#but whether or not there is/was discourse isn't my point

[g0nta-g0kuhara]

I didnt put it in the original post because it's not exactly what I was trying to talk about but I do think part of this sentiment also comes from the DR Fandom in particular's reputation across this site. And like a few people mentioned in the tags, yeah, the DR fandom back at its peak was rowdy and unhinged, but the reality is that the modern fandom has quieted down significantly to the point that it's genuinely more chill than the most popular ones on tumblr at the moment. But because that reputation is still there, people are apprehensive to join and share their benign character takes in case they get flamed as if it was 2017.

I don't want to say "I wish we could just move past that" because the DR fandom was Nuts back then (I say second hand, I was not there) and I do think thats a remarkable thing about it that I don't want to just brush aside. But also, it's just not really true anymore. No one is gonna chew your head off in ship wars more than in any other small fandom in the year 2024. Its ok.

I'm still thinking about that post from earlier because, really, as someone who has been into DR for far too long at this point, it is tiring and disheartening to see new fans embarrassed or nervous to post. I can't tell you how many times Ive seen fan posts couched with captions like "sorry I like DR now" or "this game sucks lol' or "I hated dr but I like x." And like, I get it, I really do. I felt that way too when I first joined the fandom, and obviously there is a lot to criticize about this series. But it is sad to see so much apprehension talking about liking something or a part of something that you feel the need to add negativity like that to an otherwise positive post. And its exhausting to see as a fan when you have to see it over and over and over again.

This isn't even an in-fandom problem which makes it kinda hard to do anything about too? Almost everyone who posts like this is new to the fandom or just passing through. It's just DR's reputation as "completely irredeemable trash media" that makes people feel that way, and its sad. I just wish people who are clearly feeling genuine positive emotions about DR could let themselves feel those things without the fear of being sent to tumblr hell for the sin of liking a piece of media that's not perfect.

[doberbutts]

With this latest round of discourse being "trans men shouldn't complain about being kicked out of women's spaces", I felt the urge to write up a relatively long post regarding the topic, as I feel it is a long tangled mess and involves a significant amount of people simply talking past each other.

To begin, what is a woman's space? I ask this, because "women's spaces" often fall under one of three categories: medical services, social services, and social gatherings. Of the three, trans men need access to nearly everything if not everything included within "medical services" and "social services". These things often need to be considered co-ed anyway, but are still considered "for women" and often are labeled things like "women's health" or "women's defense". Social gatherings- things such as book clubs, concerts, festivals, and other similar outings- can have a nuanced and complicated history when it comes to the inclusion, or exclusion, of trans men.

As an example- I am a binary, gay trans man who has not yet been sterilized. If I become pregnant and need to seek out social services, I must do so via my provider's "Women and Babies" department. I am neither of those things, and yet regardless of whether I am completing or terminating the pregnancy, I must label myself a woman in order to receive care. If I wish to have a pap smear, receive birth control, or investigate my chances of ovarian and cervical cancer, I must do so via the "Women's Health Clinic". I am not a woman, but I must label myself as one in order to discuss sterilization options. Many trans men who have had their gender markers changed prior to sterilization have reported difficulty even booking an appointment, as well as difficulty convincing their insurance to pay for this appointment due to a discrepancy with gender markers vs gendered care. Many have discussed the realities of being a pregnant man, whether they remained pregnant until their child was born, or whether they terminated said pregnancy with an abortion.

It should come as no surprise that the statistics for trans men receiving quality gynecological care are abysmal. It should be equally unsurprising to hear how many trans men have died from botched abortions, untreated miscarriages, infections and cancers of the uterus and cervix and ovaries, and complications during pregnancy or birth. We belong in this space, despite it being labeled "for women", and the only thing pushing us out has done is quite literally what's been killing us.

This is, of course, not even taking into account the numbers of trans men who have been forced to become pregnant via their husbands or families as a means to detransition them, and those who have become pregnant as a result of corrective rape. There is a saying among trans men of my age- it isn't "we all know a guy this has happened to", it's "which of us haven't experienced this? who among us doesn't fear this? who will it happen to next?"

Which brings me to my next point: women's social services. As with women's medical care, nearly everything labeled "for women" as a social service must be inclusive to trans men. Shelters for domestic violence survivors, rape crisis centers, self defense classes, family planning, these are all things that honestly should already be co-ed. But, many times, they are exclusively targeted towards women. I understand why, I do. But with trans men being statistically more likely than cis women to experience the need for these services, it seems a cruelty to close their doors to a vulnerable demographic reaching out for help.

Where should trans men in crisis go? Shutting the door to us without addressing the reason we need to access these resources gives us a single ultimatum: detransition, or die. Go back to being a woman, or die knowing the likelihood that a woman's name will adorn your headstone, and "daughter, wife, mother" will be said in your obituary. Much like the medical services, this incomplete answer has lead many trans men to their deaths. Whether by their own hands, or by their attackers'.

But there are other social services out there that perhaps are not as dire. Women's scholarships, colleges, all girls schools. Girl Scouts, women's sport leagues, gym memberships. Trans men don't need access to these, right?

Well... is the trans man in question out? Has he been living as a man, or is he still closeted? Is it safe for him to come out? Does he pass, or has he just bought his first binder and given himself his first buzz cut? Is he living under the control of his parents, or is he able to freely decide for himself the type of person he'd like to be and the type of life he'd like to live?

You see, I was a Girl Scout once. And, if we are to believe to our core that trans men are men even before they know the words "transgender", this means I was a boy in a girl's space. I didn't know that being transgender was an option for me at the point where my troop disbanded, and another leader to replace the first within my local area was not found until after I had aged out.

But also... I was in 7th grade when my troop disbanded. Two years later, I would learn the word "transgender", and suddenly everything would make sense. Two years later, I would come out to my parents and my sisters. To put this into perspective, I graduated high school in 2010. The Boy Scouts officially allowed cisgender girls and transgender people of all genders to join all programs in 2019.

I was not expelled from my Girl Scout troop. My leader simply stopped showing up to meetings, and my troop disbanded to go our separate ways when leadership could not find someone quickly enough to replace her. But... if this had not happened, I would have been a recently out transgender boy in a girl's social service, still wearing push up bras and frilly shirts because that's all my parents would buy me until I became an adult and moved out and had a job with my own money to re-purchase myself a wardrobe. Indistinguishable from any of the others, outside of what went on inside my own mind.

I would not have been accepted into the Boy Scouts, if Girl Scouts had been taken from me as abruptly as it was from a different transgender boy in the same state I was born and raised. Which would have left me with... nothing. Neither. And the only reason I even joined the Girl Scouts was because I had wanted to join the Boy Scouts and the local troop had refused to allow me, because they had labeled me a girl.

I don't believe I'm the one that coined Schrodinger's Gender, but I do reference it often. In this situation, one is both a boy when it hurts, and a girl when it hurts. Even if that gender label changes by the second, the point is to use your gender and your assigned sex to hurt you.

But then, why do these services even have to be gendered to begin with? After all, Boy Scouts just updated to be The Scouts, and has removed (on paper) the insistence on gendering.

Well... I certainly agree that the majority of gendering these services is at this point a concept that needs to be reformed, but I'm unconvinced that we will be able to completely integrate without addressing the reason they were segregated by gender in the first place.

Women's gym memberships are gender segregated for two reasons. Women and girls- and anyone labeled as women and girls, regardless of true identity- are frequently not afforded the same access to resources as cisgender men and boys. Women and girls- and anyone labeled such- are frequently at high risk of predatory sexual behavior and physical violence. Both of these problems are symptoms of a larger system of misogyny at play, and both of these problems directly affect trans men especially those who have not transitioned in a way that makes them pass for cis men.

Regardless of the truth of my identity, the reality is that I was seen as and treated as a girl when it came to physical fitness, and thus barred from the same activities freely offered to the boys. Regardless of the truth of my identity, I have experienced predatory sexual behavior from cis men as young as 8 or 9 years old, continuing past when I came out and began to transition socially.

If the problem is not addressed, cis women cannot re-integrate with cis men. But, additionally, if the problem is not addressed, the choice still remains clear for trans men. Detransition, stay closeted, or go without.

A common complaint of trans men is the invisibility and erasure our demographic faces. It should be easy to see why this happens. The problem of a misogynistic society is one that continues to this day, and without addressing the problem we cannot hope for success in creating a more inclusive space. At the same time, trans men are being pushed out and isolated as they realize they must make a choice.

As for social gatherings, such as a woman's retreat or a woman's music festival? Of course, it may sound odd to say that a trans man should feel welcome there. But the truth of the matter is the majority of the trans men asking for the ability to stay are trans men who have been within that space for years already, prior to coming out, prior to realizing some things about their genders, prior to taking their first steps as men.

I'm pretty good friends with an older butch who told me that I am the first person they ever told that they were a nonbinary man. This person is in their 50s. They're married. But the wife doesn't like it, and they love their wife too much to cause friction in the relationship, so they keep it to themselves, and they keep quiet, and they don't say anything about being transgender, but in their head they aren't a woman. This person is not a woman, by their own insistence. Should this person be forcibly ejected from their local lesbian community, which they and the wife helped form decades ago? Should they divorce their wife, since that would make her not a lesbian anymore?

What harm is it, truly, to allow this person to stay? Social isolation kills people. The trans man suicide statistics are just as abysmal as any of the others I've mentioned here. Forcing someone to burn 20, 30, 40 years of their lives and their friends and their achievements because they are finally living as themselves is a deeply hurtful and isolating experience.

The majority of trans men asking to be included in these spaces are not trans men like me- who never really jived with the idea of womanhood and distanced ourselves as much as possible the moment we saw the opportunity. They are men like my friend, often existing outside of the binary, often with a deep love and appreciation for womanhood despite realizing that perhaps the label does not fit them as well as they once thought. They often have many years of connection, entire lives spent intwined in these spaces.

What good does it do to chase them out? What harm does it to do let them stay?

[hamliet]

Adolescence Review (by someone who used to work in child protection)

Recently watched Netflix's Adolescence and it was probably the best TV series I've seen. It's superbly acted (how was this Owen Cooper's first role?), fascinatingly filmed (every single episode is shot in one take), and brimming with empathy and nuance.

It also resonates personally with me. Once upon a time, I worked in child protection for a year. I've worked with kids like the main subject of the series, Jamie Miller. I can't and won't give details, but this series probably captures the heart-wrenching, soul-crushing reality of what it's like to work with kids who do horrific crimes.

Episode 1 is an excruciatingly detailed account of the dehumanization of arrest and imprisonment, and that's even with everyone doing their best to be kind to Jamie because he's a child (13, but looks younger). I guarantee you most cops don't try to be nice to most intakes.

There's really only one moment where a cop is cruel until the interrogation, and that's when Jamie's being strip-searched. The man conducting the search tells his father, who asks, in essence, "how would you feel if you were thirteen and strangers wanted to do this to you?" that "I was never accused of a crime." Well, bully for you, jerk-face.

Yet the viewer also understands the cruel necessity of having to conduct such a search, while also wanting to throw up. I do think a lot of the discourse around juvenile criminals resorts to "throw away the key" without considering what that means, and what humiliation and abuse kids go through when they're arrested (rightfully or wrongfully). The show following each and every motion and forcing the viewer to observe the father's face rather than the actual search forces the viewer to face their own thoughts on juvenile justice (especially because, at this point, you don't know whether Jamie did it).

But at the same time as Jamie is dehumanized in this way, you're confronted with the reality of how much he's dehumanized his victim at the end of the episode, when you see that he absolutely, 100% did do it. This thread of how Jamie dehumanizes women in particular continues in Episode 3.

Episode 2 is easily the weakest of the series. It's still great and offers, via a chaotic school with checked-out adults who can't care anymore and adults who do care completely overwhelmed and limited by their own humanity, a symbolic picture of what teenagers face. How can they learn when they aren't willing to listen? At the same time, how can they learn when no one is teaching? How can people teach when they are drowning themselves?

My criticism here is that the school appeared not exactly unrealistic, but also slightly hyperbolized. I think they could have stressed the struggles of trying to care when there's too much to care for even more than they did via an additional episode, an episode I think the second one almost introduced and then left dangling--one that focused on Katie's loved ones.

We hear about Katie's mom, and we meet Jade and see her rage over losing her best friend. We even see one detective voice how frustrating it is that Jamie will be remembered but Katie won't be. I wouldn't quite call this lip service because I do think the aim of the show isn't quite about this, but I do think the show should have spent an episode on Jade and/or Katie's family.

We know Katie isn't perfect as a victim, but that doesn't mean in any way that she deserved to be stabbed to death (or to have her pictures leaked). In fact, the show makes this emphatically clear. But I still think they missed a chance to make her more human, to show the loss through her loved ones.

If Episode 2 is the slightly-less-than-the-others episode, Episode 3 is the standout. The psychologist examines Jamie and he vacillates between inappropriately flirting with the psychologist to childishly requesting more hot chocolate to terrifyingly screaming in rage to sobbing in fear like a child in a nightmare to condescendingly mocking her like a rabid fan of Elon's would to desperately trying to wrench away the reality of what he did and trying to talk himself out of facing reality. And Owen Cooper, the child actor, makes all of this believable.

The reality is that the cruelty of what Jamie's done sinks in during Episode 3. He tells his psychologist that most other guys who have assaulted their victim, but he didn't, so he's better, right? And then he screams and sobs minutes later begging for someone to tell him that they like him, anyone. I found myself wanting to grab the psychologist and beg her to say that she "cared" (something I said in a similar moment during my work doing child protection). But I also understand why she didn't--not just professionally, but in terms of Jamie having to realize that he can't be entitled to people liking him when he's so cruel to women.

The psychologist also asks Jamie if he understands what death is. While he says all the right words to show he does, everyone over the age of 20 knows that he doesn't, and the show knows it too. I genuinely think that, until you get older, you cannot fully understand what it means for someone to be gone from this earth.

And therein lies the paradox of the show: Jamie doesn't fully understand what he's done. At the same time, what he's done has permanent, gruesome, irreversible consequences for everyone around him--and beyond that, because of the internet's influence beyond local boundaries.

Episode 4 is an episode I would call beautiful in a lot of ways, despite the fact that it's jagged and raw. We follow Jamie's family (dad, mom, and older sister) as they try to celebrate the dad's birthday about a year after the crime. We see how they're wrestling with the fallout and agony of knowing they raised Jamie--but they also raised Lisa, who is kind of an awesome kid.

And while Episode 1 actually has detectives musing that the parents might be abusive and that might explain it, this episode removes any doubts: Eddie and Amanda, Jamie's parents, are good parents. They are not perfect. Eddie has a temper. Amanda should have monitored his computer use more. But also? No parents are perfect. Arguably, the detective who interacts with his son in Episode 2 is a worse parent than they are. Yet his son is great, and Lisa is great.

There simply isn't a good explanation. Jamie was hurting, yes, but his pain can't be pinned down to a singular cause. The internet hurt him and gave him messages about masculinity that were harmful to say the least. But he also got those messages at school, even if he wasn't on the internet. And he got love at home, as well as some flawed interactions with his parents.

So who is responsible for Jamie's actions? Jamie himself. He chose.

Yet, the series also acknowledges that Jamie is a child, and he is not just "born bad." We see how other kids, like Jade punching Ryan, and Ryan loaning Jamie the knife, and Tommy joking around, and the bully leaking Katie's pictures--they have no comprehension of the extreme ramifications of their actions... but some of them also don't appear to care to learn. Normally, society would demand they care to learn, but that's not happening.

So then what? If society creates these kids, then what does society owe them? That's a question the series wants viewers to walk away contemplating, rather than giving a simple answer.

And there is some hope: Jamie deciding to plead guilty and accept responsibility. In that, we see how kids are supposed to be able to make mistakes and learn and grow. Yet Jamie's "mistake" is so shattering that Katie will never get to grow beyond it because of him, and to what degree Jamie can after pleading guilty isn't clear either. And in an era where their every action is captured online, can they ever really grow beyond?

I don't know that I have an answer to that. I've seen some kids I worked with grow up to be awesome. And I've lost touch with others, particularly those whose cases were more serious. There is no agony like seeing a child who has done something horrific and is suffering themselves and knowing you can't save them, and not knowing what the future holds for them. All you're left with is being able to hope that they'll learn to accept responsibility and grow, but in a system and society that makes that really impossible, is that even much of a hope?

[bitterfucked]

I disagree with the statement that anthropomorphic = furry, and I think it does a disservice to furries to try to essentially claim anthropomorphism as a whole for them. Furry is both a subculture and an artistic movement, and to try to lay claim to all anthropomorphism very much muddies the intentionality of people engaging with the artistic movement. It's also, frankly, a slippery slope from anthropomorphic = furry to straight up racist statements like spirit animal = fursona, which is something I've seen people do.

I think it *is* important to recognize when an art piece is in dialogue with furries as an art movement, as the above fursuit clearly is. Like the above poster says, they use techniques popularized by fursuiters instead of the techniques used in mascot costuming. Short of the artist coming out and saying that this isn't supposed to be furry art (technique doesn't necessarily mean style), it's also almost definitely more useful to just call the cat a fursuit because it legitimizes and recognizes the fact that furries have collectively advanced the medium of costuming in specific ways.

But something like Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit isn't furry art because it is not in dialogue with furries as an artistic movement. It isn't coming from the same place with how anthropomorphism is interpreted. Despite being around for 70 years longer than Disney's Robin Hood, it's almost never listed as an inspiring piece of media for the furry movement. The vast majority* of furry artists do not pull from it stylistically. To say it is fur art is to ignore the work that is ongoing within the artistic movement.

Likewise, to say something like it's not all Disney's Robin Hood as a way to distance from the "cringier" parts of furrydom is, at best, ignorant of how an artistic movement works. You are almost always in dialogue with the major currents of your artistic movement and eschewing them is still being in dialogue - even if the question is as simple as how far can you go from the cartoony elements and still be considered "furry".

Muddying the intentionality and vision of your art for the sake of "normalization" is a bad place to be, and does no favors to anyone.

*To cut off "Um, Actually, This Artist" criticism, in terms of describing an artistic movement, unfortunately, it is majority rule. I can't pick out a band like World Inferno Friendship Society and say that swing and big band are massively influential genres on punk music, and you can't do a similar thing for furry art.

[transmutationisms]

i understand no mental illnesses have been tied to any gene, but my understanding was that there is some evidence on heritability in some cases i.e. for ADHD “many genetic…risks…have a small effect” (doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.022); how are we to understand such findings through a antipsych lens?

okay I just want to be clear because I think a lot of you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what people mean when we self id as 'antipsych.' it's not that 'antipsych' is some sort of pie-in-the-sky theory that I pre-committed to and now have to reconcile with the medical literature—it's more like, I grew up as a very I Fucking Love Science Dot Com child, got interested in psychology among other things, started reading both popular and medical literature about it, started to notice that the things I was reading about psychology and mental diseases didn't really line up with the things I and people I knew experienced and heard when actually interacting with doctors and psychologists, and finally and only around about the age of 19 did I become aware that 'antipsych' is in fact a legitimate position that other people had come up with before me, and at that point I started to read things that you might be referring to here as being written 'through an antipsych lens.'

so, when I hear a question like this, ie one that presumes there is some contradiction between anti-psychiatric political commitments and the existing psychiatric literature, it suggests to me that you haven't really read the literature in question—where by 'read' I mean you need to actually look at the paper's methodology, and look at the process of knowledge-making that yields a sentence like "ADHD has genetic etiology." that's an empirical claim. evaluating whether it's true necessarily involves asking what evidence the person making the claim is offering. there are specific skills and strategies for doing this when you are a layperson dealing with specialised scientific literature; there is also a fundamental critical attitude you should adopt with regards to literally any claim, argument, discourse, article, etc.

it is always a good thing to recognise when you're in over your head and need help or further reading to understand a statistical method, piece of jargon, etc. but you do kind of have to, like, approach the issue with a fundamental attitude that just because someone said something in a scientific journal doesn't make it beyond reproach! read the claims, read the evidence, ask yourself if it makes sense. this isn't some rhetorical game of "I'm going to prove antipsych right"—the 'antipsych' is the loose umbrella term you are called when you actually read the psychiatric literature and critique the discipline's fundamental epistemological failures and disciplinary raison d'être. the horse draws the cart!

wrt 'genetic causes of psychiatric diseases' you also need to understand that many of you are tilting at windmills. I've never said genes don't have an effect on our affective and emotional lives. plainly, they do. this is not the same as "there is a distinct specific Pathology expressed in these genes; they are diseased and/or defective and this is why you feel miserable / cannot function / cannot go to work." like, we see these are two different statements, yes? if all we mean by ADHD is "a list of general behavioural dispositions" then yeah, of course those have genetic influences in addition to environmental ones. everything about us does. that does not mean that ADHD, the distinct and discrete clinical entity that psychiatrists presume exists (on the grounds of their patients having xyz problems), is indeed a 'genetic condition' or instantiates as a genetic mutation / malformation / differential expression / etc. this paragraph is foreshadowing.

having looked at the genetics section of this particular study for about 20 minutes (open-access here if you don't feel like searching by DOI), here are some things that immediately caught my attention:

this is just a meta-analysis of ADHD research. its claims are only as good as the underlying studies. a meta-analysis of shitty studies that had bad methodology will not 'even out' their respective badness, it will just produce a shitty meta-analysis that is intrinsically hampered by the bad underlying methodology. I've discussed this here.

the very first assertion under the genetics section cites three twin studies; I followed those links. first of all, these are written for other scientists, so they don't make a particularly clear (to lay people) distinction between the scientific notion of 'heritability' and what this term is typically interpreted to mean in popular discourses. so, to be clear, 'heritability' is an estimate of how much a given trait is caused by genetic factors at a population level. it does not tell you anything about how much an individual's expression of that trait is genetically caused, nor does heritability necessarily indicate the genetic cause is direct or dependent on one (or even a small number of) genes.

indeed, all three of these studies, and the overarching meta-analysis, assert that this genetic etiology is due to a very large number of very small genetic influences. this is not inherently scientifically unsound, but it does raise my eyebrows. how would we distinguish between a distinct pathology that is caused by a huge tangle of very low-impact genes, vs a whole bunch of behaviours that are socially stigmatised and grouped together on political grounds, and that also have some relationship to genetics, as does literally every physiological fact of human existence?

these cite twin studies, meaning basically they try to use comparisons between genetically identical twins and various other familial relationships to determine how much of a given characteristic is genetically caused. again, though, this is essentially boiling down to the observation that closely genetically related people have similar personality traits; also, twin studies in general have serious methodological problems with profound implications for the invocation of genetics in psychiatry.

in fact, the meta-analysis here also claims that ADHD can sometimes be due to "rare single gene defects" or chromosomal abnormalities. the study cited on the gene claim, for example, is also cited in the claim above, so I've already looked at it. the methodology here is to look at prevalence of ADHD among populations with certain known genetic conditions—that's it. now can we think of any other reasons why people diagnosed with one thing might also be diagnosed with another? for example, they're already in contact with the medical system. they have enough financial resources to seek diagnoses. symptoms of chronic pain & illness often manifest with attention disturbances. etc.

even if that were better founded, the claim they're making themselves here is that ADHD in fact has numerous genetic causes, all manifesting as the same behaviours and psychological disturbances. it's almost like those manifestations are not a single distinct pathology, but a group of 'signs' the clinician lumps together into a single diagnostic box regardless of whence they arise. hold that thought.

incidentally, that study also notes that initial heritability estimates for ADHD were much lower than what's cited now, and blames this on inaccurate self-assessment results, claiming the more recent studies using parent and teacher assessments of ADHD children are more accurate. of course, the actual diagnostic measure never became less 'subjective.' it's just that we trust it more if it's a parent reporting that their kids are all super ADHD than if it's the kid actually reporting their own experiences. because there certainly aren't any historical reasons why parents have felt the need to cling to the notion of a neurobiological, genetically determined distinct ADHD pathology!

similarly, numerous of these linked studies say that 'sub-threshold ADHD' (read: the behaviours considered to be ADHD symptoms, but at lower severity than clinicians have considered diagnosable) show the same genetic causal links—heritability. now that's also curious, no? almost like ADHD is not a discrete distinct genetically caused pathology, but a bunch of traits and behaviours that, like literally every human characteristic, have some genetic as well as environmental influence, and that are artificially grouped together under psychiatric taxa and presumed to be due to an underlying physical (genetic) defect.

indeed, what I'm laying out here is just the basic circularity that underlies all psychiatric diagnosis: we know you are X because you do Y, which you do because you are X, which we know because you showed up to the clinic and told us you do Y. I unpacked this logic in more detail here.

finally, and this bears pulling out from the list because it's important, multiple of these studies are claiming that they have identified general genetic risk factors for a broad variety of psychopathologies (example here). in other words, the claim is not even really that ADHD has specific genetic causes, but that some as-yet-unspecified genetic factor/s are generally responsible for what are diagnosed as mental diseases. how do we know that unspecified higher-order genetic factor exists? well, we don't. but we assume it's there. the same way we did for the 'general intelligence factor,' g, which by the way is entirely racist nonsense.

you may notice that basically all I've said here amounts to accusing psychiatry of failing to meet basic standards of empirical proof generally considered to be load-bearing elements of the 'scientific method.' this is not even really an 'antipsych' argument—it's, at best, a critique of psychiatry as it currently exists, using (in a locally uncritical way!) established standards of scientific discourse. I'm pointing this out both because it's an extremely valuable habit to get into yourself, and because I once again would love it if more people understood that 'antipsych' isn't really a prior theoretical commitment most of us just stumble into. it's a position we actively have to seek out, and often, what prompts us to begin doing that is precisely the experience of noticing problems like the above, and the corresponding utter failure of the psychiatric discipline to rectify such problems without nullifying its own epistemological foundations.

[mofsblog]

Defending Ending 2

Okay I've seen a lot of discourse around the "True Ending" of Clinical Trial and I just wanted to give my take on it. Spoilers under the cut

I know a lot of people didn't like Ending 2's light and happier tone and it being the True Ending and felt like it absolved Lee of any consequences and just put Angel in a dangerous shitty position, isolated with a murderer and argue that it goes against the whole point of the game… But I just really don't view it like that. To me, Ending 2 reinforces some of the game's central themes surrounding consent, neurodivergency and societal neglect.

While I do think Lee can be manipulative (ESPECIALLY in the Reject route) and consistently hides things from Angel, I do think the Accept route that leads into Ending 2/the True Ending is a product of Angel's own anatomy as much as Ending 1 is. While Angel chooses to forgive him initally for the shrine thing, they don't dismiss or downplay what he did either. While they do display some unhealthy thought patterns (the idea that they never thought someone would ever pay so much attention to them <- which is a belief absolutely fueled by self hatred) that could contribute to their forgiveness, they don't let that blind them from the inherent fucked upness of what Lee's done. This isn't a "Wow, you did nothing wrong. Let's date!" situation. It's a "You fucked up and you hurt me but I'm willing to give you another chance, if you change for the better" situation.

Same thing with the revelation of the murder. Angel does not downplay how upset they are to appease him. Even when they acknowledge Lee killing Brandon probably prevented him from harming future victims as he's a repeated offender who likely wouldn't stop, Angel still acknowledge that Lee didn't know that when he killed him. Angel is consistently able to voice their grievances with him and call him out on the wrongness of his actions, which is why I feel pretty comfortable stating that Lee and Angel's relationship, no matter how fucked up, toxic or unhealthy, is not an abusive one because Angel is always able to voice their issues with him and he is more than willing to listen.

The player, and by extension, Angel is also explicitly given the choice on whether or not to forgive him with both revelations (I especially like that Angel's given the choice to basically back out of the relationship, even after they accept the shrine thing, after the murder reveal), highlighting their agency. Yes, you can absolutely argue that Angel's decision to forgive Lee twice is likely influenced by their loneliness and need for connection and that does make their relationship a bit unhealthy (and interesting/hj) but again I don't think it's abusive.

I also want to point out that even if the Accept route, Angel gives Lee conditions. They don't just accept him willy-nilly. They want him to actually listen to them.

I think that Angel's ultimate decision to forgive Lee isn't just to date him, it's to give him another chance at becoming a better, more rounded person. A large part of the whole game is about how society (the education system and the medical system) tends to fail neurodivergent people, especially those most in need of help. Angel and Lee literally bond over their different experiences of neurodivergency (or implied neurodivergency on Lee's end) and how ultimately society failed both of them (with neither of them managing to succeed in ways they wanted because the system wasn't built for people like them).

There's also the prevalent mentions and implications of past punishments that we can observe through some of Lee's dialogue. He's canonically an ex Mormon, who was probably consistently punished (and abused) for any wrongdoing (some of which we can assume could come down to traits of his neurodivergency as it's not too uncommon for autistic children to get misunderstood and mistreated). Similarly, we know that Angel was put some level of physical abuse and mistreatment by their school in an attempt to "correct" their left handedness and even then it's implied that's only one example of them being abused by the education system.

Both Lee and Angel know what it's like to be punished and hurt after displaying a 'weakness' or a mistake. They've both been hurt by the notion that punishment is necessary to improve a person, which is why I find the Accept route so powerful. I've seen a lot of people complain that Lee doesn't go to jail or face "tangible" consequences but the way I see it, prison would make him worse and remove any chance he has of healing. While fucked up, illegal and his fault, his actions are still partially a product of his upbringing and the lack of support and therapy for him. He specifically mentions that he never went to therapy so he could get his job. Lee is partially the product of an unaccomodating society as much as Angel is. (Also I could go on for hours about how his Mormon upbringing probably skewed his entire view on how relationships are supposed to function and probably made him think love has to be in the form of devotion)

The way I interpreted it. Angel wasn't coerced into staying with a dangerous, harmful person. Angel sees parts of themselves in Lee and is giving Lee a chance neither of them were ever given in a life. They're creating a new life together where mistakes and fuck ups aren't instantly met with punishment or harm. Yes, Lee fucked up horrendously, violating their trust and ignored their wishes but they're both willing to acknowledge that and work on it because maybe for once, one of them's allowed to fucked up without facing an abusive 'punishment' afterwards. Maybe for once, one of them's allowed to fuck up and be given room to grow and improve. And maybe for once, Angel gets to choose how they want their life to go.

No, most people probably wouldn't have made the same choices as Angel but its still their decision to make. Yes, it's likely influenced by their pre existing loneliness and trauma. Yes, Lee would have to put a lot of work in to change himself and that will take time and there's likely some unhealthy beliefs he'll always struggle with. Yes, Lee and Angel's relationship is far from conventional or completely healthy, but fuck man, I think they're giving eachother room to figure it out together and idk, there's something beautiful about that to me.

They're both very mentally ill but they're trying and there's something about that that I find oddly comforting. Most media with the yandere trope never really provide the option for the yandere character to actually try to reflect on their actions and maybe learn better ways to cope and honestly I was so sure that both endings would involve someone dying in some way because these types of stories don't tend to go well. Usually, after a certain point, a character's just framed as "too" far gone, "too" mentally ill, "too" fucked up and beyond saving and they usually die a tragic or poetic death (i.e like Ending 1). But Angel looks at Lee and his actions and decides fuck it and to say no to that. They make the choice to give Lee another chance any way after what he's done because they don't see him as irredeemable. I just really like the way they both get to live in the end and make a better life together and what that says about neurodivergent and mentally ill people.

[ismellpestilence]

The Todd in the Shadows video isn't nearly as polished as Hbomberguy's, but it's so essential for folks like myself who have watched and absorbed James Somerton's misinformation.

I used to watch his videos in the background because hey, I like queer stuff and film analysis. It was the pandemic. I needed something to fill my time. I stopped watching a while back because I got the impression that I could guess what he was going to talk about from the title and thumbnail. I don't need to learn how the Owl House was mistreated by Disney when I was there and saw it happen in real time.

But the fact that I stopped watching ages ago doesn't fix the big problem, which is that this guy spread misinformation and I absorbed it. It's been years, and I remembered what he said anymore. That misinformation is in my brain whether I like it or not. Other's have pointed out that this explains why queer internet discourse is so rancid; this guy has spent the last 6 years giving fake queer history to thousands of viewers. I don't want to spread more of those lies because I can't remember where I heard them from.

Hence the necessity of the video debunking his misinformation. Everyone who has watched his stuff needs a way to clear the gunk from their brains.

[annabelle--cane]

i wasn’t here when tma reached the height of its popularity (i only joined last year) so could you describe the Vibes (how bad the drama was, did it feel like there were too many people, etc.)

only if you want to :]

I've said this before, so this may be a familiar spiel to longer term followers, but 2020 tma fandom was honestly not the worst fandom I've ever been in, it was just by far the biggest thing I have ever been actively into at peak popularity and so the 1% of insane people that are found in every fan space were 1% of a much bigger total population. most people were fine and chill, but there were a vocal minority who Weren't.

major ingredients in the discourse pot:

from my observations, tma had a small but devoted listener base for its first few years, then it got a little bump in mid 2018, then a considerable bump in late 2019, then hit proper virality in early 2020, so there were a lot of people with hipster complexes about being Real Fans who were there first and weren't just part of the masses.

at this point I'm not even sure if this part was true, but the above was compounded by the perception that the earlier og listener base were mostly adults and the new wave of fans were mostly tweens and teens. whether the different waves actually fell along those age lines or not, a lot of people felt like the fandom was split into 80% Cringe Zoomers Who Are Here For Ships And Memes and 20% Millennials and Gen X'ers With Media Literacy Who Are Here For Horror. nice dichotomy, idiot, now what lies outside it, etc and such and such. our blessed fandom etiquette vs their barbarous dni lists.

which isn't to say that suddenly having a huge number of people, including young people, become interested in a single piece of media at a time of global stress where everyone had to be much more online and the content of the media itself was at its darkest and most socially relevant had no downsides. oh no. Oh No.

"my headcanon is not only objectively the best headcanon but it actually invalidates all of yours and if you hc something different then it's an act of bigotry against my Correct Headcanon." / "I have drawn up a list of Good Characters you have to like and aren't allowed to criticize and a list of Bad Characters you have to hate and can't acknowledge exist unless it's to make fun of and completely condemn them." / "I saw her username in the kudos of a jonelias fic" "girl what were YOU doing in the kudos of a jonelias fic" / "this latest episode handled a social issue unforgivably badly, I haven't experienced it myself but the vibes were off, everyone demand accountability and boycott the rest of the show" "hey that one was actually based on jonny's personal experiences" "ah fuck not again. well boys let's remember this for next time. this latest epis--"

honestly most of the discourse was down to like two or three friend groups. there was one group of people who you will probably remember if you were there at the time whom I have sometimes seen referred to as the Clown Gang. Clown Gang were ground zero for a good 90% of fan discourse ("hcing melanie as ace is ableist and lesbophobic" "fan content that focuses on jon's asexuality is biphobic. what's pansexuality I've never heard of it." "desolation tim aus are inherently ableist and racist"), but eventually they had a big falling out with Clown Prime and things calmed down. to be very clear I hold no ill will towards any of these people for four year old bad takes, hence why I'm not using any names, but god was it a time.

and this is only about the tumblr side of things. I was barely active of twitter so idk what it was like there but I was on tiktok for about a year during that time and the vibes were wildly different. iirc people there were less confrontational and there wasn't really a callout culture like on tumblr, but the extremes of the takes were FAR worse.

[crimeronan]

musing on horror fiction and disability.

i've seen a lot of interesting discussion recently on whether or not disability horror is Okay (TM). the most common conclusion (from people who, like, care about ableism) is that disabled protags should Exist, but their disability shouldn't be the source of the horror, and should perhaps even help them survive. and there's been a lot of good horror fiction written around this specific concept!

it's a pretty sensible starting point because, like. disability Actually Exists. you don't want to write a story where the point is to gawk at an actual subsection of your readers n go "wow, GOD, that would suck!! how scary!! so glad it's not me!! okay byeeee"

On The Other Hand, though. when i write horror, i DEFINITELY plot using chronic illness and other disability-related stuff as a key source. so i'm musing on that.

people who already Know my horror work are gonna say "yeah, because you're writing from experience!! so you do it Right!!"

and if we're gonna set Rules (TM) on what narratives are or aren't done "right," then... yeah, i agree. i know what i'm doing and i will not stop doing it anytime soon, regardless of where the Discourse (TM) falls. but i'm trying to figure out what, specifically, makes it Right. you know??

so.

i think some of it is about knowing Why the thing is scary. the Why is what makes horror effective in the first place, anyway! if you know the Why, then you can lean into & manipulate your audience's feelings!

and sometimes the Why is just. shitty.

like, psycho is scary because crazy men in dresses with DID might kill you in the shower. split is scary for similar reasons. i'm trying to remember bad horror about physical disabilities but my mind is protecting me. let's just say, like, the whole subgenre about haunted hospitals with scary disabled patients. the PATIENTS are going to hurt you??? the PATIENTS??!!?!

but the Why re: disability isn't Always othering or cruel or inaccurate, imo.

sometimes being sick Is Scary. not gonna get too deep into it here, but like. it just is. it just fuckin' is. it's scary both internally and externally. the loss of control is scary. the loss of ability itself is scary; the consequences for that loss of ability are also scary. the loss of autonomy is scary. it's scary when doctors don't know what's wrong, and it's scary when they do. it's scary to undergo treatment, and it's scary not to have access to treatment. it's scary not to know what the future holds. it's all fucking scary!!

so like. the "why" in "why is it scary," for me at least, often boils down to "because it is Real."

disability is coming for everyone who's blessed with old age. disability is coming for a wide swath of much younger people, too. it is happening. that's a scary thing for people to reckon with on a personal level, and so it just seems sensible to me for this to crop up in horror.

what is scary about being sick?? take your pick. but for the love of god, ground it in truth.

then the Other thing is: i think you Have to know your audience. and i think you Have to assume a good portion of your audience Will share the disability in question.

i write my horror FOR chronically ill people. i don't really care about anyone else or anybody else's opinions.

and that's part of why stuff like psycho sucks -- the othering. the takeaway is "people like you are frightening and dangerous." another example that's not actually horror, but which Does hurt my feelings, is a little life by hanya yanagihara -- that book is engineered to tell all the disabled rape victims in the audience that the only sensible course for their lives is suicide.

but then, like. the episodes of the magnus archives dealing with hospitals and psychosis and addiction are Fucking Brilliant. because they're taking the Very Real Horror of those Very Real Experiences and telling the audience, "no, you're not crazy. that was fucked up. it was fucked up that it happened and it's fucked up that it still happens and you are right to feel violated. that's the horror here"

and like. that is!! SUCH an enormous comfort!! at least for some of us!!

so. i write about how being sick is fucked up. and i do it for the people who want someone to tell them, yeah, it sucks, it hurts, and it's fucked up.

not everybody wants this! many disabled people want The Exact Opposite of this in their horror stories. which is why the "disabled horror protag beats the slasher villain to death with their prosthetic leg" stuff rocks.

but different people want different things from their fiction.

for example, on a purely personal level, i can't Stand fluffy escapist fiction about no-ableism worlds where the disabled protags are all perfectly cared for n happy. it just makes me unhappy and upset about the world i'm currently living in.

but that specific genre is a lifeline for other people!!

so. anyway.

i don't know if any of this makes sense.

i will conclude by saying that i'm remembering something hank green said about how he only takes cancer advice from fellow cancer patients. his example was that if someone tells them weed helped with their chemo pain, he's like, thank you, that's great to know!! but if someone tells him to do weed for cancer bc they're.... just a stoner.... then he's like, "uh.... i do not care."

in that vein, i always always Always find it really valuable to hear from other people with the same kind of autoimmune diseases and degenerative illnesses i have/write -- those perspectives on horror/representation/visibility are Wonderful. (even when disagreeing with me!)

but if people's feedback amounts to "well, being sick Doesn't suck for me, so you should be more careful about writing sickness that sucks"

.....i'm like. well. i.... don't think this conversation is about you. i don't think i was talking to you.

maybe sometimes what's scary is being told you're hurting your own community by having. the Wrong Feelings.

[windvexer]

Lukewarm take: If you want to get good at practical sorcery, you're probably going to have to do a lot of magic you don't need to do, just for the sake of practice

I do not like or support the idea that ~all~ witches are supposed to be spiritual bodybuilders who are ~supposed~ to do daily training drills.

But some people really would like to really practice certain skills related to witchcraft (as in, habitually engage with a skill for the purpose of improvement).

I'm really into sorcery, and every time I bring up the idea that to get good at it you should practice it, I feel like someone always ends up saying, "but I don't need anything."

IMO there is a very unhelpful vibe when it comes to ""practice discourse"" where it is assumed that if you don't need something, then it isn't useful to practice it.

Case in point, cleansing!

A lot of people say that you don't really need to cleanse things, not even spiritual tools; that it's a handy skill to have if you need it, but it's not necessary.

My point isn't whether or not you really need to cleanse things.

My point is the practice that cleansing can bring!

Cleanse a hundred objects, and you have a hundred more interactions with magic under your belt.

Depending on the method of cleansing you're doing, you've enchanted a hundred dishes of salt water, a hundred sticks of incense, said a hundred charms.

You've engaged your willpower and magical mind a hundred times.

You have a hundred more experiences with how working with that energy, or that correspondence, or that charm affects you; how it leaves you feeling; how it leaves the object feeling.

Imagine how effective a charm might begin to be if you use it a hundred times. Imagine the experience you might gain using ten different cleansing methods ten times each.

You've got a lot more experience with objects before and after they've been worked over.

A person who does a hundred cleansings may not begin to develop an innate sense for the spiritual grime that can accumulate in the world around us, but I imagine they'd be a lot more likely to than someone who doesn't cleanse at all.

The thing with magic is that (IMO) you can never just practice one thing at a time. If you practice cleansing, you may also be practicing enchantment, energy work, psychism, petitioning, and so forth (again, depending on your methods).

And when the time comes to cast, idk, a prosperity spell, I would put my money on a guy who has only been cleansing because he had nothing better to do, than someone who hasn't been practicing any magic at all in the same timespan.

It goes for anything. A hundred energized little rocks to change the mood of a room. A hundred bits of string to tie up an annoyance.

Maybe you don't NEED an annoyance tied up.

But if you WANT to practice magic, then what does it matter what the magic is for?

[stillness-in-green]

Some thoughts on The Discourse about the last BNHA cover

(Note: This Discourse was on Twitter. I don’t know how much of this may have been said here on Tumblr, so consider this either my contribution or just me reporting back on drama from other fronts.)

So, I saw a lot of back and forth over there between people who didn’t like the cover and people who did, and I spent a little while mulling it over. It seemed to me that the people who didn’t like it had a good point, but one they were not articulating particularly well, possibly thanks to the character limit and possibly also because the people talking about it tended to phrase their objections in sarcastic, consciously exaggerated terms because that’s the language months and months of dealing with the truly insufferable Horikoshi Defense Squad on Twitter primed them to use.

So what is the point?  Basically this: In going for the lazy/easy callback in both the cover design and Dai (plate-hair kid)'s role in the final chapter more generally, Horikoshi landed on an "everything comes full circle" ending when what the story desperately needed was an indicator of change.

We didn't need to know that a kid with low self-confidence and nothing to speak of in the quirk department can still become a Pro Hero if he[1] wants to.  We already knew that because it's what the whole story of BNHA was about!  Deku passing the torch/paying it forward is nice if all you care about is Deku's personal arc, but it's sheer reductiveness if you care about literally anything else.  If there was going to be a kid getting Deku's encouragement and help at the end, if that's the ending Hori was absolutely set on, it shouldn't have been the Deku Redux kid; it shouldn't have been the weak kid who has already been metaphorically proven capable of becoming a Hero.

1: And of course it would be a boy.

It should have been the troubled kid, the one from the bad family situation, the one who isn't sure whether he even believes in this Hero thing.  It should have been the kid who, if nothing about Hero Society had changed, would’ve been rejected by the whole corrupt system—in so many words, the Tenko Redux kid.  That's the one who we saw could not become a Hero under the previous system.  That's who we needed to demonstrate the system's improvement.

Instead, all we get is Deku helping himself.  And it fits, I guess, because “himself” is the only sort of person Deku ever wanted to save anyway—remember that in the very first chapter, Deku tells All Might that he wants to be a Hero because he was never “saved” as a kid and so he thinks saving is the coolest thing ever.  Implicitly, then, Deku wanted to be the kind of Hero who could have saved the kid he was, and that tendency to reserve his compassion for people he can recognize himself in—the crying children and the Hero wannabes—is consistent throughout the series.  Dai, then, simply becomes the very last of these examples, the chance for Deku to tell his middle school self that he, too, can be a great Hero.

And that’s quite a choice, isn’t it?  Take a second to consider the implications there. The metaphorical parallel Deku helps is his middle school self, not his childhood self—there’s no evidence that Dai was bullied on the same level young Izuku was, and we sure didn’t see anyone telling him to jump off a roof.  So, who does save those children, then, in this grand, improved version of Hero Society?  Does anyone?

Well, not really. Not that we’re shown. Indeed, the child who was the closest analogue to young Izuku—a weak and seemingly quirkless boy who stuck his neck out for other rejected children, who still stubbornly wanted to be a Hero despite a parent's disapproval—was Tenko, and Deku pointedly did not save him.

To be clear, I don’t mean that just in the sense that Deku failed to save the adult Tenko became, but even in the emotional sense that the series clearly wants me to believe Deku succeeded at, the saving of the boy's heart? I don’t think Deku even managed that.  Sure, he might have protected the echo of that child from a few memories, might have held his hands for a few exchanges of dialogue, but then the boy transformed back into the form of the Villain he'd become and was swallowed down the spiritual maw of the man from whom society failed to save Tenko to begin with! And what was Deku doing as this happened? Absolutely nothing but yelling impotently as he got blown backward and out of the mindscape.

Imagine that Deku had found some way to cheer up Izumi Kouta only for Muscular to kill the kid thirty seconds later.  No one would be saying, “I think Deku still saved him—his heart, anyway,” if Deku got Kouta to smile and admit that Heroes were actually pretty cool only to do nothing but scream helplessly as he watched Muscular pulverize Kouta’s ribcage with one gentle squeeze.[2]

2: Mind you, this comparison is flawed!  Unlike AFO’s vestige, Muscular doesn’t turn up to kill a child as a direct result of Deku’s own actions. Also unlike the events of the final battle, Deku doesn't jump up and personally administer the killing blow to the still-screaming victim, either.

It just leaves me thinking about some of the stuff @codenamesazanka has said about how the narrative treats Shigaraki and Deku helping him: not as something Deku has a duty to do, not something Hero Society on the whole owes Shigaraki (and all the other metaphorical expy/future Shigarakis), but rather a bonus, a nice extra, a demonstration to shine up Deku's Hero cred because he's making efforts no one else would bother with and that no one would reasonably expect him to make. It's not Deku’s job to save the Tenkos or the young Izukus of the world; apparently that just falls to society at large.

So then, what was the point of making Tenko/Tomura such an extreme case of someone who started in a similar place to Deku?  Why make him, also, a weak kid who was told he couldn't be a Hero, if you're not going to have Deku save him in the way no one saved Deku himself?

From where I'm sitting, the answer is, "It seemed like a good idea to Horikoshi at the time, but proved to be poorly thought out."  But if Deku failing to save his own closest childhood analogue was where the story was going the whole time, then Shigaraki should never have been used to parallel Deku to begin with.  It's just a damned waste of Shigaraki as a character, an insult to everything he represented, to use him for ~the parallels~ throughout the entirety of the story except the very beginning and the very end.

Anyway, Pro Heroes are bullshit and the ending should have been them being radically reconceived from the ground up with input from all the people they failed to save.  But again, if you have to still have Heroes-qua-Heroes at the end, and you have to have some stupid thematic echo because you as an author think callbacks are the single most compelling storytelling tool of all time, then everything we got on Dai should have been for Scissors-kun instead, and here I am very much including Dai's scene before the first war. An unsettling scene of a strange child with his mouth sewn shut, stuck in a straitjacket in a dark room should have been the last thing we saw before launching into the day of the raids, an apparent element for the future in the same way that so many future Villains were first shown in the wake of Stain's arrest.

See, Shigaraki’s own destructiveness is what ultimately frees Scissors-kun from the basement, “saving” this rejected, abused child in a way no Hero ever managed or even knew to try, just as Shigaraki brought light and a strange sort of hope to the lives of so many others whom Heroes failed.  However, Shigaraki couldn't carry his ambitions through to the end. He was never able to meet the kid he indirectly saved, never able to offer that appallingly abused victim an avenue for his signature brand of rough justice. Heroes stopped him from doing so. So then, who will help Scissors-kun?

If we’re to believe that the story's protagonist has made a real difference, that Deku and his classmates have changed the world for the better, then we don't need to see them helping a kid who we already know is going to turn out fine because “he” aleady did. We need to see them help the people that previously only Villains would have helped, picking up the torch they struck from Shigaraki’s hands.

So sure, keep the scene with Granny Evil and Scissors-kun if you must, to show that it’s not only Heroes but also the broader Hero Society that’s changed. After that, though, show Deku stepping in.  Show him taking an interest in this kid as a way to keep his promises—to Shigaraki, that the rejection and obliviousness that he sought to destroy have indeed been destroyed and will remain so, and to Spinner, that Deku will remember Shigaraki for the rest of his life. 

When Deku is older and in a position to give advice to a kid who’s floundering and uncertain of what to do with his life because of what people around him say about him, make that character echo the characters the old system failed to save, not the character who the entire story proved would do just fine.

For god's sake, ditch Deku Redux.

Now, I know the obvious rejoinder here: We can’t use Deku’s story to say that BNHA already showed us that Dai would be fine because Dai has a quirk where Deku did not, therefore Deku’s path would not be open to Dai.  To this, I would reply that neither Deku nor Dai specify that Dai wants/is able to be a top Hero, merely that he be the kind of Hero people can admire—which the story has also already proven true!

Ojiro got into UA with nothing but one (1) extra limb.

Manual has a perfectly middling quirk that turned out to be absolutely crucial in two different wars because it was the right quirk at the right time.

Wash’s quirk makes strong bubbles. 

Like, this list is not short.  Manifest Plates might or might not make Dai Hero Billboard material, but one of the major points of the endgame was the sublime and noble value of helping when you can, in the way that you can.  So to reiterate, we didn’t need that to be proven again in the epilogue.

If anything, going the route of retreading the same story makes the epilogue much worse! Not only do we not get to see how this society is helping the people the old society most profoundly failed—victims who fall through the cracks and become Villains—but in seeing yet another a weak kid being mocked for his heroic aspirations, we find that we’ve barely moved a step beyond the exact same place we started.

That’s the message Horikoshi chose to go with, for both the closing chapters of the story and the story’s final volume cover.  Truly, as art that summarizes the story goes, it’s a masterful choice!  And that's the whole problem. The cover of Volume 42 is a perfect illustration of the self-absorbed, cynical, cyclical nature of BNHA's endgame. Little wonder, then, that it's hated by the same people who hated said endgame.

[questions-about-blorbos]

With all the proship stances you've been making recently I just wanted to put my two cents in:

I feel like the reason proshipping gets the reputation it has is because of apps like tiktok where younger people hear a term, water it down to the absolute max and then apply it to nearly everything they dislike, and people make it way worse than it actually is

"Fiction affects reality" is the most used stance i see and to some degree they are right but. Holy moly two characters doing immoral things to eachother isn't gonna change the world, especially when its a situation where you can choose to see it or not

If you really don't wanna see that thing then block and move on, it isn't that hard

(For the record i am not an anti or a proshipper i think labels for ships are dumb: i mainly agree with everything you have said and I do not personally enjoy stuff like noncon or pedophilia in fiction, just to give you an idea)

to be fair, the “proship” and “anti ship” have been one of the most famous fandom discourses way before TikTok was even created.

and I believe that if people do terrible things in real life because of something they saw from a piece of media then chances are they were already troubled and they would have done those terrible things anyway whether or not they consumed that media, as @allthingswhumpyandangsty said before, people do bad things in real life because they are bad people. a movie, a tv show, a book or a fanfic doesn’t make someone do bad things.

no one starts murdering and eating people in real life because they like Hannibal. so the term “fiction affects reality” is a very weak stance because while fiction can affect reality, fiction alone isn’t going to make someone eat people in real life because that someone is a big fan of Hannibal. my point is, yes, fiction can affect reality. but it’s not going to affect reality to the point the entirety of people’s moral compass change. and if it does get to that point then the real issue would be that these people were already troubled. not because they watched a tv show where the main character is a cannibal.

also, yes, the block button is your friend. see something that makes you uncomfortable? that’s what the block button is for. harassing people for liking fictional things you hate just makes you a shitty person in general who values the lives of fictional characters who are not real over the lives of real people.

[patientreflections]

The results are in....

and it's an interesting case study to say the least. I’m not someone who usually comments on celebrity rollouts, but the way this particular one played out caught my attention more so than usual. Not because of the relationship itself, but because of how it was presented—and how quickly it became clear that it didn’t land as I assume was intended. I found myself this week asking, "what was the point?" To clarify, I do think Luke and Antonia are genuinely together. If this were a PR relationship, it’s not a particularly strategic one. By all accounts PR relationships are grounded in both parties seeing a mutual benefit to the alliance. This rollout however hasn’t been smooth, the timing is strange, and the whole thing feels awkwardly executed. The problem here isn’t whether it’s real. The problem is that it doesn’t work—at least not in the eyes of the public. What stood out first was the rollout’s uneven pacing. It began with solo red carpet photos at the British Vogue x Netflix party—no official couple shot, just quiet proximity. Then, the next day, came more affectionate footage and behind-the-scenes images. Luke’s own grid post included a cheeky couple photo, but buried behind a solo cover shot. At the BAFTAs, a joint photo was taken at the entrance but not on the official step and repeat. The early signals felt cautious, almost noncommittal. Then suddenly, the switch flipped: a full-scale post-BAFTAs press push—major entertainment headlines, a stylized couple photoshoot, digital articles, the works. It went from soft launch to shouting in 24 hours, all seemingly to benefit Antonia. And then…poof, nothing. No follow-up. No echo. Just a sharp drop-off that made the silence louder than the reveal itself. Usually, after a media blast like that, you'd expect at least 48-72 hours of natural pickup— fashion commentary, snippets in entertainment news, curious discourse online.  But a quick trends search shows the coverage hit a wall and then a steep decline. No legs, no staying power. That kind of silence tells you everything. The audience just didn’t care enough to keep the story alive.

It doesn’t help that there’s no clear narrative around them. No shared project, no compelling reason for the timing, no personal reveal or milestone that gives this rollout structure. And critically, there was no existing foundation of goodwill to support it. A quick yet enlightening 10 minute google search showed me that Antonia came into this with complicated baggage among parts of the Bridgerton fanbase. Luke, meanwhile, has been publicly adrift for a while—present but not exactly engaging. In the midst of a rebrand of his image, which from what I can tell isn't exactly hitting the mark either. When neither person is holding strong favor with general audiences, a joint push like this is risky. And we’re seeing why. That context makes the hard numbers more meaningful. One week post press launch and Antonia’s Instagram gained just under 200 new followers. That’s not slow growth—that’s a near flatline. As for Luke’s numbers, they are moving in the opposite direction entirely, with noticeable drops on days with heavier media activity associated with this joint press push. For someone with over 2 million followers, the loss isn’t huge—but the pattern matters. In PR, it’s not just about the raw numbers—it’s about trajectory. Luke has been steadily losing followers for close to near a year now. That kind of long-tail decline tells you something about public sentiment. And unless there’s a clear pivot—something that injects likability, surprise, or career momentum—it becomes very difficult to shift that narrative back in a positive direction. At the heart of it, this isn’t even about how “liked” or “disliked” they are. It’s about the absence of emotional connection. There’s a lack of charisma in how they’re presenting themselves. The affection feels performed rather than natural—and even if you are one of the many casual viewers like myself, you can sense it. There's no spark, no softness, no sense that the moments being shared between them are actually for each other rather than for the camera. With Antonia, that pattern shows up in nearly everything she shares online. Every aspect of what’s posted —her outfits, her captions, even the way she moves through a red carpet—feels like it’s being filtered through a performance lens. There’s always a knowing glance to the camera, always a pose, never a moment that feels unguarded or instinctive. Her Instagram presence is heavily Gen Z-coded: trend-driven, aesthetic over substance, and largely without a clear persona or unique point of view. So when she’s suddenly styled beside Luke to evoke a kind of “polished elegance”—reserved, tasteful—it doesn’t land as aspirational. It lands as calculated. I’m sure that in person Antonia is lovely, but I get the sense she’s been studying what it means to be “seen,” more-so than knowing what she actually wants to say.  As for Luke, this past weekends events came across as someone familiar yet completely unknown at the same time. Like a man wearing an ill fitting suit designed by Hollywoods expectations of him vs. someone genuinely forging his own path. The disconnect is visibly noticeable.

In publicity, you can’t manufacture a moment unless people want to buy into it. The audience has to feel something—curiosity, warmth, joy, even drama but it also has to be rooted in authenticity. When everything feels staged, and there’s no real emotion underneath the aesthetics, people simply move on. That’s the danger of trying to perform visibility without substance. You can dress it up in a pretty dress, pair it with a leading man, and frame it on a red carpet —but if there’s no real person underneath for the public to connect to, it just doesn’t stick.

So where do they go from here? From my experience, they've got two choices: 1. At first you don’t succeed, try again…and hope for the best 2. Accept that what might work behind closed doors just doesn’t translate publicly—and forcing it into the spotlight won’t fix that. Whether it’s working privately is anyone’s guess. But whatever it is, putting it on display isn’t helping either one of them. 

[shadow-redferne]

Proship vs Anti Discourse is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

(PT: Proship vs Anti Discourse is Why We Can't Have Nice Things) (Trigger warning: This post discusses multiple sensitive topics, including abuse, bullying, bigotry and suicide. Reader discretion *heavily* advised)

I've finally gotten around to this post and I'll admit I can already smell the hostility. Just some disclaimers: This post isn't me commenting on the morality of certain media or ships, nor is it me commenting on whether or not fiction affects reality. This is only to talk about the damage this kind of discourse has done to fandom. I am going to warn you: This is *not* a post full of kindness. I am not going to be nice. This post is going to be a bit mean. No. Very mean. Sorry about that. So, TL;DR: Both sides have a harassment problem, and neither side wants to address the issues their communities have, leading to fandom becoming an unsafe environment. So uh, I don't think I need to write a witty introduction here. The current state of fandom is rancid. Harassment has become a giant fucking problem lately. So what's the problem? The problem lies in one thing: 'Proship' vs 'Antiship' discourse.

"Shadow, what the fuck do those words mean?" Proship used to mean that you supported all ships, all forms of fiction, and that you were against harassing anyone who was involved in fandom, as well as against censorship. 'Anti', or 'antiship', meant that you were against some forms of fiction and shipping, mainly ones involving minors or incest. Now you might've noticed that I used the phrase "used to" and the word "meant". That's because both terms kinda got new definitions and became buzzwords, with proship turning into a synonym for 'problematic shipper' (the term 'darkship' eventually came around to distinguish the two apart from my understanding, but uh...as you can see it hasn't helped much!). On top of that, people use the word 'proship' as a verb or type of content rather than an actual stance (ie. 'proshipping', 'proship content', 'proship artstyle', you get the idea). However that's not the main point here. Let's cut to the chase now; both sides fucking hate each other; we'll make that clear, with both sides throwing vile accusations towards one another. However, the more I looked into the swamp, the more distrust I gained for both sides. Something was bothering me, but what? I tried to do a survey; two of them in fact, to see which side was more hostile. Unfortunately, neither survey gave me a lot of useful results, considering I got very little responses from the anti side (So uh, thanks for nothing on that end guys. /nm). The written responses did give one common theme: Fandom has a problem. A problem with harassment, bullying, creeps and bigotry. The antis are particularly horrible when it comes to this. I'm going to start this off by saying that I actually used to consider myself an 'anti' due to my discomfort with noncon and incest. And unfortunately, I was pretty fucking hostile to others (although I never sent death threats, fuck anyone who does that shit). I eventually stopped associating with the 'anti' side when I saw how rampant the ableism was- more on that later. 'Antis' have caused severe harm to fandom, and I don't really understand how anyone can deny that. However, I am pretty fucking tired of everyone pretending that the 'proship' side is the good side. I know the 'proship' side isn't going to like hearing this, but it needs to be said: You guys are *just* as guilty as 'antis' when it comes to being toxic. And I'm not saying that because of the pro-incest stuff or the minor/adult pairings. I'm saying that many 'proshippers' are way too comfortable with being creepy towards others, and the community that claims to be 'anti-harassment'... isn't all that anti-harassment! Here are just some of the written responses I got from the survey:

Here's one alibi from an anonymous user who submitted to the @selfship-confession-box account (pls let me know if you dont want to be tagged)

Another anon that was submitted to the @proship-anti-discussion account

Lastly, here's some of the replies and reblogs to a post talking about an 'ex-proshipper' that left the community due to negative experiences (the OP of said post and the 'ex proshipper' in question did eventually apologize to each other, so I'll cut both of them some slack. I'm only showing the responses because holy fuck are they rancid).

So yeah. So much for the 'proship' community being "anti-harassment" and inclusive to SA and grooming survivors. Now, to the 'anti' side. I will say, the 'proshippers' got one thing right, and that's the fact that 'antis' very much fucking suck. And remember when I said that 'proshippers' were hypocrites? Well, 'antis' are also that. They talk so much about protecting "sa survivors" and how "proshippers are bigoted". But what do the written responses say about this?

and let's not forget *this*

I also want to bring up this comment about the term 'proship artstyle' that I thought was worth mentioning:

In other words... 'antis' aren't as great to hang around either! Now, there's one particular issue I really want to zero in on, and that's the rampant ableism from both sides. As one of the above written responses say, there is a huge problem of 'antis' and 'proshippers' misusing words like 'psychotic' and 'delusional'. The r-slur is also pretty rampant, I've noticed.

Still don't believe me? Okay. Here's a more recent example from an anonymous 'anti' I came across (ironically enough this came up when I searched "proship ableism". Also. fatphobia too? pick a struggle anon)

And that's not even getting into the amount of 'antis' who weaponize the saying "seek help" or "go to therapy". Now, let's go back to the terms supposed original meanings, particuarly the meaning for 'proshipper'. That term was supposed to mean that you were against censorship and harassing people for fiction and ships, and that you didn't judge people for liking certain ships. Meanwhile, 'antis' were supposedly about wanting to get rid of problematic media that could be harmful to minors and SA survivors. But it's time to be honest: Both sides have lost the plot. How am I supposed to believe either side is "anti-harassment" when neither side knows how to respect boundaries? How am I supposed to believe either side cares about SA survivors when you have both sides constantly speaking over said survivors and also harassing them? How am I supposed to believe either side cares about minors when there's been individuals on both sides, yes, including the so called "antis" that "care so much about protecting children uwu", that were outed as groomers? How am I supposed to believe either side is the good side when you have things like this happening:

The last thing I take issue with? The terms "proship" and "anti" as a whole, as well as every single similar term that's come out of this mess. While I do genuinely believe these terms were probably helpful in the past, it's clear that they're not doing any good whatsoever. Both terms have had their original meanings muddied and twisted to the point where they basically have no meaning at all, and the terms existing have created a massive "us vs them" mentality within fandom. There's also the issue of both sides forcing labels on others. I've seen posts that are all "if you believe x, congrats you're a proshipper!" or "if you believe y, you're an anti!". As well as anyone identifying as 'neutralship' (a label I also used to identify with before I stopped associating with these labels entirely) being called a "closet proshipper" or an "anti in disguise". Personally? If you have to force people to pick a side in order for you to trust them, I don't see why I should trust you. If you have to rely on labels like "proship", "anti", "anti-anti", "anti-harassment", "anti-censorship" to come across as a safe person or a good person, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to see you as a good person. You might be wondering why I included the "anti-harassment" and "anti-censorship" labels in that. Well, I'm going to be honest, and you are welcome to disagree with me on this, but I feel like these terms are so fucking unnecessary. Being "anti-harassment" and "anti-censorship" is the BARE FUCKING MINIMUM, a bare minimum that neither side can truly follow. Also, calling yourself "anti-harassment" doesn't automatically make me believe that. Especially when it's been proven time and time again that 'proshippers', the side believed to be 'anti-harassment', isn't all that 'anti-harassment' at all! Now I know what you're thinking at this point; you're thinking that I condone harassment because I'm going after both sides. You're thinking that I don't give a damn about the death threats that 'antis' have sent. No. No. No. That is not what I'm saying. And honestly, if *that's* the message you're getting, I don't know what to tell you.

So no, I'm not saying harassment is good or okay (and if that's the message you got from reading the above... I genuinely do not know what to tell you). I'm saying that you don't deserve a medal or a cookie for not sending death threats or being against people who send death threats, when it's literally the BARE MINIMUM. The bar is in fucking hell at this point. And as it's been shown, neither "proshippers" nor "antis" are truly anti-harassment. Me not liking 'proshippers' doesn't automatically mean I'm okay with sending them death threats, and me not liking 'antis' doesn't make me okay with abuse. And it sure as fucking hell doesn't mean that I don't care either. Because guess what? I do fucking care. It's why I'm fucking making this post in the first place. I shouldn't have to identify as "proship" or "anti" or any other labels to tell you that I care. Me refusing to use a label doesn't mean I'm apathetic to all the harm that's happened. And I sure as hell am not condoning harassment by refusing to hold hands with individuals who can't even bother to respect each other's boundaries. And honestly? If you interpret "I don't support proshippers *or* antis because they both made fandom toxic and unsafe" as "I condone sending death threats and rape threats", that's kind of on you. Here's a simple message I have for anyone who calls themselves "proship" or "antiship", and I am going to be especially mean here: Stop pretending to brand yourselves as the good guys when all you've done is break boundaries, talk over abuse survivors and marginalized groups. Stop being hypocrites, and actually address the issues within your goddamn communities. And stop downplaying said issues by saying "BUT THIS SIDE IS WORSE!" or "BUT THEY DO IT TOO!". Also, stop forcing people to use your dumb labels. Literally all of this could be fucking solved with using the block buttons or report buttons. There is no reason for this stupid fucking infighting. You don't have to like each other, fuck no, but quit dragging those who aren't involved into your messes and ruining fandom for everyone.

To "antis": Quit pretending to care about SA survivors and minors when you're the ones sending them death threats (And maybe address the fucking groomers within your community too, by the fucking way). To "proshippers": Stop being a dick to people who have had negative experiences with your community, stop ignoring the bigotry and stop letting in predators within your community. Now lastly, I know I said I wasn't going to comment on stances, but I do want to say this because it's also very much fucking bothering me. I hate how this discourse just boils down to either "Fiction DOESN'T affect reality at all, it's 100% okay to support ANY kind of media/ship/pairing no matter how problematic it is, and if you disagree with that you're a fascist!" or "Actually supporting ANY kind of media that's problematic and/or depicts so and so is BAD and if you support that you're a horrible human being! And if you disagree with me you're just as bad!" Have you guys perhaps, I don't know: Considered a fucking middle ground? Have you maybe considered nuanced discussions? How about that? Okay, I'm done being mean. In fact, I actually don't have much else to say so here's a video that talks about it a little more nicer than I do

*Sigh* I'm going to regret posting this, aren't I?

[anli-rambles]

Alright, since I'm seeing this discourse again on my dash, I'm gonna give my two cents even if no one asked.

I think the thing the "Haytham is a colonizer" crowd fundamentally gets wrong about this is that Haytham is a walking contradiction. That's the whole point of his character. His actions are in complete opposition to his actual core beliefs. Let me explain.

I'm not gonna excuse him working with racists and supporting an ideology that would essentially subjucate the entire human race in the name of arbitrary peace, because that's definitely colonizer mentality and that's inexcusable. Whether or not Haytham believes in the shit he says doesn't matter at the end of the day because the result is the same. That much is clear, and this isn't what I'm trying to justify.

The thing is, this same crowd will happily accuse those of us who like Haytham's character of actively sympathizing with colonizers. There are weirdos in every fandom so I'm not gonna deny that some may do that (in which case I do not claim them), but I can tell you that the majority of us don't. After lurking in this circle for over a year I can confidentally say that an overwhelming majority of us hate every Templar working for him except Shay, Weekes and Gist. The reason we like Haytham is, as I said before, because his core beliefs align with Assassin ideology way more than they do with Templar stuff.

The thing that bothers me the most about the "Haytham is a colonizer" crowd is that they have no interest in digging just a little deeper because if they did, they would see how glaringly obvious it is. Haytham hates the Templars. Everytime one of them does anything that follows Templar ideology, he deludes himself into believing they just "went Rogue" and executes them. He did it with Church. He did it with Braddock. He hated Washington's guts and wanted him dead when the guy embodied Templar ideals far more than anyone in his circle did. He did nothing to stop Ratonhnhaké:ton from killing Biddle even if he was on the Aquila with him at the time.

He had no interest in land expansion - in fact, his goal was to prevent it from happening. Unfortunately, he trusted Johnson with the task, and when the man decided mass execution was the way to go and subsequently got killed by Ratonhnhaké:ton, Haytham felt no empathy for him. In his journal, he even said Johnson asked for it by choosing mass murder of the Haudenosaunee chieftains because they refused to sell their land. His endorsement of Charles Lee is also a complete farce. He admits himself that Charles has very little chances of suplanting Washington because he's "too British" to appeal to the American settlers but that he'd rather work with him over Washington.

Hell, Haytham is the one who tells Ratonhnhaké:ton that Washington is a fraud who only cares about the freedom of white men specifically. He calls him out on it and he's furious. That's why he calls Ratonhnhaké:ton 'naive' - it's because Ratonhnhaké:ton fails to see how the people he works for give no shits about him and his people (and he isn't wrong on that, Ratonhnhaké:ton actually does believe supporting the Revolution will save his people up until then). He's not being patronizing here, his whole rant is in response to Ratonhnhaké:ton telling him Washington fights for freedom and that he was chosen by 'the people', when in reality 'the people' were a bunch of his buddies gathering in a room and going 'yup, Washington's our guy lads, case closed'. Ratonhnhaké:ton even admits that it's Haytham who made him realize this in the loading screen after the Sequence is over.

The whole reason Haytham doesn't defect from the Templar order is because the grooming/brainwashing runs too deep, and admitting that becoming a Templar wasn't his choice would be admitting that he failed to do the one thing his father wanted him to do - to choose for himself. So he deludes himself into believing that no, he did choose this way of life, even if he disagrees with pretty much everything the Templars stand for. And that's why he's easier to sympathize with.

I'll also add that I find it very ironic that Haytham critics aren't as willing to call Achilles out on his own bullshit, because what he does with Ratonhnhaké:ton is very reminiscent of what white people did to the First Nations irl. He barely knows this kid and already decides to use him as a surrogate son to process his grief through. He strips him of his Kanien'kehá:ka identity almost as soon as they meet. I'll never forget his "I'm not even gonna try and pronounce that" after Ratonhnhaké:ton tells him his name.

(Duncan is so right when he tells him later when they meet that he should use his real name. He has no reason to, he already immediately gets clocked as a Native whenever he meets people, Achilles' excuse doesn't work.)

I can't explain how pissed off I was when Ratonhnhaké:ton storms out of the homestead because he knows his people are in danger and Achilles has the absolute AUDACITY to tell him that "his struggles are the colonists' struggle". No the fuck it isn't ? How is threat of genocide and loss of their homeland ANY comparable to the British raising taxes on the colonies ? The worst part is that this mentality isn't just shared by Achilles. Samuel Adams also tells Ratonhnhaké:ton a similar thing when he claims the colonists are "no freer than the slaves". Excuse me ?

I've seen people call Adams out for it but Achilles always gets away with it scot-free when he's the one pushing Ratonhnhaké:ton to work with slave owners like Washington when all they want is to expand westward, burning down Native settlements along the way, and then has the audacity to claim it's in Ratonhnhaké:ton and his people's best interests to do so.

I'd take any Haytham critic a lot more seriously if they were also willing to call Achilles out for his undeniably racist behavior towards Ratonhnhaké:ton, but they don't. Because Achilles is supposed to be 'the good guy'. (And I don't mean to assume, but I think this lack of accountability for Achilles comes from a fundamental misunderstanding / ignorance of (and unfortunately indifference to) Native American issues, which we absolutely need to talk about more.)

What we're not gonna talk about, though, is how Achilles also owns a giant homestead on indigenous land that he lets other colonists settle on. Because of course it doesn't count.

Anyway. Those were my two cents. Do with it what you will.

PS. I think the comparison that was made with Edward also being a colonizer is flawed. While it was very similar at the beginning, with him leaving Wales to work as a privateer for the British Navy, he did a complete 180 later on and set out to work with indigenous people and fight for their freedom too. His mansion was also stolen from a colonizer (as opposed to it being built by him) and when he left the Caribbean to go back home, he gave it back to indigenous people instead of selling it to the highest bidder.

[fallouthomestaedau]

fallout and the "tribal" problem

I've been working on this for a while and I finally feel content enough with my thoughts to talk about it, now for reference I'm mixed first nations and Ukrainian and believe that i am at least somewhat qualified to to talk on the topic

Firstly I will break down what I'm talking about through different paragraphs, primarily based on which game the tribe originates from, and secondly, I'm not an anthropologist or historian, but simply a fan disgruntled with representation of peoples in media

I also wont be speaking on Fallout 76 as I know precious little about it, and due to its shift in gameplay and narrative elements from the rest of the games

one thing of importance though, what is a tribal, and what constitutes a tribe?

now for reference, this will be in the context of the fallout universe, as within most tribes or tribals are too broad or vague to categorize within proper definition

within the games, tribals are mentioned many times, often denoting someone who isn't from or doesn't practice the (often) majority culture of the speaker, usually these people are part of or practice a culture or tradition specific to themselves and their community, that being said, the word tribal or its plural tribals, is often used as a stand-in for "savage" or "primitive", often used insultingly, that being said this broad definition really relies on assumption and stereotypes, as there are many groups who would otherwise be classed as a tribe, such as the new Vegas brotherhood of steel, yet due to being "advanced they are classed as more than a tribe

with that in mind, the definition of tribe is quite loosely defined, a tribe could be a raider gang, a small eccentric community, a religious order or an actual unique culture. this can lead to some reinforcement of stereotypes and harmful depictions however

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fallout 1

despite its age, Fallout has precious little in the way of harmful representation of tribes, there is some discourse on whether the people of shady sand would count as a tribe, or as "tribals", mostly due to Fallout's broad categorization of what counts as a tribe. otherwise, there's not much in the game, if anything in regards to tribals or tribes, at this point the Khans are still just a raider group, though they do take notions and snippets of historic Mongolian culture and tradition in their daily life.

fallout 2

its in 2 we begin to finally see tribes and tribals, with the protagonist specifically being from one of these tribes, the arroyo tribe, specifically descended from vault dwellers, they seem to have lost a great deal of modern ideals and information, though this does make some sense, they had to focus on survival in a harsh environment, you'll teach your children how to hunt and grow crops before small motor repair in a society without motors, that being said certain tropes can be somewhat outdated, such as the tribe building the whole temple section in regards to seemingly being an entirely sedentary culture who are also tent dwelling, which ties in with how seemingly primitive the tribe is as a whole, while some knowledge being lost makes sense, what would take generations of isolation and ack of any unique discovery to really achieve, along with some of the more mystical elements, the second part however can be somewhat forgiven as psychers and other "mystical" people do exist in canon, the mysticism plays heavily into the "indigenous people have magic" type trope. even Moreso they specifically chose to give up their culture in the end to join the ncr instead

there is also mentions of the unnamed "primitive tribe", a coastal tribe with many beliefs in regards to death and spirits throughout the world, while much of their story is cut you still meet one named tribe member and several random tribals, they are however not great examples of an actual culture, having a very cartoonish depiction and belief system, along with speaking broken English but no proper explanation of a tribe specific first language, there is however some redeeming facts as they are still looked at as people, poorly represented people

least unoffensive example however are the cave dwelling cannibal tribals, the name alone is already a mash of offensive stereotypes and depictions of indigenous people, which other tribes within the game are specifically designed to resemble, they are very unintelligent, lacking proper speech, yet are also quite strong and fast, they are every depiction of which "enemy natives" have been depicted as, making the arroyo come across as the "noble savages" in place

second to last we have the vipers, referred to as raiders, a tribe and a cult, within this iteration they worshiped mutant cave dwelling snakes, sacrificing passers by to them and welcoming in the survivors, they however did develop unique traditions and a culture surrounding the snakes before being chased from new california. its heavily unclear what a proper definition of what they are would be

lastly that brings us to the new khans, while not yet a tribe, they have changed much, keeping little in regards to khan tradition with a single leader, along with his personal guard and dog, leading to less loyalty and cohesion. at this time however the khans were fractured into many raiding bands, its actually the death of Darion that unites them once again

within 2 we also begin seeing other groups such as the shi and the yakuza, who represent real world cultures but more specifically the descendants of those cultures, which i am not knowledgeable enough to talk on

fallout 3

in 3, we don't see nearly any tribals in the base game, the treeminders are often referred to as a tribe yet they are in my opinion closer to a religious order with cultural elements, the specific titles and worship of bob and Harold are two of their defining traits at a glance, and are more reminiscent to religion in place of culture, they devote their lives to a "living god" responsible for regrowing nature in a secluded oasis, in truth the group is a cult (a mostly harmless one) and not really a tribe

another halfway example is the unnamed tribe in which the merchant crow was born to, they are specifically referred to as a tribe and have unique cultural beliefs, such as revering eyebots as wind spirits and that is all we know of them. there is literally nothing else to really say about them

finally we get to the point lookout tribals, a "tribe" of people who are sent out to find a seed pod that produces a hallucinogenic gas, to which the initiate is taken back to the tribe to be lobotomized, and in said state may be left unable to care for themselves properly, or worse, dead and those who aren't left vegetative are under the control and influence of a brain in a jar feuding with a ghoul while attempting global domination via telekinesis, as they believe he has ascended his material form and is guiding them to do so as well

not even counting the swampfolk who are somewhere between local cultists to a mutated subspecies of human, there is precious little in the way of positive tribal peoples, with an actual culture, instead getting vague and sometimes offensive examples

fallout 4

plain and simple there aren't any tribes or tribals, a fact which would ordinarily leave this section mostly blank, but i have a nitpick on that fact. my ancestors were originally from the region, the Abenaki, who were allied to other local tribes, and putting modern day tribal identity issues aside, the region had many native peoples, and there could have been an attempt at a positive depiction of a tribe, yet there's nothing, nothing throughout the base game, and all the DLC's, not even an attempt. and that frustrates me somewhat, as they could've shown indigenous people surviving and keeping their culture despite everything but instead did away with anything tribal related

fallout new Vegas

the tribes in new Vegas have such a wide array of representation, from good allegory to horrible caricatures, for instance, the tribe with the longest history in the series, the great khans, who were once the new khans, who originated from the khans. they have finally developed into a unique culture with a focus on personal freedom and and individual strength and yet also a people who believe in unity and cooperation, and they have even been given compelling motives, they are a raiding culture, people who take what they cannot find or make, similar to many real world cultures, they have a history of ethnobotany, something that was enough for the followers of the apocalypse to take notice, they had tradition and honours, and their plight is somewhat reflective of the real world, their non combatants and innocents, gunned down, and the survivors left to pick up the pieces, trying to handle their trauma from the experience, and turning to the substances they sell in order to numb the pain. the great khans aren't necessarily good people, but they are displayed as a genuine people, suffering from the actions of a colonizing power, and that is some of the best representation of native history in recent history.

the boomers are a tribe dedicated to personal security, taking the belief of right to bear arms as a cultural motto, thy originate from an armory vault, and completely shun the outside world. they refer to themselves as a tribe and have unique customs that have formed from their unique lifestyle, all things considered they make a good bit of logical sense in universe and in their formation. there isn't however much more to say on their existence as a tribe.

we even meet several new California raider tribes, the remnants of the vipers, pushed into the Mojave by ncr expansion, they've lost much of their culture, turning to chems and raiding, along with the jackals, they have been reduced to cannibalistic chem addicts, and in all honesty canon fodder, which does bother me slightly less, as theyre not the sole "tribes" within the game, i personally believe there couldve been some more done to show some of their history but they do fit the niche they were designed for

Honest hearts tribes are, rough to say the least, one descended of indigenous people with a unique culture and traditions, and another descended of children who may have been going to a residential school type institution (the lore is vague) who are origionally from a country who has been under the thumb of imperious countries for centuries, such as spain and the us, and yet what little culture they get is a mixture of hodgepodge words from several languages and just oddly spoken English (something historically done to mock native languages), the tribes don't have any real leadership outside of two Mormon missionaries, the two people, who could give us an example of the culture and values are devout followers of these Mormons, one who is being shown to be following in the footsteps of his hated enemy, this being Joshua graham, who is clearly a parallel to Caesar, making a peaceful people into his warriors, to deal a blow to the man who betrayed him, or Moreso a tribe who wish to follow Caesar, not for the safety and peace of the canyon system these people inhabit, but from vengeful hatred, using religion as an excuse to commit bloody war and Daniel, who spends his days infantilizing a culture and treating them as uninformed children, going as far as to hide the death of certain tribes members who had been evacuated from the area from their families and claiming a group of adults, who survive and thrive, being incapable of making their own decisions, as well as all that nonsense, the "good endings" involve fleeing their native lands and worshiping a Mormon missionary as a god, all that being said, the tribes are far from a good depiction. the khans are a much better example of native people than the tribes implied to be actual native peoples

the sorrows, a fitting name for the tribe, originating from a group of stranded children, they are a culture of pacifists who also hunt the largest mammalian carnivores in the region and are deemed "too innocent". the main member we meet near idolizes Daniel, the resident missionary, though this is somewhat understandable as he saved her life while in labour. this presents as a moral dilemma however as we are tasked with withholding the information of her murdered husband and her traumatized children from her, for the benefit of Daniel himself. the other major tribe member we meet is the shaman, who speaks next to nothing, sends us on a "vision quest" via hallucinogens where we fight a great evil being, and receive a marker of tribal status, the tribes primary defining symbol, a Yao guai gauntlet. the whole quest has bad vibes of white saviorism's, especially as if you rush through, you may not learn any actual meanings behind it. you may not even learn that the sorrows have domesticated gecko's. there is the basis for such a unique culture but everything is left so barebones, the tribe doesn't even have actual homes, the entire tribes clothing looks identical, and they have no clear leader, social hierarchy or even defined equality or individualism. there's no sense that they are anything more than a dozen people existing in the same place while ignoring one another. and the endings they get are either to leave, to stay and maybe learn mercy or become aggressive and warlike, all based on the actions of one person, who in their "naive" "innocent"z minds taught them their first act of violence, making them crave more

the dead horses irk me, they are implied to be descended of the Navajo, but aside from language hold no real ties. failed chances to represent native people as surviving cultures theres many things that irk me, they are named for the area in which they live, but hold precious little in regards to horses as a whole, an animal that had become important in their ancestors day to day, they are hunters and foragers, keeping an eye on local environments and the animals within, but have no cultural inclination to herding, something that was their ancestors lifeline, they have a language based on Navajo but next to no cultural identifiers, instead they are shown to tattoo themselves to mark special occasions and important moments in ones life, they have coming of age ceremonies and traditional weapons, personal and cultural taboo's and that's it, its not clear what their homes are like, what their day to day is, if they're agrarian or semi nomadic, they are designed to be the "brave warriors" to the sorrows "peaceful savage" trope, and the main warriors against the "evil tribe", its all face value

the white legs, the evil tribe who don't know how to craft, to farm, to build, a tribe whose sole survival supposedly hinges on the availability of raiding and killing, who are presented as too dimwitted and are offering themselves up to Caesar on a platter, they are the stereotypical enemy tribe, they are canon fodder for the courier to valiantly kill, and either doom them to death right away, or leave them to the mercy of another tribe, either way ending in death. their whole point was to be a culture wiped from the face of the earth

the 80's are a territorial tribe who we know nothing of, outside of their location near the salt flats of salt lake city, their whole existence was to destroy the last of the white legs. there is nothing else to them

in new vegas, we hear the names of many dead tribes, the hang dogs, the twisted hairs, the twin mothers, cultures wiped out and assimilated by the legion, as well as tribes pushed to extinction via people like prospectors, and land owners, killed for the local resources. these two examples are both instances id like to talk about in greater detail in their own post

new vegas tribes, the 4 tribes of new vegas themselves, the three families of the strip, and the kings, each group shedding tribal identity to relive old world "glory", the kings, worshipping a misunderstood depiction of elvis, and living by the rules of an impersonation school, which they turned into a "gang" identity, keeping order of the rabble and the unwanted. the white glove society, the omertas and the chairmen, all under the thumb of mr house, coerced or convinced to become the three families. we know very little of their original cultures, aside from a few names, they have wholly embraced a new identity, disposing of those who would otherwise choose the old ways

there are also cultural groups, such as the new Canaanites who aren't technically a tribe but still a different culture group to the majority culture

afterthoughts:

all in all, I find fallout has so far, had such few positive examples purposefully creating a tribal group or Indigenous allegory, the sole example is the Khans and much of the historical symbolism is lost to so many under the guise of moral vs immoral and general lack of knowledge

it is disheartening, in a world so chock full of symbolism and satire and synchronicity, that there's so little reference to how truly multicultural the world really is, of the hundreds of pre-war tribes and isolated settlements with unique traditions, there's so little within the games to acknowledge any of it

the majority of the tribes we meet are or can be canon fodder for the sole fact of padding enemy numbers, instead of deepening the narrative of old-world concepts returning to harm the present