of learned behavior and trauma. Reactive and rapidly changing. He isn't going to make pure sense because he isn't based in logic or in societal ideals or views. He is an instinctual response to the environment and circumstances. His manipulation is not intentional. He has very little control of himself in the end. Its why Mind talks about claiming to relish entropy yet clearly needing help. But, Heart in earnest wants them to be okay and safe. He believes that Mind's control will drain the life from them. It will make things monotonous and the same. Too much order.

Mind in turn, believes Heart is manipulative with intention. He wants to control Soul or wants to just drag them all down with him into this depressive state. Mind is logic, he is the reasoning out of your emotional instinct. Your inner critique, and when unchecked, that inner critique goes from a guiding hand for your emotion to one that debates and bullies it. Invalidating its responses. Ultimately, though. Mind just believes he is helping. He is doing what must be done and telling the "hard truths" to Heart. And that Heart is being the petty child. Which- I mean. Sort of sure. But Mind is definitely fucking petty and childish. He's stubborn! Prideful! So ofc he is. Admitting you're wrong? No.. why would he EVER do that.. nuh uh.

Which is what makes Light so crucial. Mind asking Heart for help- but also. There is Soul.

Who while ambiguous in purpose, is mostly that background voice. Your inner narration. If Mind is Logic and Reason then Heart is Emotion and Instinct,, Soul is all that lives between it. And he is constantly silenced or spoken over or around. He does not get a word in edgewise until TSE. He may show up in the background occasionally but as much as Heart and Mind claim to want to keep him alive and help him, they also fail to actually acknowledge what he says.

Which is that they both are right and wrong. That this fighting is doing directly what they both feared it would. Soul is desperate by the end. He is angry and resentful because.. well. Self hatred due to intense self awareness and reflection is rather ig. Common. Im not a professional here but from personal experience, you get so tired of rehashing the same shit with yourself over and over. It all feels pointless.

The only out, by the end of it all to Soul is that if they cannot be Whole, whats the point? He is desperate. He does not want to die but he feels theres no other solution.

And. About Whole, Soul throughout the album seems to want that. At the beginning, to be Whole or Harmonious is to be mentally healthy, maybe even "normal" by society's standards. To be able to put a mask over your problems and be, again, "normal". It takes the entire album for Soul to realize that this:

1. isnt possible

And

2. There isn't anything evil or wrong with him for that.

Mental health is a struggle. But you are not evil and should not be othered because you struggle. You also do not need to be fixed for being a little different and people's opinion of you is not what matters most so long as you are happy (and not hurting others. Lol).

Thats what Two Wuv is entirely about as a song. Its a "fuck you. Fuck this! I thought I needed to be this! But I DON'T. Stop telling me who I am! How to be! I'm gonna be me!"

His entire arc is parallel to Heart and Mind's and is crucial in the culmination of becoming yourself again and accepting yourself.

But, as mental health will always be, this period of respite and self acceptance is not always forever. And as life continues or as you lapse back into a depressive episode.. you cannot help but forget what it is like when you're not this way- and hell! Vice versa too! Some people have this disconnect between the periods. Where the things from the depressive state seem dramatic or obtuse to you while you are doing better. And from the other end, you just want to be happy again.. but you get so lost in it all you can struggle to feel like you've ever been happy.

The album is about the human experience. It is about self-sabotage, mental illness, self-hatred and reflection and it is, maybe more importantly about self-acceptance and healing. Having a bit of mercy on yourself. Accepting that you are imperfect and that this is okay. And whatever flaws you may have that need to be mended or worked on, can be. And that who you are, for example, if you are queer, is okay. And no one has the right to take that identity from you! That the internalized ideas of how someone should be are not always correct or right. Not for you, at least. Stuff like that.

[medievill]

okay. okay. I think I've finally figured out the worst part of the "Ed's going to be an abuser just like his dad" headcanon some of y'all have.

let's go for a ride.

abuse is cyclical, and not just in a micro sense. it's not just "I love you, you're garbage, I'm sorry, I love you, I'm the only one who loves you because you're garbage, I'm sorry, I love you," etc. I mean macro. I mean generationally.

I mean that parents teach their children how to have relationships. we show our kids how adults interact with each other, how adults interact with kids, how kids should interact with kids. we model this behavior constantly. it's one of the most nerve-wracking things about being a parent, actually: you live in a fish bowl now, and the fish bowl is your home, and your children are constantly observing your behavior and interactions, even when you don't want them to, even when you think they're not.

growing up in a home with an abusive parent doesn't just expose you to the abuse—physical, emotional, psychological, religious, whatever it is—it teaches the child that this is how relationships work. and then this kid goes out into the world, interacting with other humans all willy-nilly, and bringing all the knowledge that their parents armed them with to bear. and when the kid (hopefully) realizes that wait, actually, shouting and throwing things and hitting people isn't good, that's not the way you interact, it is solely up to that kid to fix their shit. if they're lucky, they've got someone in their life to help them with that. but even once you've recognized that there's Bad Stuff happening in your interpersonal relationships, you have to retrain your brain. you have to change your go-to reaction. because you can recarve your neural pathways, but it is fucking hard work.

I didn't grow up with a physically abusive parent; I grew up with an emotionally abusive one. every time my partner does something that annoys me, or we disagree on something, and my reaction is "well, I don't really feel like talking"—if you don't think that I don't half- to full-on panic about wait is this the silent treatment, am I doing what my dad did, you are absolutely incorrect. it is a constant fear, that my reactions are inherently abusive. I am constantly gaslighting myself into believing that everything I do in a relationship is bad, hurtful, abusive. I am constantly having to convince myself that it's okay sometimes not to want to talk, and to sometimes be annoyed, and to sometimes disagree, and that none of this is inherently abusive.

now. Ed fucking Teach. do you not think the guy's spent some time introspecting? examining his inner most self? he's smart, and he's depressed, so, yeah. I bet he has. so do you not think, you absolute monsters, that he isn't doing the same fucking thing? Ed Teach, who convinced himself that defending him and his mom against constant violence (a white man, and as if this was a random choice)—ultimately saving their lives (and no, this is not an exaggeration)—made him an unloveable, unlikeable monster. Ed Teach, who is so desperate for love and friendship that his biggest fantasy is owning an inn, where people stay because they want to.

do you really think that one of the thousand internal battles Ed my beloved is fighting isn't don't be your dad don't be your dad don't be your dad? fighting, fucking tooth and nail, to be different. (same as Stede!) this reactionary headcanon literally misses so much of the point of the whole character; it buys into the British Navy's propaganda about him, and worse. it buys into the narrative that a man of color is inherently violent, inherently incapable of change.

[cock-holliday]

Always gotta laugh a little when people are like “I don’t believe in sympathizing with [conspiracy/oppressor group] but yes, it turns out X thing IS driving people more towards it, so fascinating, anyway I don’t feel bad for those people at all and actually think they should die but wow, this study really does show how fast people are getting radicalized by [propaganda], anyway, they’re so stupid”

There desperately needs to be a shift from the idea that the two ways to respond to conspiracy/right-wing/bigoted takes are 1. “Wow stupid dumb idiots”, and if you don’t do that, then 2. “Poor widdle babies lemme coddle you.”

It’s such a painfully liberal way to respond to things and misses the point of understanding not equaling agreeing. Understanding and sympathizing are tools of deradicalization.

Most anti-vaxxers are not worth arguing with but the theory and conclusions are worth deconstructing, because more reasonable people on the fence are going to get pushed deeper in by “stupid idiot doesn’t know what’s good for you—trust the government.”

Bigoted conservative blue collar guys are not worth arguing with but the theory is worth deconstructing because small towns being abandoned by “progress” are going to be radicalized by “dumb hicks scawed of technology?” coming from city liberals who will never have to work with their hands.

Zionists are not worth arguing with but allowing either narrative of “all antisemitism is made up” or “arguing about antisemitism is irrelevant because this is about Palestinians” allow Zionists to frame themselves as the only response to genuine antisemitism. Not talking about the actual antisemitism Zionists still face allows them to pretend all opposition is antisemitism, and bystanders who “trust Jews to say what’s antisemitism or not” are convinced antizionism is antisemitism.

Male loneliness as a concept isn’t worth discussing when it comes to violently misogynistic men, but it is worth talking about in terms of how patriarchy hurts even the most cishet privileged man AND much more pressingly: how marginalization of men gets ignored because of the radfem belief that maleness cancels out their oppressed identities.

Americans obsessed with conspiracies about human trafficking are often not worth engaging with but the discourse around it IS. Facing the reality of what sexual abuse DOES happen is necessary, reframing how immigration exploitation allows for much more horrific abuse of migrants than even the most sheltered suburbanite can imagine would happen to their blonde children if they were snatched from their manicured lawns is necessary.

Every conspiracy is rooted in truth. Reasonably disgruntled people are the best recruits because “smart” people dismiss their legitimate concerns and say what’s real is fake, so when vile people acknowledge the truth and twist it, you get radicalized nuts out of reasonable people.

It is essential to understand the root of these issues and attack that, not to convince the most extreme of the camp but to convince those on the precipice that an extreme and often bigoted conclusion is unwarranted. People recruited into cults are either abandoned or feel abandoned by their communities, boys on the internet have their actual worries dismissed and become angry and reactionary and entitled in spaces that accept their rational fears and tell them an irrational conclusion is needed. Radfems took their legitimate anger at the system and warped their conclusions in an attempt at regaining control. People are rightfully afraid of the government and don’t know how to identify propaganda so every move must be nefarious. People exploited and experimented on have justifiable reason to reject mandates—these people are still wrong, but about the conclusions, not their feelings. The feelings must be met with acceptance, and the conclusion picked apart.

All these groups feel out of control, not listened to, disempowered, and isolated. Not all will be right. Not all will be worth engaging with. But so many more people will suddenly slip into a radical pipeline because the only people who listen to them are reactionaries. You do not owe everyone your patience or time or explanations or deradicalization—but if you want to pull people away from these dangerous ideologies you have to understand how they were seduced in the first place. You have to grapple with the seed of truth that allows these wrong conclusions to hold up.

And *I* want fewer people to come to the conclusion that the reason they haven’t been duped is because they are just soooo intelligent and morally superior that this kind of indoctrination would never work on you because 90% of you are DNC shills and the exact puppets that help fuel right-wing radicalization.

[exocynraku]

wcrp ocs Deluge is a recluse, living a solitary life. They do not speak, though it seems by choice, as they have been heard making reactionary noises, like yowls. Deluge is careful, nervous, but logical and quick. They are watchful, noticing everything, every tiny little movement. This skill makes them a great hunter, though socially and in battle they are inept. Deluge chooses to avoid cats the majority of times, and will refuse fighting, turning submissive to their attacker. The only time you'll get Deluge to interact with others is if they're getting something in return, such as prey or shelter. Deluge was born to a cat named Furl-- though never gained a name while living with her-- their father unknown, and alongside their brother. Their brother died early, the reason not exactly known, but he was the runt of the litter. After that, Furl took care of Deluge on her own, out in the wild, though eventually decided that it'd be best and safer for the two to move in with twolegs. The two found a twolegplace, and were taken in, though this did not last long. The twolegs who took them in did not know how to take care of cats, and Furl passed away from some sort of illness that their twolegs did not treat. Deluge also got ill, but managed to escape the house before they died as well. Afterwards, they were helped by cat who knew healing, but did not stay. Deluge continued travelling in and out of the twolegplace, until the day they encountered a collection of cruel twolegs. The found them in an alley, beat and kicked at them, before sewing the cat's eyes and mouth closed. The cuts in Deluge's ears also seemed to be a failed attempt at more stitches. When finished, the twolegs took Deluge, placed them in a bag, and threw them into a pond. Deluge escaped, still with no senses, are tore the stitches away. Afterwards, Deluge travelled along, staying far away from twolegplaces, are growing distrustful of everyone. They gained the name Deluge as a nickname by somecat they encountered along the way due to the lingering scent of water that sticks to them. The name stuck. Now, Deluge is alone, and only the stars know if they'll find somewhere to go. (note i wrote their desc when they were a loner but now they are in skyclan!!!) pferdhoof is brash and honest to a point of it being insulting, though does obviously have some compassion for her clanmates. he is never afraid to share his opinion no matter who it opposes. pferdhoof was born to a windclan queen named wheatwing and a loner tom named elch. their relationship was moreso a quick fling, with the two not exactly wanting kits. still, pferdhoof (originally named pferd) and her brother dämmerung were born. after realizing their differences and wheatwing fearing what her clanmates may think, the two decided to go their separate ways, and sadly separating the two siblings. pferd went with wheatwing back to windclan, while dämmerung went with elch, both of their statuses unknown. wheatwing was able to lie her way through any suspicion, mostly due to the fact shorty after pferd was born, he contracted thelaziasis, a parasitic disease. due to it going untreated for a while, pferds eyesight in her right away was destroyed. everything seemed to be going fine with wheatwing and pferd, with the cats apprentice ceremony approaching. the day of the ceremony, wheatwing was found dead on the edge of windclan territory. the scene seemed like she just had a bad run in with some sort of animal , like a fox or dog, though pferdhoof has never believed that. she believes that someone managed to find out the truth and killed wheatwing, though, he has no proof.

[renthony]

Recently I got extremely stoned and gave a twenty-minute speech about how the Carrie remake was terrible, and how I would update Carrie for a modern audience instead, as an adult who actually grew up as an anxious Catholic girl getting violently bullied at school for being The Weird One, to the point where my bullies literally called me "Carrie" as an insult. (You'd think they'd have been more self-aware, but teenagers are dumb as shit sometimes, I guess.)

If you want to do a halfway-decent job of including social media and smartphones, instead of the super lazy attempt the remake made, you could so easily integrate a plotline about the tampon scene going viral on YouTube. There's an easy way to contribute toward why her mother gets increasingly aggressive about keeping Carrie isolated. It would give Carrie's rampage through town an added layer if you showed the way the viral video reached people she didn't even know, who recognized her around town as an internet laughingstock and made fun of her for it. The entire world really is out to get her, everyone really is making fun of her, she really is isolated and alone with no support. Nobody cares if you bully the weird girl who went viral for being cringe. Literally nobody gives a fuck. They think it's funny.

The school counselor had elements in the original film of genuinely trying to help but being overall useless at it, and an updated version of the film could easily incorporate the real-world issue of schools being completely fucking useless at stopping abuse of students. Teachers and guidance counselors who keep telling you "just ignore them, don't fight back, we have a No Tolerance policy, fighting back would just give them what they want and get you in trouble, too."

I also think there's a lot of compelling potential in Carrie's mother being a hyper-conservative Catholic to the point where she got in a feud with the priest at the only local Catholic church, and refuses to attend any Mass performed by that priest. I've seen that exact scenario happen in real life, and it would give better context to her being extremely Catholic but never seeming to actually go to church. It would also really drive home that "reactionary even to the reactionaries" vibe. She would rather forego Communion than listen to the teachings of a *gasp* hippie priest who tells her to Love Thy Neighbor, Even The Gay One.

On that note, holy shit, there are so many ways to read queerness into the story and I would love to see an adaptation that highlights and adds to those. Repression and fear of being queer in a hyper-conservative Catholic household? Goldmine. Fucking goldmine. There's also plenty of potential in there somewhere for the way modern queer youth face homophobia from their peers, and get policed in their queerness by other queer youth.

Basically what I'm saying is that I think I should write horror because I have Ideas.

[qqueenofhades]

thank you for your post i’m doing my best to stay informed on the conflict and i’m very young. i feel guilty being quiet as i understand to uplift voices helps prevent their silencing but this has lead me to not critically think about what i’m spreading

it’s been a long month. i’m only a kid and watching the world go to shit like this has been awful, I always wondered how millennials who lived through post nine eleven imperialism coped and god i’m still not sure how.

I am as a white gentile in a position of privilege and mostly my own person is unaffected by the uptick in violence and evil in the world right now. But my friends who i see every day are in more danger due to this conflict and i feel awful that i cannot ever fully understand or fix the deaths of people.

Right now I’m being a bit too reactionary. I’m doing my best but in the end I am not immune to fearmongering and propoganda, especially in these last couple sleepless weeks.

So thank you and everyone who is keeping level heads and desconstructing what’s happening. I’m sorry and i strive to be better. Thank you.

To anyone living in fear right now i’m so sorry. I will listen when you speak.

Once again I just want to say that I am a busy and uninformed student, and I wish that i had more teachers and authority figures that had objective facts to tell me. It’s suffocating to have fake news everywhere but feel powerless if you don’t know anything

it’s ok if you don’t respond to this

Thank you for your post

Thanks for this message and for taking the time to put it into words and to reflect on your own actions and rhetoric. It takes a lot of courage and self-awareness to admit that you were wrong and that you want to do better, and I'm not going to rip into you or blame you or otherwise shame you for it. So I hope this gives you the confidence to read on without feeling like you'll be raked over the coals for it, and open you to hear some ideas for doing things differently.

First, I do have a ton of sympathy for you as a young person who feels overwhelmed and exhausted by all the evil in the world, and is wondering how to get through it, react to it, or otherwise make some kind of moral response in the face of this soul-crushing trauma. I will say here that I am a little bit older than your average Tumblr user (the majority of this site is in their early-mid twenties), I do personally remember 9/11 and its aftermath when a lot of people here weren't even born yet, and I am an academic historian with a doctorate. That does not mean I am better or smarter or More Perfect or whatever at what I say, but it means that I do have a considerable amount of institutional, formal, and professional practice at analyzing a lot of complex information, putting it into words, breaking it down for less-specialist audiences, pointing out logical fallacies, and so forth.

That is not a skill that everyone has, and in the face of nonstop 24-hour news-cycle social media information overload, it can be incredibly difficult to parse it or understand how you're supposed to respond to it or what your moral obligation in response to this knowledge might be. I wrote this ask the other day in response to someone else asking how to improve their critical thinking skills and be more discerning about what they understood, shared, and analyzed. I strongly encourage you to read it, as it addresses a lot of what you're saying about feeling negative, depressed, panicked, angry, and all the other emotions that are naturally evoked in you from reading this stuff nonstop and feeling like the only thing you can (or should) do is immerse your brain in it at all times. In short, that is absolutely the worst environment to do actual substantial analysis or critical thinking, and it is designed so on purpose.

It has been said before, but it bears repeating: the human brain simply is not designed to be constantly aware of all the atrocities in the world and thus (thanks to social media) feeling as if the only way they can do anything about it is to then post the Correct Opinions on social media (regardless of whether these are informed or relevant or otherwise useful). Especially now, the rush to demonstrate Correct Thinking has warped a lot of otherwise well-meaning young people into becoming eager disinformation mouthpieces. There are a TON of explicitly bad-faith actors and far-right fascists who are posting pro-Palestine content (factual or uh, otherwise) because they know that's an instant way to get an audience of said young left-leaning people who will then be suckered into and exposed to their far more dangerous content and mindset, because that is how radicalization works. Even in the support of an obviously worthy cause, you and everyone else ARE NOT IMMUNE to fearmongering, disinformation, and virulently anti-Semitic propaganda, especially when it's being eagerly and constantly offered in a deliberate attempt to radicalize you further into violence and conspiracy theories, turn you against other vulnerable groups and people, and explicitly disengage you from the electoral/political process, which will harm the Democrats and other liberal establishment parties in favor of more far-right radical fascist theocrats and otherwise make everything, everywhere, many orders of magnitude worse.

I know the feeling that you need to do something, and since you're a long way from the conflict, it seems as if posting on social media is the best and/or the only way to go about it. In that environment, and especially right now, you will make mistakes. I know it is difficult in an online environment where popularity or acceptance by your peers often rests on never being wrong about anything (i.e. saying the same thing everyone else is saying), but it always helps to think about what you're doing, what you're saying, and if you actually need the approval of people who are conditioning you, implicitly or explicitly, into negative and violent ideological nihilism.

The hardest thing to understand is that yes, there is a lot of terrible shit going on in the world; no, you cannot personally fix it and you have to accept that as a limitation; yes, there are many multiple and complex causes and reasons for its existence and there is almost never a black-and-white simplistic moral solution that just hasn't been magically implemented yet; yes, it is always worth it to take the time to inform yourself and consider what you're saying, where it comes from, who it helps and who it hurts, and why you feel the need to say it in the first place. Of course you want to help. Of course you want to stop the needless suffering and death that has gone on in the world for millennia and unfortunately, as long as humans are humans, will continue to do so. But even so, take it away Gandalf:

[transmutationisms]

ooooh i wanna know your thoughts on the phrase and meaning of “ipad children” 👀👀👀

unfortunately i think the meaning here is p clear. "ipad children" refers to the imagined cohort of children and teenagers who were, or are being, 'raised by ipads', ie, whom the speaker believes are not being parented 'properly' or 'enough' and have been 'trained' or allowed to 'over'-use internet-enabled devices instead. these children are imagined to be neurologically and psychologically inferior to others due to their pathologically high levels of digital engagement, and are often described as impulsive, entitled, undisciplined, emotionally or intellectually 'stunted', hyperactive, or simply ill-mannered. again, these traits are supposed to be the neurological and psychological result of exposure to too much digital technology at too young an age.

i've said before that certain tech panics use the language of degeneration theory and the logic of eugenics. this idea of "ipad children" as a neurobiologically inferior population is a particularly disturbing example of this trend to me. again, the fear here is that technology (internet access) is doing irreparable, biological damage to childrens' brains; that they will grow up 'undisciplined' and 'stunted' (read: disabled, stupid, and/or unfit to work). this entire framework is incredibly reactionary. treating certain children like they are biologically inferior and pathologically ill-behaved is not a new phenomenon, of course, but the "ipad children" idea reifies and intensifies such discourses. it's quite blatantly a narrative of social decline occurring via biological degeneracy, centred around a specific technology (touchscreen internet access) and imagined mode of engagement with that technology (unfettered allowance by the lazy or neglectful parent).

speaking of the parents: people who talk about "ipad children" will often claim to be criticising wealthy parents specifically, turning this into a kind of class critique of the imagined rich parent who has all the necessary resources to 'actively' parent their child, but is simply too 'lazy' or apathetic to do it, and relies on digital technology instead. however, even if we accept at face value these assertions about the intent of such discourses, it is quite clear that their consequences will fall most heavily on parents who in reality do not have the most resources and support. we see this already in the way that child welfare services will leverage accusations of neglect disproportionately against poor and immigrant parents who may need to work outside the home, and/or who may parent in ways (like via an extended family system) that western states consider inherently neglectful because unparseable by a bourgeois nuclear family model. ideas about neglectful parents also, unsurprisingly, fall most heavily on parents struggling with substance use issues, psychiatric diagnoses, disabilities, etc, whose children are then made vulnerable to traumatic separation and the infliction of violence in state facilities and foster homes. in the case of the "ipad children", it is simply not true that the only people who can afford such technology are the upper echelons, and i would hope it's clear why these might be tools that parents turn to by necessity in cases where they lack the support to have an adult continuously engaged with their children (again, ranging from circumstances like disability to working).

overall i find this entire framework to be a) a bad explanation of a social phenomenon that may or may not even exist and that, if it does, has many different and class-marked causes; and b) a deeply reactionary bio-psychological construction that is stepping closer to the territory of outright eugenics by the day. i don't need to think that all content on youtube kids is morally upstanding or edifying in order to point out that the way people are talking about the children who may watch such content is a) endangering these children and b) reifying ideas about the virtues of the nuclear family, 'intellect' as some objective biological phenomenon, and a supposed 'mental decline' and larger process of 'degeneration' that modern society and technology are feared to cause.

[aloneandforsakenbyfateandbyman]

One of the most psychotic things to me is that people find Joe Rogan’s podcast to be…. Controversial. And some even think it should be banned for “spreading disinformation” LOL. Over time I’ve grown to appreciate Joe because he’s an inquisitive meathead who makes complex topics accessible for Americans who don’t read or engage intellectually with subjects bc their brains are fried by screen damage and tiktok, so I actually think he’s doing our dumbed down society a favour by being the modern day steroided Fear Factor version of Socrates.

Like he’s made zombified reactionary leftists defecate themselves once again bc he had RFK Jr on his show eviscerating big pharma and poor khoevid decisions which led to a literal Great Depression 2.0. They freaked out and called RFK Jr an anti-waxxer and “far right” etc. The latter of which has no meaning anymore because anybody who isn’t on a permanent CNN IV drip is apparently “far right.” We’re living in a timeline where Bobby Kennedy’s son is considered the equivalent of a /pol poster lmao.

It’s not like RFK Jr is a perfect candidate but I think Joe had a lot of guts to bring him on his show. And I’m stunned at how Bobby JR has the nerve to point out that the CIA literally murdered his dad and uncle bc he’s putting his own life on the line to do so. Not only that, but he called out the industrial military complex and the US funding of massive wars etc so I feel like he’s going to be the newest whacked Kennedy soon RIP I hope he and Joe both lift and inject TRT together and have some happy last days

[tanadrin]

TBH, in a lot of cases wrt infighting, I think the near group is afraid because of experience with being pushed away from their original goal due to that sort of pressure to self-moderate, where they end up losing because the Moderates won, and I think that's the case with leftists here too.

Like, both in terms of the historical narratives of leftists who "sold out" in the name of realpolitik being the reason why leftists lost, and the visible rage that (at least in their view) following the "vote for the lesser evil" argument is being used to exploit us by a party that has active contempt for leftists that wants to keep us ineffective and trapped with them, if that makes sense?

I think it comes from a deep feeling of helplessness at being electorally trapped the Dems , and I feel like saying "vote against Trump" isn't going to break through to them until folks come up with a genuinely good response as to how they can break out of said trap.

Gotta be clear about terminology here: in the leftist example, the in-group is whatever actual leftist group we're talking about; the near group are people more proximate to them on the ideological spectrum than the far group, but who are definitely not members of the in-group. They are part of the out-group, and thus get treated as opponents. The far group is also part of the out=group, but frequently gets ignored in favor of contests with the near group. Near group and far group were coined as terms to explain why battles between an in-group and out-group often focus heavily on only one subsection of the out-group, even when that subsection in theory might be allies (if not actual members of the in-group) in contests against the other.

I think this fear of losing out to the moderates is very much the in-group perspective, and I think it's wrong. If we're talking about, say, the labor struggles in the US at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the "moderates win" scenario (which is ultimately what happened with the New Deal) is a way better deal for labor than the "reactionaries win" scenario. Was it full-on communism? Of course not. But full-on communists never constituted an effective political majority in the United States, and full-on communism was never in the cards as a result; the choice then, as now, is often between "a moderate--even pretty good--outcome, if we play our cards right" and "demanding metaphysical purity to the point that we are politically irrelevant."

Plenty of organizations are happy to maintain metaphysical purity, and to succumb to political irrelevance--it's a surprisingly durable mode of operation if your goal is survival of the organization above all else. But nominally political organizations exist to pursue political goals, and I'm not in favor of strategies that amount to functionally abandoning those goals, in order to maintain in-group cohesion.

Example: the Democratic party is the way it is--i.e., like most political parties, but even more so--because it is a sprawling and often uneasy coalition--broadly speaking between liberals, progressives, and leftists, but each of course can itself be broken down further. The thing with these sprawling and uneasy coalitions is that they often leave everybody mad, because nobody gets everything they want. But also, they work. They are tatical creatures that exist for tactical reasons: I don't expect anybody to look at the Democratic Party platform and go "Yes, this is the One True Good Ideology." And I expect some people will look at the platform they produce and go, "this isn't enough of what I want to justify me supporting this coalition."

But if somebody's problem isn't that they disagree about tactical goals or tactical methods--if their problem is that they reject coalition fundamentally as compromising their ideology--then I do not believe they sincerely want to achieve anything. Because whether it's by electoralism or direct action or violent revolution or civil war, every political struggle in history requires some form of coalition-building. And the guys that build the bigger coalition usually win!

[riddle-me-ri]

Okay so we’ve had Mad Hatter and Riddler reacting to the dress….

What about Scarecrow?

A/N: Whelp, uhh…never expected my original headcanon idea of Riddlers reacting to a tiktok dress to go this far lmao. But it only makes sense I go ahead and round up the Dork Squad. 

After this, I don’t see myself doing this for any other rogues (or for any other tik tok dress...I don’t see their reactions being any different than what I’ve already described lmao), so this’ll likely be the end of this wee series I accidentally made lol. By all means though, if y’all haven’t already feel free to do these with your own fave rogues and even do a different dress! 

Just for posterity: here's the tiktok and dress in question.

By the way…this was ridiculously more difficult than the others, just thought I’d put that out there. Most of these Scarecrows are ominous and stoic as hell so it was weird trying to get in the appropriate state of mind for each of them asdfgjk also don’t mind me still playing with headers, this isn’t all the Scarecrows featured, there’s three more sorry if the header is a wee misleading; BTAS/TNBA and Fear State also make an appearance!

Anyways, without further ado, you guys demanded him; The Prince of Panic, the Lord of Despair, The Master of Fear…

The Scarecrows React to Reader in a TikTok Dress:

Arkhamverse Scarecrow:

- To say he was caught off guard would be an understatement. 

- He may be immune to fear.

- Immune almost to a point of being void of most reactionary emotions. 

- Jonathan wasn’t immune to you. 

- He inhales deeply, takes you all in. 

- Normally he'd consider this type of dress ludicrous…

- However he can make an exception for you, as always. 

- He runs his calloused hand along the skin that's revealed.

- Occasionally teasing the skin with the needles from his gauntlet.

- When he hears your soft gasps and hushed moans…

- There's nothing more satisfying.

Dark Knight/Murphy Scarecrow:

- Jonathan won't admit it but he had to do a double take.

- He finally came home from his "experiments" at Arkham. 

- He longed to see you, and was pleasantly surprised to see you 

- So…scantily clad for his amusement. 

- Amused he is, as well as pleased and undoubtedly aroused. 

- Without almost a second thought he drops his suitcase and rushes to get his hands on you.

- As much as he enjoys seeing these sneak peeks at your skin. 

- He yearns to caress and touch you, both with and especially without the dress.

BTAS Scarecrow:

- You have rendered the poor ex-professor speechless.

- And he usually enjoys hearing his own monologues and lectures, so that’s a win!

- His eyes blinking madly, trying to reboot his brain. 

- His ever so pale face, growing ever so red as his signature costume. 

- Jon recognizes the sensations of his heart palpitating and his breaths shortening.

- He's not afraid no….quite the opposite actually.

- He's stunted, unsure of what to do. 

- Jon sheepishly compliments you, even asks if you're some gorgeous dream in the sea of his nightmares. 

- You convince him you're absolutely real. 

- As you wrap your arms around him, bring your body closer to his…

TNBA Scarecrow:

- He’s quite shocked to be honest. 

- Perhaps, even a little confused. 

- Not entirely sure what brought this on, where or why you own such an outlandish dress.

- However, he can’t say he’s complaining. 

- He chuckles deeply, asks if this is for some kind of occasion. 

- You say there isn't one. Just wanted to surprise him. 

- Well, you've certainly done that.

- He's still getting used to being intimate with someone else. 

- However, when you open yourself up to him, you are so vulnerable…

- Just how can he resist?

Fear State Scarecrow:

- For all the fear he wanted to wrought upon Gotham City… 

- The absolute thrill to see it be succumbed in it’s worse fears to reach a precipice of fearlessness. 

- It didn’t come close to how his heart skipped a beat at the sight of you. 

- His eyes widened in surprise at you in the dress.

- Jon practically stalks you as he comes closer to you. 

- Normally, like a couple other Scarecrows, he would find the dress ridiculous, holding no purpose. 

- You may as well just be naked. 

- Yet, with you wearing it, the way it compliments your curves and valleys of your body.

- Teasing the more intimate parts of you with just strips of fabric

- Even the Master of Fear yearns to enjoy the excitement of…other emotions.

Year One Scarecrow:

- Oh…oh boy

- Umm…wow.

- He's always been aware of scandalous wear, especially for women. 

- The only reason he knew was because it was one of many of the "devil's temptations", Granny forbid him to pursue. 

- But now, Granny's long gone. 

- And here you are, looking drop dead stunning. 

- He's gulping for air. 

- For a minute mistaking his reaction for fear when it's in fact…something equally as primal

- You realize you may have stunted the sheltered southerner.

- You will have to ease him into it. 

- Let him know what he's feeling is natural and safe. 

- Be open with him (more emotionally than physically the dress did that enough for you) and let him decide how he wants to…proceed.

Masters of Fear Scarecrow:

- Were…were you trying to give him a heart attack?

- But ooh, the view of you would've been worth it. 

- He never thought he'd ever experience the bliss true love could bring after Sherry Squires.

- Yet, now, Squires couldn't even hold a candle to you.

- She never could, but especially not now. 

- Dressed so intimately and vulnerable.

- For him, because you're comfortable with him.

- You love him and respect him. 

- That's what goes through his mind as he slowly approaches you. 

- He's reluctant to touch you, worried you'll disappear or break somehow. 

- When he finally gets his hands on you, it will be a long while before you can get them off.

Harley Quinn the Animated Series Scarecrow:

- Out of all the Scarecrows, of all the Cranes, of all the Twig Boys…

- This one is the LEAST kept together about you in the dress. 

- Man’s is dead to rights. 

- The only comprehensible sound that’s made is his hushed mutterings and stammering. 

- You can maybe make out a compliment or two out of it. 

- This poor sap is tripping on actual air the minute you start walking over to him. 

- Is there such a thing as being frightened and turned on?

- He's anxious about what to do (and not mess up) but so bricked up to not function.

- Please reassure him and take the lead, he'd be most appreciative. 

Happy Halloween, Scooby-Doo! (2018) Scarecrow:

- Ooohhh this smug bastard. Since I’ve gotten the requests to do this, his stupid smirk grin hasn’t left my brain (not that it ever has left since I saw it, BUT STILL)

- You may see his eyes widened slightly but that's about it. 

- His eyes will scan you up and down, going ahead and undressing what's left of you to be dressed.

- If you're lucky he may have a sly grin on his face. 

- Well, this is a pleasant surprise. 

- Jonathan will try his damnest to not fall totally putty into your hands. 

- He appreciates the view, but you're out of luck if you expect him to…react entirely primal. 

- (Ppstt…top it off with a black beehive wig and a valley girl accent wishing him "unpleasant dreams") (yeah I'm an Elvira stan too go ahead and @ me)

- (man's will fall apart at the seams…or straw rather)

[bioethicists]

hi i hope you dont mind this question. i assume because you are anti psych/mad liberation (me too) you probably also get the pro psych reaction of "thats dangerous" and "its not all like that" and the accusation that acknowledging the fact that psychiatric and therapy "care" is so bad will make people quit that care and they will inevitably get worse and it'll be your fault? im an anti psych blogger and this really messes me up because my whole thing is that i DONT want mentally ill ppl to suffer, and thats the whole reason i AM anti psych. and i am afraid ppl will somehow be harmed by me telling the truth or making (evil!) generalizations about psych professionals, etc.

to me it seems incredibly reactionary, usually comes with a moral panic flavor, and is chock full of victim blaming cliches. it seems to me that it hinges on the fear and threat of 1. a Crazy person rejecting treatment and 2. a Crazy person rejecting authority, so again, it seems to be based mostly in stigma. and yet it does seem true and possible that ppl will be influenced in ways that turn out poorly and i dont want that to happen either. and yet again, framing it like "dont tell ppl what health care to pursue" is a misnomer since psych care is simply about social control... and that facade of health care just protects them from criticism in a bad faith way cause it makes you look anti vax adjacent and telling ppl not to see doctors. im not really interested in telling ppl what to do when it comes to accessing psych care, but my general analysis is that: is refusing psych care possibly dangerous? yes. is getting psych care also possibly dangerous? yes.

anyway the main question is if/how you deal with this. both intellectually and emotionally. cause i think its possibly the hardest part of sharing anti psych views in public. it makes me feel guilty and afraid. and i think making splicing disclaimers sucks and is stupid. so idk. thanks for reading.

first of all, i absolutely do experience this + it used to piss me off more than it does now but now it mostly makes me sad. i think you summed it up so well when you said that both refusing + seeking psych care can be dangerous.

part of it is that, the deeper i root into my belief in bodily autonomy, the more i stop punishing myself if someone takes a good faith, well-phrased assertion i've made + spins that into something harmful which i never said or intended. i am very deliberate to only spread information that pushes for expanding + critiquing methods of healing, stressing that my goal is to free people from suffering, not compound it.

i know that some people who are struggling with paranoia or self-destructive impulses read mad liberation talking points (often finding their ways to the more conspiracy fueled or recklessly phrased ones) + respond in ways that end up harming them, like cold-turkey going off antipsychotics or firing their entire treatment teams to take sketchy supplements. it does make me very sad that this happens, because like you said, i want these people to be happy + not suffer.

however, i rarely see comparable conversation about how people take the logics of the psych system and use THOSE to harm themselves. many people with similar traits to those who do what you are describing are just as likely to use the logics of psychiatry to punish themselves or distance themselves from others. they use 'coping mechanisms' punitively by becoming obsessed with 'clean' eating/dieting, organization/academics, being the Perfect Patient. they tell others + themselves that they are neurologically incapable of love or healthy relationships or pleasure. they isolate themselves because they believe they are fundamentally toxic or abusive. they dismiss their emotions as "just symptoms" + actively chastise themselves or try to train themselves out of experiencing any anger towards others or even any negative emotions at all. they admit themselves to psych wards frequently not out of a reasonable concern that they will hurt themselves or others but because they believe they belong in a psych ward any time they are experiencing symptoms. the list goes on.

all of that being said, i do experience genuine concern that people might read what i write + because of self-hatred or intense paranoia, read some sort of mandate or advice that isn't there + end up in more pain. because this exact thing also happens with psychiatry, which the naysayers you describe above are not concerned with, i don't think they're actually worried about hurting people. they are worried about Crazy people Not Getting Help. it comes from a place of paternalism + fear.

another, more positive aspect of it is that i do genuinely believe that many people are not being helped by their treatment teams but think they Have To be in therapy or in a hospital or on meds despite them not helping because that's What You Do. so they have been sitting around waiting for five years of therapy or their seventh ssri to start doing something meaningful. some of them just needed to hear: you don't have to do this; it might not be the right thing for you. i actually think these people are really well-served by hearing about anti-psych/mad lib stuff + them quitting therapy/meds/treatment ends up allowing them to look for other pathways for dealing with emotional suffering.

ultimately, i think mad liberation that focuses on true autonomy + total liberation of all peoples provides a clearer path forward for people to return from these places of intense paranoia or self destruction. i think we are all so used to being deprived of autonomy that, when we first get it back, we often stumble with it or try to provoke someone into taking it away from us. that is just going to continue to happen if we respond to it by making autonomy conditional. a LOT of us feel like we're not allowed to heal if it's not a moral mandate, so hearing that it isn't feels like nobody cares. we have to find new ways of showing that we care which don't involve exerting power over others.

[the-catboy-minyan]

I genuinely believe that because media loves to use nazi aesthetic and surface talking point for fantasy racism and genocide for extremely white and black talking points, people now have lost the ability to see the real world for what it is

if media tells you all the big baddies always believed in the super big bad, then of course all israelis and jews support bibi. if they see rebels burn down a castle, blow up a space ship of baddies then of course hamas was justified in what it did

they can only go by current and direct images. they cannot see the history behind things, think for themselves and realize that jews have always called israel their home. whatever name throughout history it was given we called it home.

they cannot comprehend something as complex as: the people of israel want peace too. want the government to change. that does not fit into what media has fed them. they can take our suffering, our diaspora, our grief and refit it to their stories of fantasy races but they cannot extend the empathy they have for something fictional on the screen to real people

did I ghost wrote this in my sleep? anon you put my thoughts into word almost perfectly.

a lot of modern media started twisting this trope of "evil bad guy that has a good point about society versus the hero that stands for America their people and doesn't fix the issue" and turned it into "evil fascist/government that wants to control people with fear vs the hero activist freeing the people from the fascist ruler... without actually making a new government."

loke instead of saying "the people in power are corrupt", they say "the position of power is always evil and need to be dismantled". instead of saying "take a stance and build a better future", they say "get rid of the evil! ...what happens next? world peace ig, who cares, punch a Nazi!"

glorifying acts of individual resistance that are borderline criminal (looking at you Nimona and murdering guards), demonising the positions of power instead of the people abusing that position, advocating for reactionary activism and not innovation, calling to question everything unless it's about the good people (looking at you Nimona, again), it's just repackaged "Good American Hero Saves the Day!"

this black and white thinking of "authority bad! anyone who supports the concept of authority is a fascist! what do you mean we need a government function as a society?" is just repackaged Christianity.

[tangibletechnomancy]

Saw someone earlier say that the popular millennial/early gen Z reaction to AI tech is very comparable to Gen X-ish's reactions to GMOs, and...I can no longer find that post but I can't help but feel that to be true on a lot of levels.

As stated in that post, both technologies have their very legitimate problems - with GMOs, it's Monsanto being fucking evil and trying to monopolize plants and food, or GMO herbicide resistance being used so that major corporate farms can saturate the land with said herbicides without any short-term financial damage to the companies as if it doesn't harm the environment; with AI, it's any form of automation always appealing to the most abusive of corporate greed - but both ended up whipped into a dogmatic fervor about something completely not only irrelevant but made-up and reactionary ("GMOs are all POISON, nature knows best ALWAYS!" - which led semi-directly to the antivaxx movement btw / "it doesn't matter how different it is from the input taking inspiration from existing works the WRONG way is PLAGIARISM, you're rewarding LAZINESS, and REAL ART vs. FAKE ART is totally an objective distinction that can be made and certainly not at all a fascist talking point, and I want art made by HUMANS, the humans running these programs to express something from their human brains don't count!"), completely ignoring that GMOs have reduced world hunger and given us valuable conservation tools, and AI is giving people - real people, not machines - more expressive capacity, serving as a valuable research tool into what kinds of things people tend to associate, justly or otherwise; and even being used to augment human judgment for things such as reviewing biopsy results, finding cancers that otherwise may have gone unnoticed for months or even years longer. In fact, many opponents will full on deny any of these benefits - "what good does reducing hunger do if we haven't eliminated it completely AND we're feeding people POISON? In fact, why should I even believe that really happened in the first place!? if you wanted laypeople to be able to read these studies you wouldn't have made them so complicated, you CLEARLY have something to hide!" the anti-GMO warrior asks; "I don't believe those people who are so severely disabled that they couldn't draw or write without AI REALLY exist, your meditation on the nature of data doesn't COUNT, I don't care how many hours you spent on that piece you're TOTALLY being lazy, and I refuse to believe anyone who points out that it's not a copy-paste machine because you CLEARLY have an AGENDA to lie" the anti-AI reactionary claims. Both hold to a belief that ignorance is a virtue, and even TRYING to understand the Bad Side is tantamount to shoving orphans into a wood chipper.

But I'd take it a step further and say that AI is serving a similar sociopolitical purpose in that it's drawing a line in the sand and asking progressives at a certain stage in life - mostly from the ages of 25-35 - "are you willing to acknowledge nuance around subjects that are new and scary to you, or are you going to give into that fear and treat ignorance as a virtue because there ARE undeniably bad things about this and therefore EVERY bad thing you can imagine about it must be true?" Both serve as, essentially, an acid test - will you declare that it's IMPOSSIBLE to be reckless with GMOs, that Monsanto DESERVES to have sole control over the world's food supply because ~they've done so much good~, or that all GMOs are EVIL POISON and GOING TO KILL US ALL and they're also TOTALLY the reason we're all FAT now which is THE WORST thing a person can be? Or are you going to acknowledge that Monsanto is fucking evil, but GMOs as a whole are a complex thing that can, indeed, be created and marketed in some pretty evil ways, but also have the potential to save countless lives? Will you declare that AI is True Sentient AI, the cyber-utopia becoming real; that everything ChatGPT says must be true and OpenAI is our best friend, or that REAL art by HUMANS is going to be destroyed forever and anyone who benefits from AI is inherently evil? Or will you acknowledge that AI, while it has its drawbacks in the form of corporate overpromising people and compromising information reliability by doing so, on top of the perennial labor issues that come with automation and other potential abuses, also has the capacity to dramatically improve and even potentially save lives? Will you work to save the good WHILE rejecting the bad, or will you insist it needs to be shoved in either the good box or the bad box - probably the bad box, if you're an adult?

The answer, I feel, says a lot about the ideological trajectory someone has chosen for their adulthood.