#don't take the job if you don't want to be responsible for undoing the trauma it has done to your patients

[naamahdarling]

Oh y'all, no, I've said it before and I will say it again, I'm not here to excuse or be less critical of medical professionals in general. I'm not here to be nice to the profession as a whole, or not talk shit about it. I don't have to be nice or rein in my anger.

In person, I can hold all that in me AND be deeply respectful even when I disagree, and treat all new staff with kindness and politeness. Not only do I genuinely respect the knowledge that they possess that will help me become well, they truly haven't done anything wrong yet. They're people. And when they do something awful, being shitty in the moment isn't something you can fix a problem with or use to hold someone responsible right then. It usually makes things much, much worse. I've lost my temper three times ever with medical professionals and their staff, and those were instances where I was being abused and neglected, being maliciously lied to in a way that jeopardized my life, or when I was threatened with violence with no provocation. Read that again.

So I'm here for respecting medical professionals and clinic staff. I'm not here to be chill about the profession, the harm it does me, or the harm it does to others. I don't have to like them. Actually, as a whole, I hate and mistrust them. And that is founded in experience. Mine and others'.

I'm working on it, some, in therapy. On the very worst of the rage. But it's slow. And I'm doing it for myself, to make things easier for myself, not because I am at all concerned about being nice to a group that has caused me a truly breathtaking amount of pain. I don't have to forgive, or trust. I do have to be respectful and fair to the extent that they do the same. But the profession has repeatedly proven it has no right to forgiveness or trust, and never will.

[astrangergivingthestrangewelcome]

Incoherent Renfield meta I guess???

So in terms of what Stoker wanted to convey, I don't think he was quite aware of the extent of awfulness and psychiatric abuse Seward was dealing out to Renfield (although you cannot convince me that he was unaware that Seward was a bit of a little freak like that's just characterization how could he have done such a thorough job of creating such a pathetic little man by accident)- however there definitely is this story of idk. growth that comes from compassion, and I wish I could hear from Stoker himself what he was going for with it.

We all want to root for Renfield bc god anyone that goes through Victorian lunatic asylum trauma you immediately want to see win- but when we do see Renfield use his limited agency to do things, they are often selfish and violent things. He very much does want to join the Count, and wants to gain that immortality and power that the Count has. I don't know that there's evidence Renfield wants to dominate the way the Count does but Renfield believes that blood will strengthen him and he for sure is all in on taking human life and feeding on human blood. He does attack Seward and also those guys who were moving the Count and I fully believe that he would have killed them if left to his own devices. He has no power and has been systemically abused... but he's also dangerous.

However, the more I examine his actions... why would he be anything other than selfish and dangerous. Who does he have in life that would cause him to bother with empathy? We know so little about who he was before being admitted. He almost killed two people in the course of this novel- but before that did he try anything violent or was it just the consuming animals thing that got him locked up? Did he have people he cared about? We just don't know.

What's interesting to me is he seems to be on this track of enthusiastically aiding and abetting the Count in his efforts to kill others (and the Count is for sure manipulating him and it's not an equal relationship, but I do think that Renfield understands that the Count does hurt and kill people, and accepts this at the beginning of the novel) but the moment Mina speaks to him and seems decent and kind he immediately has a fit of conscience. There's this implicit understanding "oh she will be hurt, I like her, she doesn't deserve to be hurt." It's more than just an immediate change though. He begs Seward to not let him be alone at night bc he knows that he's not going to be equal to resisting the temptation to let the Count in- and he's super not. And the Count may have been doing vampire mind powers on him, but I don't think that's the full story. The Count tempts him with life. and Renfield despite understanding that Mina is going to be hurt, still wants that life and that immortality enough to let him in. He has a developed dream and he has the desire to do right by Mina and they're at odds.

His ensuing conversation with Seward about souls is so interesting because it's this conflict put under a microscope. He is pleased and excited at the thought he's going to finally get to consume life and be immortal, and he's seemed to make the decision to just ignore the part of it he knows is wrong, but Seward presses the fuck out of the idea that every life he takes means that he is responsible for the soul of the organism as well and this just. Undoes Renfield. When treated like an adult Renfield is capable of engaging with morality and finding his own moral code of right and wrong, and this combined with the fact that he has a face for Mina in the way he never had a face for Lucy is what causes him to give up everything trying to right his mistake.

I think he could have gotten there much sooner than he did. But he lives in an asylum and the person he talks to the most is a doctor who is obsessed with studying him like a lab rat and who does not think about Renfield as a human being who might be able to function in society again after treatment. Isolated and friendless as Renfield was he could ignore the morality of his actions and pursue his own ends. The moment Mina treats him normally that worldview becomes untenable and he begins a slow days long process of accepting that he cannot go on helping the Count. It's a very thought out decision for him. He is giving up his life's work because he realized his life's work was wrong. That's a lot.

This seems like a cautionary tale to treat people like people honestly. Even when they have severe and rather unpleasant mental illnesses that make then kill and consume animals raw. In the end Renfield was perfectly capable of understanding that he didn't have the right to fuck with the lives of others to suit his own ends. He learned that lesson. I bet he could have learned that lesson without so much bloodshed if anyone had cared to reach out to him earlier.

[unbidden-yidden]

I saw your post about how Xianity is not essential to Judaism and and I don't want to derail it it but one particular thing really struck me while reading it; the concept of teshuva compared to Xian forgiveness, particularly how those differences really reflect how I've seen both religious cultures (???) handle person-to-person forgiveness. Judaism (at least from what I've seen) has actual steps for apologising, and they're all really good common-sense rules like 'don't do it again'. (1/3)

(cont.) The burden is on the offender to make things right, they’re the active party. In contrast, in Xianity you don’t have to do anything to make it up to the person you hurt. In fact, in Xian communities there’s usually a burden on the /hurt/ party to forgive and it’s seen as really cruel and a sign of moral weakness that you won’t let them feel better about what they did, even (sometimes /especially/) when they’re not sorry and intend to keep hurting you. (2/3)

(cont.) To me these two things feel like extensions of the attitude towards divine forgiveness and repentance. In Xianity receiving forgiveness feels like a very passive thing that’s all centred on your own guilt, your own inherent sin, and an attitude of ‘I said sorry so my hands are clean and now you have to make it up to me for making me feel bad for what I did’, etc. Judaism, on the other hand, seems to take a very pro-active, balanced approach of doing better for yourself and others. (3/3)

Hi Sarahsyna, 

The differences between xian and Jewish understandings of what forgiveness is and how we should go about it are interesting, no? 

I would say this is a pretty accurate analysis of the differences and where they come from. However, I would like to expand on this and add a bit of nuance to it, if I may. 

There are different levels and types of wrongs to be forgiven, and the responses to them should be different. 

Wrongs that are relatively minor, are fixable, and/or that are relatively common amongst otherwise decent people; 

Wrongs that major, unfixable, and/or that are criminal/violent in nature; 

Wrongs committed against oneself

Wrongs committed against others (usually in your sphere of influence, such as to your family members, but not necessarily) 

In my experience, Judaism does a much better job of making these distinctions than xianity. 

Minor Wrongs vs. Major Wrongs

Xian forgiveness is really appropriate for minor wrongs (with proportionately minor consequences.) Things like: someone took your lunch once, which creates an annoying but temporary problem. We shouldn’t sweat the small stuff, and as frustrating as that situation is, it’s not worth holding a grudge against someone forever because of a dumb prank. 

Judaism similarly holds that we shouldn’t hang onto a grudge over this, and encourages people to let it go. Give the offender ample chance to apologize, but if they don’t, don’t waste your energy being mad at them. (Have you forgiven them? No. Should you still move on with your life? Yes.) 

Of course, if by taking your lunch, they caused you to be unable to take a vital medicine, which consequently put you in the hospital, it should change the equation, no? 

In xianity as I experienced it (**please insert that caveat throughout this discussion), it actually doesn’t change the equation. The intent of the offender was a dumb prank and so the forgiveness should be equally straightforward, even if the consequences to you are more severe than that person realized they would be when they did it. You should try to put yourself in the prankster’s shoes and imagine how awful you’d feel and how badly you’d want to be forgiven if it were you. 

In Judaism, that person would need to do a lot more to make it right before asking for forgiveness. That might involve helping you pay your hospital bills, picking up your slack at work and/or otherwise trying to help in concrete ways because while their intent was minor, the effect on you was major. They must cope with that reality in the same way that you must. Might their intent factor into how inclined you are to forgive them afterwards? Sure! But they need to show that they realize how serious the consequences of their actions are and seek to remedy it first. 

Fixable vs. Unfixable Wrongs

The consequences of some wrongs are fixable to varying degrees; others are not. If you take five dollars from my bag and then feel bad about it an hour later and put the money back? You’ve totally rectified the situation. 

On the other extreme? While I have put in many, many hours of therapy and self-reflection and healing and therefore have gotten it under control, I will never not have trauma from having been raped and abused. Even if the perps spent the rest of their lives truly regretting what they did and doing hard work on behalf of survivors, they could never undo the damage they caused, even if they subsequently changed their behavior 180 degrees. (Editorial note: unsurprisingly, none of them have actually done any of that.) 

Growing up, I felt an unbearable need to magnanimously forgive the perp despite his refusal to admit to what he did or apologize, and even as a culturally xian adult, I still felt a compulsory need to forgive subsequent offenders at least for my own sake in order to move on. 

Judaism relieved me of any responsibility to forgive any of them, ever, because they have never apologized. I’m not even allowed to forgive them since they’ve never asked for it, but I don’t have to do so in order to heal because nothing they could do could heal me anyway. Them apologizing wouldn’t change the reality of their acts and me forgiving them wouldn’t change their future behavior. My healing is (for better or worse) my problem, and their becoming better people is their problem. 

In a better world where they did hold themselves accountable? That would be stellar, but even in that world my remedy comes from the peace of mind in knowing that they aren’t hurting other people, from them still staying the hell away from me, and the justice in knowing that they have to live with what they did and are truly reckoning with it. 

As a side note, it’s worth noting that this is why lashon hara is compared to murder by the rabbis. Lashon hara literally means “evil speech,” but refers to true statements that did not need to be made for any serious purpose and are malicious in nature. As an example, “Alex has gotten really overweight this year, huh?” might strictly speaking be true, but is nevertheless clearly intended to be mean and gossipy. Why is lashon hara taken so seriously? Because you can’t put that toothpaste back in the tube. You can’t unring that bell. Once those words have left your lips, they’re out there, forever. You can apologize, but you can’t unsay what you already said. 

Grace vs. Accountability

Ultimately, I believe that the foundational difference between how xianity approaches forgiveness and how Judaism approaches forgiveness are how it is defined in each. 

In xianity, forgiveness flows, as you said from the idea that humans were forgiven for our sins by Jesus on his own initiative, and therefore we should replicate that kind of forgiveness in our own lives. Sin is inevitable, and the work of repairing it can be done by the person who was wronged, the same way that Jesus repaired humanity’s relationship with God through his sacrifice. This creates a model that centers grace given by the wronged person. Deservingness on the part of the wrongdoer does not factor into the equation. 

At its best, this gives the person who was wronged the agency to address the problem themselves without waiting around for the wrongdoer to get it together. It has the potential to allow people with pain to let go of that pain. At its worst, it creates a system where victims are pressured (by their communities, spiritual leaders, and/or themselves) to forgive at great cost to themselves with zero accountability on the part of the offender. 

However. 

That assumes, as a baseline, that forgiveness is a prerequisite to moving on with your life. In the same way that forgiveness by God/salvation is a prerequisite to eternal life in xianity, so too is forgiveness between individuals a prerequisite to living the rest of your life without that baggage. 

Judaism makes no such assumption. In fact, it comes to rather the opposite conclusion: forgiveness may be necessary for the wrongdoer to move on, but you, the wronged person, should feel no need to provide it unless and until the person has actually rectified the situation and asked for forgiveness. (And even under those circumstances, while forgiving is the morally correct thing to do, you aren’t always actually obligated to do so.) 

Judaism operates on an accountability model that says that if you harm another person, it’s on you to fix it to that person’s satisfaction. If you are harmed by another person, you should do whatever you need to in order to move forward, but you don’t have to say that they’ve met their burden unless and until they actually do. In this view, forgiveness is not defined as grace, but rather as recognition that the person has actually held themselves accountable for their actions. 

This, too, flows from a theological perspective: G-d expects us to constantly be striving to better ourselves, which we can only do by holding ourselves fully accountable for our actions. We are moral creatures, capable of making an active choice between good and evil. While mistakes are inevitable, we elevate ourselves spiritually, not by the grace of G-d or others, but by evaluating and reflecting on our own behavior and then taking active steps towards long-lasting change. 

All of that, however, refers to direct wrongs between the wrongdoer and the wronged. I would be extremely remiss if I didn’t address … … 

Wrongs Committed Against You vs. Wrongs Committed Against Others in Your Vicinity

One of the most serious problems I have with xian theology is the fact that the concept of grace doesn’t just apply between the wrongdoer and the wronged. It also applies between bystanders and the wronged. 

Here is a great example of this: 

Many of you may not know that one of my four children has Down syndrome. Her name is Bekah, and today she is 25. Bekah went to public school in elementary and middle school and was in normal classes and had lots of friends. Later, she attended college.

Many years ago, Bekah wanted to try out for cheer leading. My wife and I were amazed at how she learned the routines – jumping in the air, doing splits, and yelling out the cheers. Unfortunately, she did not make the team which was very disappointing for her and us. She had a really hard time understanding that she could no longer cheer with the other girls.

Soon afterwards, we received a letter from the coach explaining Bekah was not cut from the team because of her disability but because…she kicked, hit, yelled and cussed while in line with the other girls. We were stunned, no shocked, because Bekah had never exhibited any of those behaviors ever in any situation.

At a sleepover a few weeks later, which Bekah hosted in our home, several of the girls who had made the team asked my wife why Bekah had not made the team. My wife gently told them about the letter. They all immediately cried out, “Ms. Ellen, that’s not true at all. Bekah didn’t do any of those things. In fact, she did great in the tryouts.” Ellen called for me and asked me to come hear what the girls were saying. They repeated it all again.

This person had not only lied but had impugned Bekah’s character and we were angry! What had been done to our daughter was dastardly. The question afterwards was, “What are we going to do about this?” We knew we could not pull these girls into a dispute with this coach. So, we had no recourse. This coach had hurt a person who could not speak up for herself due to her disability and there was nothing we could do about it…except forgive.

Did this person deserve to be forgiven? Absolutely not. But we were not going to allow a root of bitterness to grow within us that Hebrews 12:15 warns about. We were not about to give this person power over our lives. We were not about to give Satan power over us. Was it easy? No! Everything in us cried out for justice but there was none to be had.

So, we trusted Christ in us, the greatest “forgiver” of all time, to live through us so we could forgive. We wanted to live like who we are in Christ, “forgivers”, in obedience from the love in our hearts for our Father. We wanted to “forgive one another just as God had forgiven us in Christ” (Ephesians 4:32) So, we sat before the Lord and poured out to Him our anger, our hurt, and our desire for justice. Then, because God had forgiven us for all our sins we did not deserve to be forgiven for, we forgave this person; meaning, we released the person from the debt we believe they owed us. In this case, the debt would have been an admission to us and especially to Bekah of the wrong they had done.

A few weeks later, would you believe that we saw this person at a church we were visiting? We were both so glad we had been honest with God about the hurts we received from the offense and then chose to forgive. We live free today from bitterness, resentment and unforgiveness. Praise God!

[Source: x] 

Okay, so we don’t have time to unpack all of that, but just… sit with the fact, for a moment, that Bekah is utterly silenced by this approach. Did her parents have any right to forgive the coach? No, no they did not. That was Bekah’s right, and Bekah’s alone. 

Compare that to what Rabbi Telushkin relays in his Code of Jewish Ethics: 

”The differing attitudes of Jews and Christians on granting forgiveness for serious, particularly violent, crimes is reflected in an incident that Dr. Solomon Schimmel, a psychologist and a religious Jew, relates in his book, Wounds Not Healed, concerning a Christian woman who nursed back to life a man who had murdered her parents and raped her. The man, shocked by her behavior, asked the woman, “Why didn’t you kill me?” She replied, “I am a follower of him [i.e., Jesus] who says, ‘Love your enemy.’ “A remarkable story, but as Schimmel, writing from a Jewish perspective, asks, “Why, however, is it noble to love and take care of evil people?”

“In contrast to this woman’s attitude, when the Jewish writer Cynthia Ozick was asked if it was morally appropriate to forgive a penitent Nazi SS officer who had participated in the murder of a Jewish community in Poland, she responded: “‘I forgive you,’ we say to the child who has muddied the carpet, ‘but next time don’t do it again.’ Next time, she will leave the muddy boots outside the door; forgiveness, with its enlarging capacity, will have taught her. Forgiveness is an effective teacher. Meanwhile, the spots can be washed away. But murder is irrevocable. Murder is irreversible…. Even if forgiveness restrains one from perpetrating a new batch of corpses, will the last batch come alive again?…Forgiveness is pitiless. It forgets the victim. It cultivates sensitiveness toward the murderer at the price of insensitiveness toward the victim.”

“And what of the penitent SS officer? “Let the SS man die unshriven. Let him go to hell.”

“The Jewish view can be summed up as follows: Forgiveness is almost always a virtue, but the taking of an innocent life is an unforgivable offense.”

[Source: x] 

[stonebasalt]

10, 16, 37, 42 for whichever characters you want, because I don't know your characters ;-;

I made a bigger wall of text than I intended to, but I guess I should talk about my OCs more often. 10. Is your character street-smart, book-smart, intelligent, intellectual, slow-witted?

CONRAD - Conrad is sensible and studious. I don’t think he’d consider himself intellectual or intelligent, but he is an on-his-feet thinker. What he puts his mind to he can learn fairly well. His memory isn’t so great between raising six siblings and holding down other responsibilities which makes long-term retention an issue.DES - Similar to Conrad with the exception of being dedicated to any studies. He’s pretty lackadaisical and easily frustrated by challenging subjects. The king of procrastinators. Des is decisive and has some quality instincts, but he lacks academic influence. He struggles to put his thoughts in to words at times, and this lends itself to being regarded as “a man of action” or even just dim.CHARLIE - Charlie is not only intelligent but extraordinarily creative. He’s able to anticipate chains of events before they unfold and is generally able to get a read on people. A great deal of that stems from his nature as a Faoladh, but he’s genuinely curious in general and happy to take on new knowledge when it’s offered. It’s taken him a long time to develop sound street-smarts.16. What does your character do for a living? How do they see their profession? What do they like about it? Dislike?CONRAD - In modern AUs he works in a warehouse and it’s just a way to make ends meet while trying to juggle school and kids. In Fallout AU, he’s a minute man and would much rather invest his time in his job. He’s fond of having a purpose, taking on adventures, and DES - In postapoc AUs he grows a shitload of weed. Or rather, he supervises a shitload of weed growing and heads up the defense forces of his faction. I think in general having no family or close ties bums him out. He was very close with his parents and siblings and having to trade that healthy setting for always having to be “on” in the most violent way possible is hell for him. I think he likes getting high, and is probably content not to take anything too seriously. Since, heck, they’re all on death’s door anyway. Prior to this he was an average soldier. This is my favorite variant.

In Modern AUs his story gets a little more convoluted. He’s a former Berkut. He’s a former very corrupt and very violent Berkut. His savagery peaked in Euromaidan and afterwards he pulled some strings to make it into the United States (not realistic here, but, for the sake of narrative…) since then he’s tried to come to terms with himself as a culprit of heinous crimes against humanity. He’s wracked with agitation and trauma while being firmly rooted in the belief that he deserves it. I think he regrets his entire career and is fully aware he can’t undo or right the extent of the atrocities he committed, but at the time, was a willing participant in the corruption and violence. During his time in the U.S. he resigns himself to working for a defense contract company and after several deployments guarding oil fields and performing tasks for the military, he manages to swing a training gig. Specifically, he teaches evidence-based de-escalation tactics for paramilitary officers. He will never nullify his brutality, and it’s by no means a consolation, but I think it helps him to believe he can stop it from happening again.For S.T.A.L.K.E.R AU I’ve married these concepts in that he leaves Kiev for the zone to self-flagellate and grow weed in hopes he’ll forget what an incredible jackass he is. Ta-da.CHARLIE - Charlie’s primary job is helping people. He’s a faoladh literally conceived by humanity’s need for guidance and understanding. His primary job is and always will be to support and warm others. He thought he could do that by becoming a police officer and he’s quickly realizing the extent of corruption and duplicity in Chicago’s police force, especially regarding the mafia. I think he enjoys being able to ride his horse – also named Charlie – around and meet people. There’s really not a soul out there that he can’t lend a sympathetic ear to. It’s fulfilling for him. Even when having to deal with the criminality of some individuals, he’s considerate.37. How is your character’s imagination? Daydreaming a lot? Worried most of the time? Living in memories?

CONRAD - Anxious 24/7. Kid could use a fistful of xanax. Daydreams about his gf a lot. Especially when no one’s looking.DES -  Lives in memories. Plagued by memories. Everything is fire and his fault. CHARLIE - Especially imaginative. I think he sees peoples own narratives play out in his head when he meets them. More than anything he wants to understand so that he can help.42. What does your character want most? What do they need really badly, compulsively? What are they willing to do, to sacrifice, to obtain?CONRAD - The reality is Conrad needs a nap and to not have so many unrealistic responsibilities and expectations for himself. Personally, though, he just wants all his siblings to be happy, safe, and to see them grow into self-actualized people. That’s a tall order when there’s six of them under the thumb of a mother with NPD and they all have different needs and are in different stages. Conrad doesn’t think about his own needs often. He should. (I’m not projecting I have no idea what you’re talking about)DES - Regardless of AU this man wants nothing more than to be with his family in their little farm in rural Western Ukraine. This is an enormous source of conflict for him considering either A. Ukraine is probably blown off the map in postapoc AUs, and B. He’s terrified and too ashamed to set foot in his own homeland in others.CHARLIE - He wants you to be happy and fulfilled. Please give Charlie what he wants.