#i used the term systems and people because i know some prefer one term over the other... im a singlet so pls tell me if that's not okay

[wewatchyoujuno]

i love people with aspd and autism. i love people with aspd and adhd. i love people who have aspd with other cluster b traits. i love people with comorbid personality disorders. i love people with aspd and ocd. i love people with aspd and schizospec disorders. i love systems/people with did/osdd with aspd. i love all of you guys with aspd and any other disorder i didn't mention here. i love people with aspd who are physically disabled. you are all awesome and you aren't faking it.

comorbidity is normal. you aren't trying to be "quirky" because you have comorbid disorders. you aren't "collecting all the disorders for fun/pity". you aren't "too much". YOU ARE SO COOL! love you all.

[machineheraldbabe]

arcane, populism, and why viktor is the odd one out (yet again)

as a piltover-anti, a silco criticizer, and a pacifist, i am very very interested in how arcane presents not just the political undertones of both topside and the undercity, but the characters/dialogue through which they communicate those undertones. allow me to use some political science bro lingo to air out some thoughts.

long, long post incoming.

there are 2 ideological struggles at war throughout s1 (and i can predict that the struggle will carry over into s2): neoliberalism and populism - in their broadest terms since we're talking ofc about a fictional show dealing with surface level political machinations. by neoliberalism, i mean a focus on the social, political, and cultural structures of a polity (piltover, for our purposes) refocused into a strictly economic vacuum. and by populism i mean a unifying belief that the existing political systems of a polity fail to adequately represent their constituents, so the masses choose to rally around a specific gripe or issue, i.e., class discrimination, xenophobia toward immigrants, etc. this, in turn, forms a populist party or movement. an applicable example i can think of would be Nasser's Egypt in the 1950s.

*i know these are weighty topics with very real world implications! i just want to separate the theory to apply to our favorite fictional world.

the political struggle in question is put forward immediately by piltover, who, though presented as a technocratic state, embodies crucial neoliberal ideals emphasized especially by up-and-coming counilor mel medarda, much like how fresh-eyed american economists blew up the economic scene in the 1980s with a revival of capitalist, free market enterprise. take how she seizes the advent of hextech, for example:

she quickly sees hextech's potential yet not from the solely intellectual standpoint that jayce and viktor do - for her, it is profitable, literally and in terms of international relations. her goal is for piltover to prosper, but she has no rose-colored glasses on; prosperity means capital gain, and she's willing to override piltover's political and social systems to achieve her goal. an important caveat is that she draws the line at ambessa medarda's progression into militant authoritarianism, which deserves a whole post of its own!

piltover's populism moment will come later. first, let's unpack silco, who is probably arcane's most blatantly political figure, and a masterclass in the merits and failures of left wing, class-based populism.

silco, having been spurned by the classism and xenophobia that piltover's elite proliferate, and assisted by his rampant shimmer operation, fills the vacuum that vander's pacifism opened up. though silco's methods are unilaterally cruel (argue with the wall), the undercity clearly invested faith in him at some point, especially as vander's credibility as a guiding figure wavered over the years. he was fighting alongside vander for zaun's right to exist as their own independent body. in other words, he was uniting the undercity toward a common cause because the existing political system failed their constituents. to quote councilor shoola: "they may not be our preferred constituents, but they're still our people."

the track record of populism in our real world frequently ends in the ruin that silco himself brought upon the undercity. the kingpin is too dedicated to self-preservation, sees himself as too central to the movement, which prevents both compromise and/or a necessary armed revolt (insert your own politics about self-determination here). see italy's right wing populism party, Lega Nord, as a real-time example of this phenomenon.

but arcane makes an interesting plot decision with jayce, a very unexpected and "unwilling" contributor to piltover's abrupt dip into right wing populism. the showrunners love foils!

in arcane lore, i think it's safe to say that jayce's moniker "the man of progress" is pretty tongue-in-cheek. both he and viktor have a bemused tone about it in the run-up to his speech, and jayce is taken aback by heimerdinger's insistence that he deliver said speech. but the glowing, savior-esque imagery can't be ignored, nor can jayce's quick switch into his councilor role, no matter how reluctantly he makes it.

jayce is confronted by 2 forces that he seeks to combat in his quick tenure as councilor: internal corruption and an ineffective governing body. the latter goal is inspired almost solely by viktor, playing into jayce's naivety as a fresh-faced political figure, but this will be especially important to note later on. the innocence he offers up to mel is quickly erased, transformed instead into an uncomfortable - and inexperienced - militancy:

important in the bridge scene to my analysis is the populist "out group," or the designation populists give to those whom they actively oppose, and this opposition serves as their basis for organization. in this case, it's the undercity (keep this in mind for viktor's role!!).

jayce's combined frustrations at the unrest in the undercity and the council's (namely heimerdinger's) refusal to act, to both save viktor and to deal with the undercity's looming violence, motivates him to act like silco for a short time. unsatisfied with the status quo, he unites a likeminded individual, vi, along with the enforcers, to undercut the political system he feels is unable to represent its constituents or act in an effective manner. however, UNLIKE silco, jayce's realizes the inevitable cost the method of violence has and refrains in the end. he returns to the council and capitulates to some of silco's demands in the name of a peace piltover and zaun always thought impossible.

jinx's complete undoing of this underscores the failures of populism, especially as an extended movement over time. she wasn't accounted for. it's common sentiment at this point that she didn't attack the council for political gain. she was not invested in zaun's independence. she did it out of her and silco's twisted parental bond, and thus undid piltover's brief instance of compromise and compassion.

so...where does viktor fit into all this? and what are his implications for neoliberalism vs. populism in season 2?

viktor is neither wholly within nor wholly outside the populist outgroup - though jayce unintentionally shoves him back there in the pivotal bridge scene. furthermore, viktor also makes use of piltover's technocracy. he seems to have had a "raise yourself up by your bootstraps" history in arcane, contrary to left wing populist insistence that neoliberal ideals make this impossible.

this compounds as a double alienation for viktor, who also is straddled with the complications of his disability. a lot of his story is searching for a fellow in arms, if you ask me, and he had that with jayce until the pendulum swung, hence his return to singed.

if we stop there, viktor represents the failing of these 2 very flawed political ideologies. he fits nowhere and arcane uses him adeptly as a symbol of the failings of binaristic ideologues and systems. but let's speculate some more!

i'm convinced that viktor, due to his ambiguous 3rd party role in the story so far, will be one of the central villains (if not THE villain, if you allow me to be admittedly hopeful/biased) in season 2. consult the innumerable very well written theory/meta posts about the subject for more details, but one piece of evidence i want to focus on is this inherent physical, cultural, and ideological separateness that is innate to his character.

can we see him allying ever again with piltover, knowing that there's a split incoming? even without outside knowledge of league lore, singed's damning prediction ("if you take this path, they will despise you") cannot go unheeded. alternatively, then, can we see viktor allying with the supposed jinx-as-revolutionary side? no. personally, i see him as becoming increasingly unwillingly to compromise his a) immediate survival; and b) his ideals, especially after being endlessly sidelined in his attempts to express them in acts 2 and 3. he's also just a loner, guys.

there's some controversy on this point, but i'm convinced that the finger-printed cultists/followers we saw in the s2 trailer are devoted to viktor. starting with the shimmer addict he touched in the teaser, he is accruing a following all his own. and since noxus is here, touting their authoritarian militancy to replace piltover's outdated liberal ideals, nothing that jinx's revolution OR viktor's following does can be apolitical. to organize and to fight is survival under s2's raised stakes.

there aren't any binary spectrums when it comes to political theory in my opinion, so i am prepared to witness viktor introduce an entirely separate totalitarian narrative into arcane. where it will surely lack in militancy, it will make up for in its domination of the arcane. my biggest speculation is that, as they always do, piltover will fold and compromise at the last minute, perhaps yield to noxus, and invest wholeheartedly in taking down viktor's BBEG cultist regime. and by isolating his narrative repeatedly in s1, the writers planned this out expertly.

even if i'm wrong about viktor as third party, i like to think my observations still stand about the specific and qualifiable political divisions between piltover and zaun. the biggest hole this leaves for me is the question: will arcane ever take a stand? they seem very averse to making a blatant political statement, but i think their pervasive anti-police thread makes it clear that we're not meant to sympathize with piltover yuppies or their seasoned, jaded councilmen. let me know your thoughts!

also, as a jayce fan and a fan of arcane's overall story, none of this is meant as a CRITIQUE of him, mel, or silco. as silco said, "we all have our parts to play." i believe arcane's very greatest strength is their archetypal storytelling, and these distinct character roles are crucial to the success and vibrancy of the story.

if you read all the way to this point - ily <3

[phoenixyfriend]

Can you explain the Iran-Israel situation please?

Alright, let's get to it. Please note that I'm writing this on mobile during my lunch break, so I can't include reference/source links as much as I'd like. Thankfully, most of what I'm going to be telling you should be easily located by searching for an article on one of the following: APNews, Reuters, BBC Global News Podcast, Democracy Now!, NPR, or The New York Times. Long-term background is probably best found in videos by the YouTube channels Real Life Lore or tldr global news, or on Wikipedia if you prefer text.

The short version: Israel attacked Iran's consulate in Syria to get at some of the military commanders that were there, which is legally equivalent to attacking Iran itself. Iran responded by sending about 300 bombs at Israel, most of which were shot down in transit. Given that they still called it a success, even though it seems only one person was even hurt, my understanding is that it's very likely that they only intended the rockets to be a show of force, rather than an actual escalation, because Iran can't afford a war right now.

To support my blogging so I can move out of my parents’ house, I do have a ko-fi. Alternately, you can donate to one of the charities I list in this post OR this post.

The long version:

Okay, let's start with some background on Israel, then Iran. This is... a lot, so if you already know the broad strokes skip down to 2023.

Israel was established following WWII by the English and French, following borders the two countries had secretly drawn up decades earlier in the Sykes-Picot agreement. The intent was to give the Jewish people a place to go... or, depending on who you ask, a place to send them. Their ancestral homeland was viewed as the best choice, sort of like a deportation millennia after a diaspora. Given that WWII had just ended by the time Sykes-Picot was actually put into effect, 'getting out of Europe' was something a lot of Jews were given to agree with.

The Arab world was not happy, as that land had belonged to the Ottomans for centuries, and had long since 'naturalized' to being Arab. I'm not going to pretend to know the nuances to when people do or do not consider Palestine to have been its own nation; it was an Ottoman state until WWI, at which point it came under British control for just under three decades, and that period is known as the British Mandate of Palestine; it ended after WWII, with the creation of Israel. Palestine's land and people have sort of just been punted around from one colonizer to another for centuries.

Iran is the current form of what was once Persia. They were an empire for a very long time, and were a unitary monarchy up until the early 20th century; in 1925, Iran elected a Prime Minister who was then declared the monarch. The following several decades had Iran's monarchy slowly weakened, and occasionally beset by foreign interventions, including a covert coup by the US and UK in 1953. The country also became more corrupt throughout the 1970s due to economic policy failing to control inflation in the face of rising oil prices.

In 1979, there was a revolution that overthrew the monarchy and the elected government, replacing the system with a theocracy and declaring Iran to be an Islamic Republic, with the head of state being a religious authority, rather than an elected one. This was not popular with... most countries. 1980 saw the closure of all universities (reopened in 1983 with government-approved curriculums), as well as the taking of over fifty American hostages from the US Embassy in Iran. You may have heard about that in the context of Ronald Reagan encouraging Iran to keep the hostages until the end of Carter's term in order to force the election.

So, the West didn't like having an Islamic state because it claims to like democracy, and also because the Islamic state was explicitly anti-American and this has some Bad Effects on oil prices. The Soviets didn't like having an Islamic State because a theocracy goes directly against a lot of communist values (or at least the values they claim to have), and weakened any influence their supposedly secular union could have on Iran and the wider middle east. The other countries in the Arab world, many of them still monarchies, didn't like the Islamic republic because if the revolution spread, then it was possible their monarchies would be overthrown as well.

(Except Oman, which is not worried, but that's the exception, not the rule.)

This is not a baseless worry, because Iran has stated that this is its goal for the Arab world. Overthrow the monarchies, overthrow the elected governments, Islamic Rule for everyone. That is the purpose of its proxies, like Hezbollah (Lebanon), the Houthis (Yemen), and Hamas (Palestine), along with less well-known groups like the Salafi Jihadists in Mali, who are formally under the umbrella of al-Quaeda, which Iran denies having any relation to but is suspected of funding. In areas where these proxy groups have gained power, they are liable to enact hard Shari'a law such as has happened in Northern Mali and other parts of the Sahel region.

While other conflicts have occurred in these countries, I think the above is most relevant.

Israel has repeatedly attacked, or been attacked by, other nations in the middle east, as they are viewed as having taken over land that is not theirs, and as being a puppet of the US government. The biggest conflicts have been 1947-1948, 1968/1973, and 2014.

And then, of course, 2023.

Now, Iran, more than any other nation in the Middle East, hates Israel. They have for a very long time, viewing them as an affront to the goal of spreading Islam across the whole of the middle east, and as being a front and a staging ground for the United States and other Western powers. Two common refrains in the slogans of Iran and its proxies are "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."

Due to Iran's military power and virulence towards Israel, the United States has been funneling money to Israel for decades. It has more generally been to defend itself against the Arab world at large, but it has narrowed over the decades to being about Iran and its proxies as relations have normalized with other nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Cue October 7th, 2023. Hamas invades Israeli towns, kills some people, and takes others as hostage. Israel retaliates, and the conflict ramps up into what is by now tens of thousands of dead, some half of which are children.

In this time, Hamas's allies are, by definition, Iran and the other proxy forces. Hezbollah, being in Lebanon, share a border with Israel's north. They have been trading rocket fire across the border in waves for most of the past six months. The Houthis, down in Yemen, claim to be attacking the passing cargo ships in order to support Palestine. Given that the attacks often seem indiscriminate, and that the Houthi's control over their portion of Yemen is waning in the face of their poor governance, this is... debatable. It's their official reason, but given that "let's attack passing ships, claiming that we only attack Israeli or American ships and that it is to support Palestine" is rallying support domestically for their regime, it does seem to be more of a political move to garner support at home than about supporting Palestine.

Iran, however, has not attacked Israel. They've spoken out about it, yes, but they haven't done anything because nobody wants a regional war. Nobody can afford it right now. Iran is dealing with a domestic crisis due to oil subsidies bleeding the states' coffers dry, and the aging Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of Iran, refusing to pick a successor. They are looking at both an economic crisis and succession crisis, and a regional war would fuck up both situations further. Iran funds most of its proxies, and they can't do that, and fight a war on top of it, while their economy is in its current state. Pure self preservation says they don't want a war, especially with the ongoing unrest that's been going on for... well, basically since the revolution, but especially since the death of Mahsa Amini.

Meanwhile, in Israel, Netanyahu has been looking at corruption charges and legal issues since before the Hamas attack. It's generally agreed that if Israel were to hold new elections right now, he would lose and be replaced, and also immediately taken to court. Netanyahu wants to stay in power, and as long as the war on Hamas lasts, he is unlikely to get voted out. A change in leadership in the middle of a war is rarely a good idea for any country, and he's banking on that.

However, the war on Hamas rests on the shoulders of American money and supplies. Without that military support, Israel cannot fight this war, and America... is losing patience.

Officially, America and most of the western world have been telling Israel to not fucking escalate for the majority of the war.

There have been implied threats, more or less since Schumer's big speech about how Israel needs a new election, of American legislators putting conditions on any future aid. There have even been rumblings of aid being retracted entirely if Israel follows through on invading Raffah.

So...

American aid to Israel has, for a very long time, been given in the name of defending Israel against Iran and its proxies.

Israel has been fighting this war against Hamas for six months, killing what is by now innumerable civilians, on the power of US military aid.

Netanyahu benefits from the continued war due to domestic troubles.

Iran does not want a regional war, or really any big war, due to its own domestic troubles.

The US is, in theory, losing patience with Israel and threatening to pull the plug on unconditional support. It's very "we gave you this to fight Iran. Stop attacking civilians. If you keep attacking civilians, then you're going to have to rely on what we already gave you to fight off Iran so that you won't keep wasting it on civilians."

Israel... attacks Iran, prompting a response, and is now talking about escalating with Iran.

I am not explicitly saying that it looks to me like Israel, which is already fighting a war on two physical fronts and even more political/economic ones, has picked a fight with Iran so that America feels less like it is able to withdraw support.

I just... am finding it hard to understand why Israel, which is in fact fighting both Hamas and Hezbollah, would attack the Iranian consulate in Syria otherwise. They can't actually afford to fight this war, escalating to a full regional conflict, on a third front.

Not without pressuring American into keeping the faucet of military funding open at full blast.

To support my blogging so I can move out of my parents’ house, I do have a ko-fi. Alternately, you can donate to one of the charities I list in this post OR this post.

[artstar1997]

Blurred Lines

Ever since I watched Trolls Band Together, I had a lot of questions sticking in my brain like gum under the tables or bleachers that can’t be removed. If you ask me, I treat these plotholes like a crime scene investigation or a science experiment in the laboratory. Sorry if there is too much information and scientific facts added to it because I found out that people with ASD like me prefer logic, accuracy, and clarity to guide my judgement because they’re consistent.

With Queen Poppy and Viva, they look semi-identical based on their designs, which makes me see that they’re fraternal or identical twins. Identical twins, are meant to have identical DNA but they differ somewhat in appearance and are not the same in terms of height, physical features, and many more so yeah, that might make sense.

Maybe they were isolated from one another in the troll tree for their safety and Viva remembers Poppy more than her because she would sneak around to be with her. There wasn’t any evidence about who is older and younger but what I know is that Viva wasn’t targeted by Chef, it was Poppy instead. It might be due to Poppy’s status as the heir because I discovered that in a legal system based on primogeniture, which favors the inheritance claims of an eldest child or his or her children over the claims of other relatives, an heir apparent is generally the eldest child, who is entitled to claim the property and titles of his or her parent. While rewatching the first Trolls movie, I noticed that King Peppy, Poppy and the other trolls escaped in the morning of the Last Trollstice so Viva and the others might escaped late at the night when Chef was exiled and there were other Bergens living outside Bergen Town so Viva’s escape might’ve happened at that time. Come to think of it, some trolls are up and running when they hatched out of their eggs like ducks and horse foals (cough* cough* Tiny Diamond) and compared to us humans, troll brains absorb memories and instincts fast or faster like sponges.

Maybe Poppy doesn't remember much about Viva because she kinda looks like she has Autism and ADHD. I read that children with autism have memory challenges that hinder not only their memory for faces but also their ability to remember other kinds of information. That's the same thing I struggled with as well.

I also based this theory on my life experiences because as an eldest child myself, I experienced the things Poppy had been through as I grew older and I am shorter while Viva kinda reminds me of my younger, taller sister.

I also read about sibling psychology and discovered that Poppy has more oldest sibling traits than Viva, who has younger sibling traits. I noticed in the movies and the animated series that Poppy exhibited the traits I listed, but she only has two youngest sibling traits, evidently mischievous and risk taker while Viva has two oldest sibling traits, usually cautious and conscientious. They both share the traits of fun loving and creative so I didn’t add them in my chart.

With the BroZone, it’s obvious to see the details about who is older and younger among them because of the features I noticed. It was evident that John Dory spent his years alone in the wilderness, Spruce established a business and had a family in Vacay Island, and Clay escaped with Viva and the others on the night when Chef was exiled and lived in the abandoned mini golf. Floyd on the other hand, he must’ve wandered around on his own until he was found by Velvet and captured him to fulfill her plan to become a popstar, alongside Veneer.

With Velvet and Veneer, they must’ve ended up that way because the Mount Rageon lifestyle is focused on partying and hedonism that they become victims of neglect and favoritism. Velvet was spoiled rotten by their parents, who were dentists while Veneer was often pushed to the side, causing him to lack willpower and only be a doormat for her when she cooks up schemes. Veneer possibly got Sparkles the goldfish as by the parents to shut him up while they spoil Velvet as if she was a treasure they can cherish and maintain. This had gotten worse possibly if the two experience bullying in school for being talentless.

Whatever my mind was thinking, all I know is that there are blurred lines in there.

[five-thousand-loaves-of-bread]

hi bread, I received an ask from someone who thinks that because they’ve been called the r slur for being autistic, that they can say it even though they’re not ID.

i am LSN autistic and don’t have ID so I answered the ask to the best of my ability but I don’t want to speak over anyone or accidentally spread untrue info. I know you don’t have ID, but I respect your posts and advocating for people with ID, so would you be okay with me sharing the post with you, and if you want you can provide your insight. you don’t have to at all, i just wanted to ask because I don’t want to misrepresent the issue.

thank you.

would prefer not be sent that post (upset me & often lead to harassment) but here some things can say or send:

this only post that can find right now that explain why not but there a lot just tumblr search system suck. if anyone have posts written by ppl w ID about why not that want share please feel free

some off top of head thoughts from listening to people w ID & in general disability/ID history:

(you = general you / people like person you talking about)

r slur come from old medical term for intellectual disability. “mental [version of r slur that end in -tion].” n version that end in -d shortened from it.

come from medical term for ID. not autism. not ADHD. not general any neurodivergence.

r slur & mental r word been used historically AND NOW to deny rights of people w ID. it been used for eugenics. think that word been watered down nowadays but by eugenics am meaning literal eugenic policies n direct actions. it been used for dehumanize people w ID, for deny rights n dignity, for deny education, for deny services n help, for forced sterilization, for involuntary institutionalized in abusive institutions with horrific abuse & neglect to point of barely alive or straight up death, for basically murder even.

in fact, word still in laws. many them old laws but still in affect n can be (& is) used any time to deny rights of people with ID.

while it really unfortunate n bad that be bullied n be called that word. as someone who been bullied with that slur, am sorry but that simply not on same level as this systemic level of abuse behind this word.

when be called r slur when not have ID, is comparing you to people with ID. is say you near/just as bad as them.

can’t reclaim something that never about you in first place.

especially when people most affected by slur (aka people with ID) want it disappear forever.

plus. many people without ID’s idea of “reclaim” that slur is just. use as insult. use as deprecation, use as self deprecation, use as poke fun of self. wow look am nearly as bad as people with ID.

while all not even bother learn what ID is n history behind people with ID n advocate for people with ID. (does person you talk about even know what it is. that it is intellectual functioning + adaptive functioning + symptom before technically 18 but usually before child. that it not same as dyslexia dyscalculia dysgraphia. do they say “intellectual disabilities” “an intellectual disability.” do they know what ID look like. do they know what severe profound ID look like. can they name one person with ID. just one. by name.)

disability’s not like gender sexuality. disability’s not like queerness. some experience may overlap but most things, can’t just copy paste because simply not same.

why you wanna say slur so bad. why you wanna collect slurs like it cool rocks so bad.

wow. you so cool n edgy n original (sarcasm)

if want able say & “reclaim” “fun” slur so bad. then also have hundreds (n thousands bc people with ID existed before it documented by modern western doctors) years of oppression & abuse & life lost that come with it. have the mistreatment n abuse that people with ID experience now—n. if that’s case. would be extremely lucky if even able make this far n be able to sit here use your communication privilege to talk about how want “reclaim” a fucking slur. because. did i mention people with ID are treated horribly.

denied education denied communication denied autonomy denied life changing therapies & help & aides. denied personhood.

still. today.

think that’s all

(tone = not mad at asker. just wish people dare think about anything other than themselves. just tired of this same old thing. am tired. my friends with ID double that. triple that. unspeakable amounts. but yeah am mad.)

[feroluce]

I have been informed by a mutual aid that you are a henghill enjoyer. You've single-handedly gotten me to care about Gepard and I would love to hear your thoughts on Cowborg Menace x Dragon That Can't Catch a Break

Aaaaaaaa I'm really flattered!! I have also been informed by a mutual aid that you have good taste (read: rvb enjoyer) and I need you to know that part of the reason I treat Gepard the way I do, like messing with him constantly, is because he makes me think of Wash. Poor dude was doomed the moment I got my grubby little mitts on him sksjkskdjd

But anyway yes, henghill! They really got me by the throat out of nowhere in 2.2. They're just. Surprisingly sweet?

The two of them get along very well, they see eye to eye on a lot of matters and have some similar mannerisms, they can hold long conversations together, and they have a shockingly swift understanding of the other in a very small amount of time! Platonically or romantically, there's a lot to dig into there. ♡

And I do mean a lot this basically ended up becoming a big long ship manifesto I'm so sorry zmjzznkdjd

Like first of all they're both fucking nerds over each other. Boothill's adoration for the Xianzhou alliance is already well-documented in his About Dan Heng voice line, and is appropriately pointed out in the fandom as sounding gay as all hell.

We know what you are, Boothill.

But then! He further cements it by trying to use Xianzhou sayings in front of Dan Heng haha

Not only that, but Boothill was able to recognize the Jade Abacus of Allying Oath for what it was like immediately, and instantly took it as proof of Dan Heng's identity as a Nameless. The validation of the Xianzhou is clearly a huge deal to him.

And Dan Heng plays it cool but like. I don't think he's actually much better JFKLASJDKL

The in-game Data Bank, which is supposed to be written and maintained by Dan Heng himself, has a pretty positive glowing review of the Galaxy Rangers.

And I feel the need to point out that like. The Galaxy Rangers are essentially a vigilante justice group..."group" being a pretty loose term, there isn't a whole lot of organization in there. Not everyone has a very good view of them because they're outlaws and there's a pretty wide and wild variety of individuals in the mix there, Boothill even confirms it as such.

And that archive entry is a hilariously stark contrast to the one for the Masked Fools, who Dan Heng does NOT seem to respect. So you can tell he puts a lot of his own opinion into the data and you can really see where his preferences lie KFDLAJFKLD

He does let his fanboy slip when Boothill first announces himself as a Galaxy Ranger though, just a little bit haha:

They're like the equivalent of when your favorite big name fandom person follows you back, you feel me fjkdjasflkdjskal

Which. I feel like it does make sense that he would really idolize the Galaxy Rangers and see them as heroes. Dan Heng is someone who was a victim of centuries of wrongful imprisonment and political power plays, and it would have been way worse had Jing Yuan not gone above the preceptors to protect him. He is someone that the system failed, and horrifically so. Of course he would like the idea of righteous heroes who stand for justice and travel the cosmos freely to help people.

And as @hydrachea, CEO of Dan Heng Enterprises and Super Genius with Giant Wrinkly Brain pointed out, this background DOES lay the foundation for Dan Heng to relate to Boothill a lot. You see this displayed beautifully in his Keeping Up With Star Rail video, where Dan Heng gets really protective of him, I adored it so so much. ♡

In it, Dan Heng not only comments that he originally came because he thought he was giving a presentation on how to be friendly with Boothill, but every time the IPC tries to paint him as some violent dangerous ruthless criminal, Dan Heng speaks up to explain his way of thinking and to defend him. It was really sweet!

And Dan Heng is protective of people anyway. He serves as the Guard of the Astral Express for a reason. He had nothing and no one before Himeko took him in, and now that he's found companions to love he is viciously defensive of them. You see it in the way he guards March 7th during fights on Jarilo-IV, in how he goes out of his way to bring important info to the trailblazer, in how he left the safety of the Express and infiltrated the Luofu because he was terrified he was going to lose them. But there's maybe a little extra layer of Understanding in the way he so persistently speaks up in Boothill's defense.

And I'm sure that this is a part of him that Boothill really admires, too, because Dan Heng also displays these instincts in Penacony. He makes the decision not just once, but twice, to use the Jade Abacus to save the Express Crew. And we know from Boothill's earlier reaction to it that like. The Jade Abacus is a Big Fuckin' Deal. It is something of immense value. Even with everything that's at stake, Boothill urges him to really make sure he wants to use it.

And this was something that really got me in the heart later, because! In Ena's Dream, Dan Heng once again decides to use the Jade Abacus, and. I'm not quite sure I can effectively put it in words, but there is something just so so sweet in the way that Boothill tells him no, Dan Heng should keep it. This is a get out of jail free card that could save his life down the line, he wants him to have it in case he finds himself in danger again later.

It really gives the feeling that Boothill actually wanted Dan Heng to not have to rely on this before, but there was no other way at the time. But now there IS something Boothill can do about it, and he wants to do something about it. A sorta-kinda "let me protect you this time"-ish feeling. If that makes any sense. He doesn't want Dan Heng to have to make that sacrifice.

Because I think Boothill would consider that a really admirable and respectable action, especially given his background. The IPC eradicated his homeplanet. He lost his parents, his siblings, his daughter, his home all in one fell swoop, and he has been on a fully dedicated revenge quest ever since. How could he not be a little awed by someone willing to give so much to protect his home and his family?

I think it's something the two of them understand in each other, because as it shows in the dialogue the first time Dan Heng decided to use the Jade Abacus, Boothill caught on immediately. He already knew what Dan Heng was planning before he even said so. And it's not even the first time he does that! Even as early as their initial entrance into the Reverie, Boothill is able to tell when Dan Heng is stressed, why he's stressed, and he backs off and gives him space without any fuss.

And it works! After the Express Crew are safe, they go from Dan Heng correcting him to more just kind of going with Boothill's flow, and I feel like this is a much better basis for their interactions.

Also I'm crying about Dan Heng blabbing that the trailblazer is a vessel of a Stellaron, gossipy little dragon fjdkasjfdklsaj

Like the two of them just GET each other! And so quickly and easily! It's ridiculous! Dan Heng is able to explain the methods behind Boothill's madness. Boothill is able to read Dan Heng like a book. They both had the same reaction to learning Acheron was a Self-Annihilator. They both really believe it's just fine and normal to have a weapon out if you don't trust someone yet- Boothill pulled his gun on Acheron the second he saw her, Dan Heng got his spear out and poked Sampo the first time he met him (valid). And they both act Like That because they're similar flavors of wary and cautious. They had to prove their identities to each other when they first met before either of them could relax.

They're both frank, and blunt, and will openly call shit out or question it when they see fit. They both believe in answering the call to action, and share a lot of their ideologies of The Hunt, like upholding justice and saving the innocent and protecting the weak. Boothill lives to fuck over the IPC and keep them from colonizing more planets like his, Dan Heng didn't even consider his own wants and asked to go to Edo Star to help the population there. They take their creeds seriously, and dedicate themselves to them, enough to be offended by imposters. Dan Heng dislikes Boothill claiming to be a Nameless, Boothill was literally hunting down Acheron for parading around as a Galaxy Ranger.

And all throughout 2.2, Boothill displays an immense knowledge of Paths and Aeons and even Emanators, and Dan Heng is a huge nerd an archiver and a collector of knowledge. The conversations these two could have!! They've both been to a lot of places and seen a lot of things, and I think Dan Heng especially would love listening to Boothill's stories and then adding them to the data bank. They can probably relate on rough travel, too- Boothill refers to the Astral Express as "bunkin' in luxury" and Pom-Pom once said Dan Heng was "used to sleeping on the rope." When March 7th takes the trailblazer to look for Dan Heng, she even phrases this as though he and Boothill have been talking together for quite a while!

Hell, even when they awaken in Ena's Dream, they arrive together:

They were together for almost the entirety of 2.2; literally the very first scene of it was their introduction. They only truly separated when Dan Heng went to help in the fight with The Great Septimus and Boothill to gather the Rangers (and then go shoot Aventurine full of holes fjkdlsajd) but! I'm really hoping we'll get to see more of them together in 2.3! They were a really cool duo, and it was so fun to watch them all through this update, I really want to see more of them now and explore their relationship dynamic more! ♡

[wheelie-sick]

was curious about your opinion on terminology: i, a bipolar person, am technically fine calling myself and identifying as bipolar. but i also think the older terms do a better job of describing my experience? like i feel like “dysphoric mania” describes me so much better than “mixed episode.” and manic depression makes more sense to my brain. but i’m also young so people expect me to be in the know with whatever mental health terms that are in vogue rn. anyway, i was just wondering what you thought about these terms and the policing of how ppl talk abt their own mental health

[disclaimer i know the dsm is bullshit and psychiatry is an oppressive system]

I think mentally ill people have every right to define their own terminology for their own mental health. it shouldn't be up to psychiatrists to determine how we talk about ourselves and that might mean that people's terminology is inconsistent but that's okay! because part of autonomy is autonomy over language. I think people not only should but need to respect the preferences of individual mentally ill people. psychiatrists do not get to define us and our communities.

I think that the way mentally ill people police other mentally ill people's language only aids the control the psychiatric system has over mentally ill people. I think it's worse when someone without a specific mental illness does it. we know the language we prefer and we should be granted the presumption of knowledge over terms. often people approach people using terminology that deviates from the DSM with "education" because they assume that whoever they're talking to just isn't aware of the "correct" terminology. the assumption that we are unaware of our own language often stems from biases suggesting we cannot be knowledgeable about a mental illness unless we conform to what psychiatry says about us

I do also recognize that it can be helpful for outsiders to have a "standardized" set of terms to use for broad statements. while I think mentally ill people get to use whatever term they want with their broad statements I recognize it's different for outsiders (though honestly I could write a whole essay on the divide between mentally ill and not mentally ill and how these boundaries are made up somewhat arbitrarily. some people clearly fit in one box or the other but many people exist in grays because people aren't made for boxes. for the sake of this post we're pretending that there are clearly defined boxes) this is especially true when you consider the nuances of some terms and their histories (and often their histories of harm) I think it's helpful for people who aren't intimately familiar with a community to have a "default" set of terminology to fall back on because not everyone is going to be incredibly knowledgeable about bipolar terminology but might still need to refer to bipolar disorder and people with it.

TLDR: people should respect the terminology of individual people. psychiatrists do not get to define our language. mentally ill people policing other mentally ill people aids psychiatry. it helps people without a specific mental illness to have a set of terminology to fall back on when they're unsure.

short answer: use whatever language you want, it's your mental illness!

hopefully you were looking for a long response 😅

[lady-raziel]

Going to give some of my thoughts on the overall situation in the Democratic party and pre-empt this by saying that the intention is NOT to say "don't vote" or give up, before people in the notes claim that anyway. Not voting doesn't help, but also thinking that voting once will solve systemic problems instantly is setting people up to become disillusioned with everything when it doesn't happen like that. Anyway.

What's happening in the Democratic party is a tragedy, because I think due to their own faults, including allowing elites to cling to power and refusing change, the party might have signed their death warrant. And in a moment where the US has long been a two-party system and the only way to pose a challenge to the other party is to unify behind a candidate and participate in the system as it exists...if the Democratic party suffers such a severe crisis of confidence and credibility that it cannot pose a challenge, then it becomes significantly harder to oppose Republicans in any meaningful way.

I've spoken before about the Democrats' history of preferring one of their own elites as a presidential candidate and their history of suppressing changes to the status quo. Joe Biden is the product of all this. In a better world, he might have been convinced not to try for re-election early in his term and the party could have prioritized elevating alternative candidates so that there was a base of awareness and rapport by the time 2024 happened. But that didn't happen, and Biden chose to run again.

When his candidacy faced questions about his age and capability for duty from the start, it would have been a challenge even if those concerns weren't seemingly confirmed in increasing incidences over the past few weeks (but the debate particularly). The resulting crisis of confidence has brought questions of Biden stepping down to the forefront, and it seems like now that Biden has been diagnosed with COVID, compounded with events on the Trump side of things, it's becoming more likely that he'll listen.

I think all of this highlights how stuck the Democratic party is, and how they've maneuvered themselves into a very tricky corner. In all honesty, it was likely a mistake to pick Biden as nominee in 2020 because I think it was more anger with Trump than genuine belief in Biden that caused that result-- I don't believe that Joe Biden and Joe Biden alone is the factor that caused Trump to lose then. In retrospect, it would have been much wiser to prioritize a candidate who wouldn't have been at risk for the natural challenges age poses and would have been sure to be able to defend the presidency in 2024. But the Democrats didn't do that, and the seeds of all this might have been in place even then.

Because if Biden chose not to run again, it would have meant the Democrats had backed someone who couldn't "finish the job" and running someone else after a single term would cast doubt. Just like if Biden backs out now that the Democratic establishment has been backing him, cleared the field so no other candidate could run against him, it's an admission they chose wrong. That's part of the degradation of credibility I'm talking about-- why would anyone trust a party that doesn't know what it's doing? It erodes confidence. It erodes already-strained faith.

The terrible thing is that even if Biden bows out, the Democratic party is still very, very stuck. I'll tell you why, after spending some time examining the rules the party has established around its nominating process. Parties can write their own rules about how candidates can get chosen, and the way the Democrats have structured their system, surprise surprise, gives enormous power to their elites-- the "superdelegates."

Democratic superdelegates are existing and former high-ranking elected officials, members of the DNC, etc.--basically the ruling class of the party. And they have the power to independently vote for whichever candidate they want to be the nominee. This makes up a large portion of the Democratic delegates-- a nominee is chosen when the majority of all delegates agree on a candidate.

The rest of the delegates are chosen from states, and most operate with the assumption that they will use their vote to back the winner of their states' primary or caucus.

Here is the critical problem-- the primaries and caucuses have already happened, and Biden won all of them. The people in those states (even given that there were, by design, not many alternatives) CHOSE Biden. If Biden drops out, there is not time to redo every primary. The delegates would, independent of their now-void state results, have to vote for someone else.

The new nominee would be selected by the Democratic establishment elites and delegates who had really just been intended to rubber-stamp the states' results. The magnitude of this needs to be spelled out explicitly-- the candidate option for millions of people, the only chance in the current system for defeating Trump, would be chosen without ANY input from the common people. The Democratic party, with democracy in the very name, would choose a nominee openly and publicly in a very non-democratic way.

And yeah, in the end it would be the people's choice in the general election, but if there are only a limited number of choices and one of the two who even have a shot of winning was picked without input of the people, is that really a totally democratic choice?

Whatever the Democrats decide, they lose credibility-- either by pushing forward with a struggling candidate and ignoring signs of crisis or by pulling out and choosing someone new undemocratically. It looks bad for them in any scenario from a long-term viability standpoint. Lose because they refused the signs and refused to change, or possibly win but severely cripple their ability to claim their own NAME?

It would be bad at any time. It's especially bad when the other main party is having a moment of power, and the US isn't set up for a coalitionary system of government if the Democrats were to splinter into smaller ideological faction parties. To pick a president, a coalition would still have to pick one leader from one of their parties--and I don't know how likely that would be to happen in short amounts of time.

Here is my best-case scenario outcome-- rally progressives to back the Biden-replacement candidate with the knowledge that the common people didn't pick that person, and then use that as leverage to demand massive overhauls of the Democratic party top to bottom on both policy and process. Win with 2024's Democratic candidate, outlast and overcome Republican backlash claims of election fraud, and relentlessly force the Democrats to reform. Because otherwise they will not wake up to their mistakes, would use winning the presidency as a mandate to continue with business as usual, and continue to fuck over everyone who doesn't want a conservative future.

It's a hard path to accomplish. But it's one of the only ones that mitigates the destructive effects of a second Trump term and forces the Democrats to change to ACTUALLY be all the things they claim to be, including, you know, democratic.

[system-of-a-feather]

I honestly really like testing out #sysconversation and trying to contribute to the baseline norms of the tag, but on the topic of tulpacourse and talking about it in a much less "we need to push to get a bare minimum fundamental respect and acknowledgement to the damage done" area and really just trying to get more into the nuance and intricacies of it - I really don't think pushing for the "no one is allowed to say or use the word tulpa" is anything helpful or really productive to the complexity of the issue.

(And for those that don't know, I'm a practicing eclectic Buddhist - Zen and Tibetan being particular focuses, diagnosed DID system in late stage recovery, and am Chinese/Indonesian and honestly the topic of tulpacourse is something I find to be a really interesting discussion; additionally we played a pretty notable role in the "tulpa terminology is cultural appropriation)

I very very much do appreciate all the non-Buddhist non-AAPI individuals who have been pushing for our voices to be heard and spreading information on the appropriation surrounding the term because honestly, especially in the syscourse community, there was a lot of dismissiveness of our voices and honestly just outright racism and stereotyping. If I had to choose between what the environment around the topic was before and people over correcting and stating "you can't use the term tulpa or you are racist" or similar things; I MUCH prefer and love the latter and its largely why I've been relatively limited in talking about it cause honestly, in large, I don't expect people - at least those in the syscourse community - to have the attention, care, or really discussion skills to explore any further nuance between the black and white dichotomy of "racist vs anti-racist" behavior and I'd find myself incredibly annoyed if me bringing nuance to the table ended up being used by people who literally don't care about AAPI or Buddhist cultures to justify their behavior.

That said, I have some more faith in the #sysconversation tag and community so maybe I'll talk about it more under the assumption yall aren't here to prove one thing or the other and more so to talk and share perspectives on complex experiences.

I think when we talk about tulpacourse, there are a few realms and perspectives to take on it that have an important value and consideration when going into making a more developed and clear stance on tulpacourse related things.

The practice / concept of Tulpamancy / Willogenic and, more specifically AND generally, the Intentional Creation of Parts and the debate on if that is "valid" or "okay" or "racist" or whatever

The term "tulpa" and the origins as it relates to white / western orientalism, stereotypes, asian mysticism, and overall colonialist / appropriation nature of how white / western people interact with AAPI cultures

The perception and present impact of the term "tulpa" as it has on and is perceived by AAPI cultures and individuals

The term "tulpa" and the origins as it relates to Buddhism - particularly Tibetian Buddhism - in terms of the history (and oppression) of Buddhist cultures across countries and cultures

The term "tulpa" and the origins as it related to Buddhism - particularly Tibetian Buddhism - in terms of the philosophy and practices that Buddhists / Tibetian Buddhists

The perception and present impact of the term "tulpa" as it has on and is perceived by Buddhist / Tibetian Buddhist cultures

The present attitudes, practices, and values that are found within the tulpamancy community and how those have changed and developed over time in relation to it's origins and history - for better or worse

The present and practical actions and values held by the current online tulpa community in relation to system environments, CDD environments, Buddhist / Tibetian Buddhist environments and culture, and AAPI individuals and culture.

The current status of the tulpamancy community and what practical and realistic approaches can be done to improve the community in a way that respects an existing subculture that does benefit a non-negligible amount of individuals while ALSO respecting potentially harmed or hurt historically marginalized communities

I find that a lot of individuals focus on one, maybe two of these perspectives and sub-discussions to the debate and call it the "most important" one that should determine how people "should" act and speak and exist, but imo that takes a largely results in a perspective, approach, and future plan that does not address a lot of the issues that go into it.

Our system unironically spends a lot of time internally debating each other (for fun, we trade roles and perspectives a lot since we are in a position to talk and have developed opinions of the first seven) about this topic and if you individually only hold one of the topics in mind, you can end up with really conflicting directions to go.

It's complicated but at least of the first six, the general understanding and perspective / insight we've come to are

Literally this shouldn't really be a topic of consideration in #sysconversation because questioning validity is such a pointless and stupid argument that I would is not really a humored one; yes the practice / action / development and presentation of parts through intentional means is fine and OK; many cultures don't align with the Standard Singular Self narrative, people know themselves and are free to express themselves as is most helpful and natural to them, I'd like to assume people are being genuine and honest rather than stating they are "faking" or "quirkifying" things and honestly that type of verbage tends to be more common in conservative environments than I like to be affiliated with

From an AAPI lens, the term "tulpa" is just another aggression in a LONG and honestly violent history of racism, appropriation, objectification and fetishism of AAPI culture and it is absolutely something that should not be brushed off as ok; it can be incredibly retraumatizing in terms of cultural / generational trauma for such things to be completely ignored and neglected; its a responsibility as someone who is AAPI and as allies of it to stand against it

Presently, a lot of AAPI individuals have stated harm from it and presently, anti-AAPI and AAPI-hate have been openly seen in tulpamancy communities; that said, the consensus is not a monolith and there is inevitably a diversity of opinions

The term comes from appropriative cultures and ADN is "a racist white bitch" as I've seen it stated in tumblr tulpacourse. There is a large disagreement within the tulpamancy community whether it "is related to / comes from Buddhist ideas" or "has nothing to do with Buddhism whatsoever" and I say that just as an outsider who have had people push both at me, leaving me very confused. Overall, from what I've seen, a lot of indiviudals who use the tulpa term can range from anywhere between "respectable individuals who are open to discussion and acknowledge the history to where the history is less harmful" to The MLP Brony Saga TM of generally turning the concept into so far divorced and bastardized from the original concept.

This one I could honestly write a 400 page essay on and I can't really say I have a firm consensus on because I actually have not learned enough about the actual practices within the tulpamancy community to be certain on my perspectives; but as I get further into my practices and studies of Buddhism - especially Tibetian Buddhism - I've had a lot more complex perspectives and opinions. On a very generally Buddhist lens, I actually love to see people exploring themselves within their parts and dismantling some of the concept of the solidity and absoluteness of the concept of "self" and really learning to interact and engage with parts of themselves in manners like this through meditation. I think there is a lot of a realm for it to become unhealthy, harmful, and increase the clinging to "self" but overall, I think it has the potential to also be incredibly helpful and beautiful. From what I've understood of the principles of Tibetian Buddhism that I believe the ADN pulled from, I don't necessarily think it is inherently all that bad on a theoretical level. Additionally, from a general Buddhist lens, the whole idea of saying what people can and can't do, or sweating and trying to direct people's behaviors according to a "good" or "bad" behavior is incredibly non-important and honestly a means of adding suffering to both yourself and other's. So from a Buddhist lens, the response is "its interesting" - nothing more, nothing less.

Once again Buddhist / Tibetian Buddhists are not a monolith and honestly I don't know enough to have a clean take on it. I do believe there is a lot of individuals that come from heavily persecuted histories (particularly Tibetian Buddhists) that are likely a lot more charged on it per the nature of cultural / generational trauma. That being said, I have only really heard of one person with that history and that is from someone online talking to said person and reporting that they found it hurtful and sad that a practice they were persecuted against was turned into something it was not. It isn't the most credible voice if ONLY because its a game of telephone, but its a reasonable, realistic, and understandable sentiment to have and I think its worth acknowledging when discussing these sorts of things.

I'm honestly getting a bit tired of typing on this so I'll likely call it quits for Part 1 on me rambling about this, but I've honestly come to find that as a whole, our system really finds that there is a lot more to this topic than "one side good one side bad" especially if we are intending to address the topic in a way that can promote education, awareness, and an overall better community for all individuals.

Our AAPI lens and our Buddhist lens have historically clashed a lot, as it has with just a number of our other backgrounds and our values in allying with individuals with trauma histories (cultural or not) AND our value for the complex diversity of human experiences, self expression and phenomenon.

I don't really have a closing statement or anything for this, but I wanted to share it some as food for thought; anyone is welcome to engage in good faith conversation and discussion.

[tittyinfinity]

I still can't believe that this election year of all years isn't the deal breaker for a lot of people when it comes to the two-party system.

Not willing at all to organize for another candidate or even protest the fact that many states aren't allowing you to vote for anyone but Biden for the democratic candidate.

You won't even demand that the Democrats put forward a different candidate to vote for? Even though you know that the guy running is a lifelong conservative who only recently put on the liberal sheep's clothing?

Just put your head down and vote for him No Matter What under threat of violence from the other party? No matter who the candidate is? No matter how bad they get, until they come for you? "You'll always have my vote as long as you keep ME safe from the Actually Evil party. Damage control!"

As if telling a political party that they can be as horrible as they want & STILL have your vote is any kind of "damage control." Maybe it's short-term damage control for you. But why would dems be incentivized to give you rights and work for your vote if you tell them that you'll vote for them no matter what policies they have? How will that look years down the line?

Why would they even try to stop republicans if all they have to say is "vote for us because the other party is worse?" Whenever every time something bad happens under a democratic presidency, you say it's not really their fault? How in the hell does that "push the democratic party to the left?" Because I see a lot of "vote for them first, THEN push them to the left!" Well then how the fuck do you expect to do that? Just ask them pretty pretty please? Are you "pushing Biden to the left" right now? How does telling people not to criticize Biden "because it increases the chances of the other guy winning" push him to the left?

Biden is issuing executive orders to send weapons over to Israel but won't do that for Roe v. Wade or trans rights. He's threatening to take away some of our first amendment rights and cut us off from outside information. And if that isn't enough, you know what happened because of the weapons he sent to israel? And how it affects you personally? Look at what happened to Fall and Winter. So much progress towards combating climate change. Lost. The US military is the largest polluter in the world & the military industrial complex will eventually kill us all if we don't stop it.

NOT TO MENTION his fucking track record? If a lifetime of advocating for racist policies that have killed and continue to kill tens of thousands of people doesn't make him as bad as Trump, what does? Trump's shitty 4-year presidency somehow cancels the decades of lives lost to Biden? WHAT? The fuck do you MEAN one of them is the "lesser of two evils"?!?!?!?

It ultimately comes down to "I prefer the violence to be where I can't see it." You're not afraid for the people that the Democrats are currently killing and have been killing while lying to your face about it, you're not afraid for the people who have been watching their family members be blown to bits for months – but you're so terrified of a republican president that you'll put up with tens of thousands of people dying in another country in order to have better domestic policies. Instead of ever fighting for anything different.

"Well then what's your plan?" Are you not embarrassed to admit that you've been actively ignoring every person who's laid out clear options for you? You can't think of anything else yourself other than "vote blue no matter who?" Newsflash, literally anything is better than enabling TWO FASCISTS to run for office.

We stop BOTH of them. Not just one of them. Step the FUCK up.

[superspecial-awesome]

s0 queerosexual hcs. for pride month

basically my interpretation of the cast in this regard is that theyre a bunch of annoying queer teenagers who will never discover this about themselves because they live in 1990s japan and all think there's only gay and straight and that being the former is grounds to be beaten in the streets

Yugi: the only one who has his shit figured out. transmasc and bi and he plans on taking that to his grave. he has a strong preference for women though so that part never really comes up. "attracted to every woman ever and one guy i met at a gas station six years ago" disease. also bonus points anzu knows he's transmasc and helped him figure out binding and shit

Miho: huge lesbian but "oh no it's just that girls are objectively more attractive than guys everyone knows that, i just haven't met the right man yet, besides every girl wishes they could date women instead that's why bakura is so popular it's because he looks like a woman." I also like to imagine that in an ideal world, she'd fuck with genderfluidity

Bakura: aroace and agender transfem. he gives me he/it/any vibes. I think partly due to The Mega Autism he never really understood the deal with traditional masculinity so he feels disconnected from manhood as a whole and would be a lot more comfortable being able to exist as something entirely detached from gender. I also think the swarms of girls at all times made him view women as some sort of other species entirely and he's got a lot of deep-rooted misogyny going on about it, but tbh anzu and miho could fix him. and make him into the vague girlthing he always was

Anzu: Idk what label to slap onto her but I don't think physical appearance or gender plays any role in her being attracted to people at all. maybe like demiromantic asexual. but i dont think demi is the term im looking for. definitely ace though.

Honda: "WOW I LOVE BEING A MAN I LOVE WOMEN AND RULES AND ORDER I DON'T AT ALL FEEL LIKE I'M CURSED TO FIT MYSELF INTO A BOX THAT'S TOO SMALL FOR ME" and he believes that wholeheartedly and then wonders why he needs to constantly prove himself over things that don't matter to avoid his mental health crumbling to dust. I don't think he's trans though I just think he needs to chill out. also he's bi and poly and the single most useless hopeless romantic ever.

Jonouchi: bi but i think his refusal to accept that as a possibility has made him very aware of a lot of other things he has going on psychologically. like his homophobia has somehow made him a more self-aware and chill person. "honda put his hand on my shoulder for more than 0.5 seconds and my entire nervous system took a screenshot does this mean im g--wait no im just touched starved huh i wonder if that has ever impacted my poor decision making in the past." also him being used for the cartoon standard "guy wears girl clothes and likes it" joke is grounds for me to hc him as genderqueer. I could absolutely see him getting really into fem presentation.

Yami Yugi: gay gay homosexual gay

Kaiba: transfem in the super dysphoric way but will absolutely never find this out because any time she becomes remotely aware of something bothering her about herself she just looks in the mirror and says "no." i also wanna say arospec and aspec but idk she's fully either. i think if i wanted to give you an accurate idea of how attraction works for her i'd have to pull up the homestuck quadrants and i'm not joking.

Yami Bakura: agender is a way that's like "dude I'm a ghost in a ring who cares." If you called him a she he'd be like "what" and then after you got two words into explaining he'd go "nvm I underestimated the amount of shit I don't give about this." His sexuality is no time for dat goku

[bloomshroomz]

Reworking the A/Grey/Allo/Orchid Attraction System

As it stands currently, the a-spectrum encompasses any identity involving little or no attraction. This includes all grey orientations by default. The allo spectrum is treated as less of a spectrum, but more of a term for people who aren’t a-spec or grey. I think that this ultimately ends up being confusing, and could use some reworking.

(Some people might be getting a little anxious about where I'm going with this, especially if you're greysexual/demisexual/etc, so I want to make it clear right away: This rework is not designed to invalidate or exclude you.)

I keep seeing the a-spec get stretched to encompass more and more experiences, such as meneromantic: a term for people who experience romantic attraction easily, but prefer not to act on it unless they think their crush will reciprocate… Which just describes how most alloromantic people approach their attraction.

This was described as an “aro-spec” orientation, and as an aromantic person, I feel like that misses the point of the spectrum completely. I admit, it is a pretty niche term, and isn’t the end of the world, but it’s a symptom of a larger problem.

It’s becoming clear, at least to me, that people are unsure how to draw the line between a-spec and allo, due to the subjectivity of what “little attraction” even is, to the point of both terms becoming less meaningful over time. I don’t even know where I’m supposed to fit among those terms myself, at least when it comes to sexual attraction. I’ve actually opted not to label my sexuality largely for that reason; it’s why I’m a neu aro.

So I wanted to take a shot at proposing a change. Not for the sake of excluding or assimilating, but for the sake of making attraction/orientations more easy to navigate and explore, especially for people who are questioning. I made an effort to make this rework as inclusive as possible, while also being much more clearly understood. If you experience attraction and identify as a-spec, don’t worry! The rework still includes you; it just includes you in terms which are easier to define.

A-spec

The a-spectrum, under the rework, includes any identity which is defined by zero attraction, as well as experiences adjacent to that. In other words, if a person experiences absolutely no sexual attraction, no romantic attraction, and/or no tertiary attraction, they are a-spec. This includes:

Asexual: Experiencing zero sexual attraction, or having an adjacent experience to this.

Aromantic: Experiencing zero romantic attraction, or having an adjacent experience to this.

Aplatonic: Experiencing zero platonic attraction, or having an adjacent experience to this.

Cupio: Experiencing zero (sexual/romantic/platonic/etc.) attraction, but desiring a relationship commonly associated with that attraction anyway. For example, desiring a sexual relationship as an asexual person.

Apothi: Experiencing zero (sexual/romantic/platonic/etc.) attraction, and feeling repulsed by relationships and/or activities associated with that attraction. For example, being asexual and sex-repulsed.

Icula: Experiencing zero (sexual/romantic/platonic/etc.) attraction, but being open to relationships/activities commonly associated with that attraction anyway. For example, being asexual and open to sex.

Etc.

“Experiences adjacent to that” refers to anyone who doesn’t necessarily experience zero attraction, but still:

Feels strongly represented by a-spec identities/experiences.

Strongly relates to a-spec identities/experiences.

Needs access to a-spec resources, communities, and support.

Finds it easy, useful, and/or helpful to identify as a-spec, especially as opposed to not identifying as a-spec.

Finds one’s attraction to be irrelevant to one’s life, either because it’s so vague or infrequent that it has no impact, because one has negative interest in acting on it, or because one’s attraction otherwise has no relevance.

Note that “experiencing little attraction” is not a qualifier on its own, because what’s “little” is entirely subjective, and can be incredibly difficult to define. Note that you do not have to check each bullet point in the list above to be a-spec; just one is enough.

Greysexuality, greyromanticism, etc. can be a-spec, but these identities are not a-spec by default. It depends on the individual, their own experiences, and how they define/feel about their own identity.

Grey-spec

The grey spectrum, under the rework, includes any identity which doesn’t fit neatly into an a-or-allo binary. This includes:

People who aren’t sure whether they’re a-spec or allo-spec.

People who resonate with both a-spec and allo-spec identities/experiences.

People who resonate with neither a-spec nor allo-spec identities/experiences.

People whose identities are in constant flux, and thus difficult or impossible to pinpoint as a-spec or allo-spec.

People who fit into the a-spec category, but feel like the a-spec category is still insufficient in some way.

People who fit into the allo-spec category, but feel like the allo-spec category is still insufficient in some way.

People who feel like they fit somewhere between “experiencing attraction” and “not experiencing attraction” in some way.

Anyone else who can’t or won’t fit themselves into an a-or-allo binary.

Greysexuality, greyromanticism, etc. can be a-spec and/or allo-spec, but these identities are not either by default. It depends on the individual, their own experiences, and how they define/feel about their own identity.

I think this is a much needed change, not just because this is easier to define than figuring out what “little attraction” means, but because grey-specs don’t always want to be pigeonholed into being a-spec by default. It is a grey area, after all.

Allo-spec

The allo spectrum, under the rework, includes any identity in which one experiences attraction, no matter how much or how little. This includes:

People who experience little attraction.

People who experience a moderate amount of attraction.

People who experience a lot of attraction.

I’ve decided to include all experiences of present attraction in this spectrum because it can be extremely hard (or impossible) to quantify how much attraction you experience in comparison to other people. If you experience attraction, it isn’t necessarily going to be clear whether you experience a lot or a little or something between. Including all present attraction under the allo-spec, no matter the amount, makes it much easier to define where you fall within these spectra.

Greysexuality, greyromanticism, etc. can be allo-spec, but these identities are not allo-spec by default. It depends on the individual, their own experiences, and how they define/feel about their own identity.

Orchid-spec

This is an additional spectrum for people who experience attraction, but do not want to act on that attraction. For example, an orchidsexual person experiences sexual attraction, but does not want to have sex under any circumstances.

I didn’t come up with this spectrum, but I’ve decided to include it here, because a person may feel that orchid-spec is the only spectrum that feels relevant to their experience, with a/grey/allo being completely irrelevant or inapplicable. Though, a person may resonate with orchid-spec in addition to other spectra, which is also valid!

Overlapping spectra

All spectra within this proposed system can overlap in some instances.

For example, if a person experiences attraction, but feels strongly represented by a-spec identities, they could be a combination of a-spec, grey-spec, and allo-spec. They might identify with one spectrum more than the others, but they would be included in all three.

As another example, a person may fall under all four spectra, because:

Their attraction is irrelevant to them, so they identify as a-spec.

They relate to both a-spec and allo-spec, so they identify as grey-spec.

They experience attraction, so they identify as allo-spec.

They don’t want to act on their attraction, so they identify as orchid-spec.

A person might also identify as both grey-spec and a-spec, but not allo-spec, because they don’t know whether they experience attraction or not, but they relate to a-spec identities and experiences.

Another person might fall under both allo-spec and grey-spec, but not a-spec, because they experience attraction, but feel that the allo-spec is insufficient to describe their identity, while also not resonating with the a-spec at all.

These are just a few examples of how spectra could possibly overlap. There are other ways that these spectra could be combined which have not been listed here.

And of course, it's up to you how you identify! I just wanted to propose a system which (hopefully) makes attraction easier to understand and navigate.

[tempest-teacup]

okay now I'm curious because I've just read through all your ship review stuff what's your OTP/Favourite ship (Any quadrant) for Sollux? I like seeing what people do with him shipwise because I ship him with like,,,, most of the cast (Multishipper moment)

I like the term “ship review” because it makes it sound like I’m writing a newspaper article. “Hello readers, this weekend I investigated Davekat and LET ME TELL YOU…”

Now, okay, you’re about to be sorry you asked because I could write a fricken novel about this one.

I like Erisol a lot and I’m mad at myself for it. Like it feels too obvious of a ship to be good but I’m obsessed. And even after I eventually accepted that I liked them black, I was then angry to learn that I like them flushed too. UGH!!!

Anyway here’s why.

First of all you have to get on board with being an Eridan sympathizer. Yes he is an asshole and a dipshit but that’s kind of the whole deal with Trolls. He just happened to be an asshole dipshit who was born into the equivalent of like, the Tr*mp family or something. Also he had to constantly hunt and murder to keep his species alive. And his best friend and crush kinda maybe used him/lead him on for said hunting and murdering and then literally *dumped him to go smooch another boy the second she didn’t need him anymore.* And they’re THIRTEEN when starting the game, I can’t stress this enough.

Gang, I dunno about y’all but when I was in middle school I had some REAL SHITTY OPINIONS.

Ahem. Moving on.

Sollux also has a similar relationship with Being Responsible For the Fate of His Species. He is also An Asshole Dipshit Teenager. Bro just got born into the opposite end of the spectrum. And I know that all of the Trolls obviously have a relationship to the apocalypse but these two have have been dealing with theirs forever(?) and they are just unescapable parts of how each kid has to exist day to day.

IT’S REALLY SAD!

The more you look at these two, the more they appear as opposites, or if you prefer, the concept of yin and yang. I mean, ugh. Hope and Doom. HOPE AND DOOM, Y’ALL.

They’re both so deep in their own social niches, they look at the other and think “I would NEVER!!” Eridan has so much Hope in the caste system that he blindly believes it will save him in the end. Sollux feels so Doomed by it that he has resigned himself to being a lazy burnout even though we know damn well how much potential has has both as an intellectual and a psionic. In the end both of them reject the destiny that’s expected of them.

Ok, you still with me? Because what I’m doing here is setting up why these two are star-crossed lovers in either/both quadrants.

It’s a little sad that they never get the chance to become kismesis in canon, because not only do they get under eachother’s skin but they are so cat-and-mouse about it. Like, granted I have my issues with Pesterquest but their duel in that is so good. Eridan just casually calling him up, knowing he’s being an ass. Sollux *answering and humoring him.* Eridan’s utter glee at their proposed battle. The way he gets to showboat (heh, boat) about it. The boy gets to VAMP! And Sollux purposely choosing not to to go hard enough to kill him. Come on. These guys are dancing, they’re honing their claws.

Oh and what’s that?? Eridan learning a valuable lesson? Sollux getting off his ass and doing something (that’s not self-destructive)? Oh my, could it be that their rivalry mutually benefits them?! Just look at what a stinky lump Sollux is in HS^2 *without* Eridan.

And then we get into the vacillating/flipping to flushed.

I won’t bore you too much, I can already hear the awards show music playing me off, but I think if there’s a universe where Eridan and Sollux exist post-Erisolsprite then it’s all over for these two losers, they can’t NOT date. Whether they like it or not, they’ve reached a level of intimacy beyond anything they’ve ever experienced. They know eachother’s truest selves, they’ve seen the very best and worst of each other. And hey, guess what they found? Someone who’s just like them and balances the other perfectly.

Mic drop. Book slam. THEY’RE IN LOVE, YOUR HONOR.

[sysmedsaresexist]

hey! so i saw in one of your posts that a lot of system terminology that ppl claim is stolen isn't actually stolen, i'd like to know if you have a list or source with terms that aren't stolen? thank you in advance!

This is actually a bit of a hard ask. It would be impossible to list them all, and every time I turn around someone is saying a new term is stolen. Sourcing most of this would be impossible, as the proof is either in the complete lack of use in clinical literature (eg system hopping, with my all access, I've never seen it used, even within RAMCOA literature, and @sophieinwonderland found the coining of it, if you want to drop a link to it), or its extreme overuse in other fields and concepts (eg system).

Obviously system hopping isn't stolen, system reset is one we never wanted and isn't ours, side system is community made.

Endogenic, traumagenic, and dissociation don't belong to us.

System itself is better said to have started in clinical literature for early DID but has expanded to so much more. Fighting this point is a losing battle, and that has nothing to do with endos and more to do with IFS therapy and it being such a generic word with so many uses. So long as people stop lying and saying it was never used for DID before IFS therapy in the 80s, I don't care about this one. It's like fighting with a programmer over computer system because its use in that respect is implying people with CDDs aren't human. I have issues with shared language and I wish there were different terms, but you have to just accept this one.

Most endos are pretty respectful about system roles, and they're not too interested in using them, much like introject, dormancy, and alter. Most endos burst into flames if you so much as even think those words in their direction. This falls into the same problem as system, and it was more IFS that fucked it, not endos, so while I'm extremely protective over some terms, like introject, persecutor and protector, you can't really help it. Look at the word little, it's not only endos using it. Even the very IDEA of system roles exists in IFS. Like, if you ask me, I think IFS might be what a number of endogenic systems are experiencing, but that's a topic for another time.

Plural was never for people with DID, multiple was the typical/preferred term for the longest time for medicalized systems, but I've actually seen the opposite happening and CDD systems are saying multiple is the endo term and plural is ours. Weird, but okay.

Fictive started in the soulbonding community.

Alter and subsystem are both so convoluted in psychiatry that the most you can say is that they're general clinical terms. I don't know why any endo would want to use them, but I do see subsystem used a bit (and my wording was that most words aren't stolen).

I'm sure people can think of a thousand others, but I think that covers the major ones.

Thanks to @pluraldeepdive for the help with this one, give them a follow if you're not already, their blog is wonderful.

[littjara-mirrorlake]

what are the other praetors like in terms of statblock?

Note that every praetor's stat block is in progress, and the supplement is also constantly being developed and changed. That said, these are some main points of what I have had and largely used in my own campaign:

Praetors are the ancient dragons of the setting. Their power level reflects this. No praetor (or Atraxa) has a CR lower than 21.

Three of the praetors, Norn, Jin, and Sheoldred, have class types. Cleric, Wizard, and Bard respectively. These three are also the ones with full spellcasting abilities and prepared spell lists. I know that in recent publications D&D has started to move away from this, but the praetors were created long before that change and I prefer the flexibility of them anyway.

All praetors have 3 legendary saves, 3 legendary action options, and 3 lair action options.

Norn

Very strong and very resilient. Not very fast. Doesn't move in combat a huge amount, focuses more on commanding allies and putting down AoE. Unless she wants to hit something really hard with her sword.

Many mechanics focus on mass ally buffs or summoning; she'll probably also have a passive aura of some kind that benefits allies, reminiscent of her +2/+2 / -2/-2 original card

Incorporates the abilities we saw her use in A Garden of Flesh, so she has an aura of shards that do slashing damage that she can dismiss to merge the shards into a very, very large sword.

In general, lots of area effects whether that's auras, buffs, or AoE

Jin

Jin's statblock is a nightmare. His legacy version has Portent (which he never used in PC encounters), but I highly suspect I'll have to cut that for the final version because it's so obnoxious to play against.

So many counterspells.

Similar to Niv-Mizzet in flexibility with spells and ability to regain spell slots as a legendary action.

Surprisingly good mobility, with psychic teleports and the like. His first card did have flash!

A lot of spell control, psychic spells, save control.

Sheoldred

Her mechanic for mounting other creatures is very weird but interesting to design. They combine HP but largely use Sheoldred's own stats (except probably physicals) and any damage goes to the mount's HP first.

Has a reanimation aura, passively raising corpses that die near her into ghouls in 1d4 rounds

She is so incredibly bard.

She can turn into spiders and it's great

Urabrask

I really hate the D&D alignment system. That said, he is Chaotic Good.

Very fast, agile, and good at hiding.

A lot of draconic features, like Frightful Presence and a breath weapon. I've always really enjoyed the dragon parallels Urabrask has.

To be honest he is currently more or less an unusually stealthy Ancient Red Dragon without wings, but I do intend to make him more unique than that.

Thinking of adding minimal spellcasting, since we've seen that he is at least capable of ichor scrying and runic magic, as well as artifice. Probably "innate spells" style instead of the full lists Norn, Jin, and Sheoldred have.

Vorinclex

Very heavy on sheer strength and pure physical damage by hitting things and running over them very hard.

Powerful regeneration, can regain HP a bunch of different ways including digesting enemies. Relatively easy to hit but hard to kill.

Being grappled by him is very dangerous and immediately starts absorbing you.

Of note is that none of the praetors' attacks really deal a significant amount of necrotic damage (with the exception of some of Jin's needles or whatever). This is partly because core-born Phyrexians resist necrotic, and the praetors spend a good amount of time beating up their own people. Also, if you're fighting Elesh Norn, you have bigger problems than phyresis.

[genderqueerdykes]

i hope this isn't, like, a rude or bad question to ask, i'm asking out of curiosity, is there a difference between being plural and being a system? or are they just the same thing?

i'm making a discord server that's just a nice place for people to come and hang out, and obviously i want to make it a safe space for plurals and systems as well. would be silly if i didn't considering i'm best friends with a system. but i don't know if i should say "plurals/systems" with stuff that applies to those groups, or if maybe there's one word i should use over the other. or maybe there's an entirely different word i could use to refer to both groups

i hope this makes sense, i just got home from walking a lot so i'm a little tired admittedly lolol

(also if you could give me some tips on how to make my server plural/system friendly that would literally be awesome since i'm a... singlet (i think that's the term) and unfortunately know very little about that sort of stuff)

yes and no!

plural is used to be more inclusive, as every system identifies as plural, but not every plural identifies as a system

there are many individuals who identify as plural that may not identify as a system! for example, there are people with DID who identify as a person with alters, and would rather be identified primarily as a plural person. there are others who prefer other terms like collective, group, bunch, and so on that may just dislike the term system. i'm not the world's biggest fan of it, myself, but i use it because i haven't found another term i like better

they can be used interchangeably, however, depending on the people and the context. ultimately i'd say if you word it as a plural/plurality focused space, you'll get your point across, but you can also clarify that it's open to systems and other terms that are used by plural communities

you can add the bots PluralKit and TupperBox to help out the plurals who do join who use them, so that they can have an easier time letting their headmates talk, and overall just try to let people know that you're a singlet but that you're open minded and wanting to create a space that isn't exclusive to but welcomes plurals. i think if you let people know you're learning it helps, sometimes people like the chance to help teach others how to be chill with something they aren't quite familiar with yet

you can always take a little bit of time to research basic plural terms and whatnot, morethanone.info is handy, and help other singlets understand that plurality is normal and chill, it should be an enjoyable endeavor for you! it helps when there's a singlet to help other singlets understand, sometimes it can be difficult for plurals to get the point across to those who can't quite grasp it

hope that helps! hope everything goes well, take care! let us know if you need anything else