#it's kind of a positive reinforcement vs. negative reinforcement thing

[correctional-transition]

Not trans, don't have a detrans kink, just genuinely curious and it seemed you might be willing to discuss the topic a little. I'm not trying to kink shame but my first thought on detrans was "this is transphobic". A lot of detrans posts I've seen repeat rhetoric that transphobes use in a degrading way or just straight up express positivity towards transphobes. So I kind of just wanted to ask, how is this kink separated from just actual reinforcement of internalized transphobia? Just the consent of the individual? Because even with consent (from an outsider's perspective) it kind of seems like a form of self harm? At what point does the kink stop, bc it seems like a lot of people actually mess up their mental image? Once again, no hate intended I was just wondering if you have an answer for any of these questions

Honestly this goes for almost any and all extreme kinks from cnc, age play, detrans/misgen, orientation play, etc.

I don't judge anyone on their kinks and although I will never understand some of them to the point of enjoying them I can understand a lot of them can be developed from different things.

Now I'd like to make it clear that this is all OPINION and it cannot be true fact as I have done 0 research onto the topic of how kinks start or the statistics of bad vs good (which are all subjective) within kink.

A lot of kinks can be seen as bad to people because it goes against a lot of social acceptance such as the detrans/misgen because outside of kink if you saw that you'd say "wtf. That's transphobic. You're a bad person." Whereas within a consensual kink environment it is more openly used as a form of self discovery, acceptance of the world and even coping mechanism. It can, however, still contain bad apples. You can still have transphobes playing within the kink and these people SHOULD NOT BE and you should ALWAYS watch out for people like these in ANY kink. When it comes to bad apples you want to look out for red flags such as "doesn't separate kink from reality", "doesn't provide aftercare", "doesn't support who I really am", "ignores the boundaries and limits I've placed to keep myself safe". And sadly there are a few people who do use it as a form of self harm so you need to be careful with people like that as their mental health matters but it can impact your own mental health too (both in negative and positive ways)

Kink stops ultimately when someone wants to. Everyone is different. Some people make the kink a reality becomes for some people it was used as self discovery and that's how they realised they may be more comfortable as a woman or man or non-binary etc. Some people stop immediately because they realise they were just trying to hurt themselves with the kink and that's not what they wanted to do.

Thats all I can really say atm off the top of my head on this matter but I'd love for some of my followers to also include their own thoughts and opinions in the comments or reblogs because I think its important to have a collective view/opinion on a matter like this as its completely subjective and so everyone's perspective will be different ♡

[inf1nyxw0rlds]

it's like. let ppl say what they want even if u think it's bad and don't agree. but then u are still allowed to think it's bad and not agree. and depending on what brand of bad we are talking as bad is generally kind of subjective but there's distinctions in say annoying fandom opinion vs hateful bigot saying we should put all x ppl down there are consequences for saying certain things. such as ppl thinking ur a little offputting, or fullblown decking u in the face depending where u fall. curate ur own experience. complain. negative criticism isn't non valuable and if someone is truly just being stupid block them and roll your eyes with your friends. engage with opinions different to your own even if it does little more than affirm and further develop your own stance rather than realigning it altogether. positivity and negativity seem at odds but they don't have to be and both make for an interesting discussion and analysis even if u have a kneejerk reaction (say if ur like me and ur fav thing has been ripped to bits for 6 years and ur a little tired. it CAN be discomforting but it creates thought provoking conversations).

i think it's a mixture of peer expectation and confusion with tone and what etiquette really is for me. i don't understand whether people are simplifying a broad subject on purpose or not at times or they may say something that seems contradictory because humans are naturally complex, or knowing when somebody is joking vs being serious. i don't have a lot of confidence in my own opinions (deep fear of being Wrong and being viciously attacked for my wrongness in a culture where people are ruthlessly mocked for not always being perfect or all-knowing) so then, if i can't read what people outside of me are saying to tell whether i'm wrong i just. shove it to the back of my head. which. relying on group think is not good i'm getting it better at it but also it is literally reinforced by the way ppl act toward anyone who fucks up Once

[pluraladvice]

Hi! I'd first off like to say that this seems like a really cool idea for a blog and I hope it gets up and running smoothly ^-^ ♡

The actual question: in your personal opinion or the opinions of your followers, is it helpful to schedule switches or generally plan them for organization and fairness purposes? How hard is it to learn/train yourselves to do? How would you personally go about it, if you were reccomending a method?

We personally don't schedule switches as it can cause us distress and so scheduling switches is often a deeply personal thing. Our system doesn't find it unfair who fronts more or less as it's not something we get to choose. However, if your system finds it unfair and it actually causes your system MORE distress to front at random, then scheduling could be beneficial to you and worth a try. I would also say the difficulty of training yourselves to do so would also entirely depend on you as a system and how willing everyone is to participate and if everyone is willing to make everything fair in everyone's eyes. As for organization reasons I honestly don't see anymore organization benefit to a schedule of switches than just tracking your natural, so to speak, switches. We use simply plural to track our switches our partner uses a spreadsheet so the ways in which someone might organize their switches is also vastly different but I personally see no benefits in terms of organization to scheduling vs natural switches. As for a method I don't know many methods for scheduling a switch so I hope my followers do! I would think it probably has to do with learning their positive triggers and getting used to feeling what it's like to switch with the particular people at the scheduled time until your brain develops a habit of it, would be my best guess on that one! I would not suggest using any kind of negative trigger or reinforcement as it would probably cause the entire process to fall apart (not that I think anyone would it just felt important to say). I hope my followers, or others in general really, have more insite into what methods can be used to schedule switches!!

[b4nanaa]

PRESENTATION

What is the article’s argument?

So this week, I read the article Seeing What We Know by Amy Vidali. Basically the paper talks about the role of disabilities in metaphors and the theories surrounding it.

What it basically explores is the relation between physical experiences with the body and how that influences metaphors. For example, postures can determine mood. We associate up with happiness and down with sadness, so if we see someone slouching we might naturally assume they're low on energy versus someone sitting up right.

An example the article primarily explores is Knowing is Seeing, which refers to metaphors rooted in the role of vision being part of a human knowing. For example, "I see what you mean" or "It's clear to me now." Here, vision is highlighted as a positive thing because it allows for knowledge and coherence. Whereas the oppositive and negative would be blindness, like "She was blind to the critique." Here, blindness would represent misunderstanding or ignorance.

The issue with metaphors like these is that it kind of assumes that you had the "primary experience", like being able to see and hear, without any regards to those who probably didn't ever experience it at all. Metaphors like these gear to only one type of physical experiences. The consequences of those who never had that 'normal' experience is never addressed.

Another issue is that these metaphors surrounding or involving disabilities usually frame them in a negative manner. When mentioning them, they serve as the 'opposite' to what is a normal body, it represents the disorder both physically and socially. (A blind person cannot see like others; she was blind to the truth vs she could see what he meant). This is similar to the light and dark metaphor; we view light as inherently good whereas darkness is bad. It can reinforce that the opposite of disabilities is good.

This can also be applied to other metaphors, like up and down. When we think of up, we usually associate it with happiness whereas down equals sad. But what about people who are always drooping because of a disability? Do we assume or view them as being sad, despite the fact that's how they are naturally and cannot stand upright to be happy? It ignores the nuances of body language with emotion.

However instead of policing metaphors, what we can do is approach it with a disability approach. We should diversify them is by including other senses. By adding more senses, like taste and smell, it can make it more accessible to others.

What is your personal position on this argument and why?

I found the article interesting because personally, I never gave metaphors that much thought. I don't take them too literally since they're supposed to be just metaphors, like how I wouldn't think it's actually raining cats and dogs if someone said that to me. I would just assume yes, the weather is super bad out. The same goes for if I hear metaphors using sight or hearing. I don't inherently think badly about disabled people, but it DOES frame disabilities as negative. I naturally associate seeing clearly with being good vs something being murky (like an argument) or flat out blind as bad. This is because those metaphors utilizing it frames sight as coherency and blindness as ignorance or confusion, when that isn't always the case in reality.

It also reminds me of the war argument we had over cancer, if we should change the metaphors around battling cancer or diseases because it brings war into what is actually a natural process. And similarly to it, I don't think we need to change or police them like the article mentions. Instead, we should diversify them and challenge or reclaim metaphors that come off as ablest.

A good example of this is a poem on Francois Huber, a renown bee-researcher who was blind.

Sometimes bees, the glittering

curtain they form, cling to myface,

& the moment before knowing

I can imagine them a leaf, able to be

brushed away, but they

hold on, their tongues

seek each pore,

as if my cheek offered nectar, they move

delicately, caress & shade, as if not threatening

to flood my eyes. (13)

Through this poem, it provides a new perspective beyond knowing is seeing, by utilizing other senses that allowed him and the bees to know each other. This includes things such as touch and taste, and even emotion. Metaphors like these rejects the "Knowing is Seeing" and shows the diverse ways of 'seeing' knowledge beyond sight.

[justmywriting1313]

HC’s for level of protectiveness Part 1 (Lucifer, Mammon, Levi and Satan)

Heyyyo friends, I hope you all are getting 8 hours of sleep and eating right!!!! 😊

So I was just thinking about all the obey me boys and yes those we cant date as well and my interpretation of their characters and one of the things I couldn't help thinking about (especially after reading so many fics) was their kind of levels of protectiveness if that makes sense and since I know this would be short (considering what I usually write so still a bit long) I thought it would be cool to post like and HC about it?? I dont know but as always i hope you like it!! 😊😊

Also for this I am talking about protection in terms of various things so being protective in a physical sense vs and emotional sense... Another way you can kind of see this is as the manner in which they might take care of you... it might make more sense when you read it 😅😅

Also let me know what you think about it cause some of these might be different or controversial

Summary: How do the boys take care of you? (The list below is kind of like roughly who is most to least protective so this makes sense though overall they are all bloody protective. Also Luke = Baby therefore platonic )

Mammon  

Beel

Asmo

Satan

Luke

Lucifer

Belphie

Simeon

Solomon and Diavolo (tied)

Barbatros

Levi

TW: None (let me know if they are any)

LUCIFER: 6

Okay so with Lucifer I actually don’t think he would be the most protective of M/C but hear me out okay! I think yes instinctually he would want to make sure no harm comes to them and like shelter them from the world but I think after the whole Lilith thing and also growing up with mainly brothers he would know that over-sheltering can lead to worse consequences than better ones and so I think he would hold back more than his brothers. I think he also knows that a part of your experience in Devildom is learning about demons and their life in general and yes you are more fragile compared to them so obviously it will be a bumpy ride but that is exactly whats going to make it an educational experience you know. 

Thats not to say he is not going to be protective at all because after all he is the oldest brother and I think he sees it as his duty to hold a balance between keeping you safe and making sure you walk away from an experience as stronger and more confident in yourself, something that would only be reinforced if you are already not that confident in yourself. I mean he already does it for all his brothers and he sees you as part of the family. 

I think for this reason he would be more protective of you based of physical safety rather than emotional. So say you were in a confrontation with another lower level demon, if it was verbal he would not step in, he would expect you to at least for the first few minutes hold your own and stand up for yourself, and seeing you do that would make him smile cause he would feel pride which is like you know his whole thing. But if it were to get even remotely physical, like if the demon were to even wave their hand angrily in your direction Lucifer is jumping in before anyone can say anything to literally hide you in the cocoon of his wings no questions asked. The other demon should have enough sense to walk away then cause otherwise Lucifer is not leaving him alone. 

This can be both positive and negative. Positive because at the end of the day they are demons and they are stronger and your life is in danger so having him step in is good but the emotional burden of this stuff could possibly be more hurtful than the physical part and so despite him stepping in the damage could already be done you know? 

He would notice the change in your behaviour where you would be more reserved but I don’t think he would understand until maybe one of the brothers like Asmo, Beel or even Satan who I would say read emotions better recognise that its the emotional aspect that is hurting you would point it out to Lucifer. 

He would try to make a change and to make sure that the emotional side of things doesn’t get too much from that point on but I also think it would take him time. 

I also firmly believe that as much as this being loves all of his brothers with all his heart and trusts most of them he would under no circumstance trust his brothers with you unless Beel is there, who could very easily, no matter how heavy you are, sling you over his shoulder and run away. This is not because his brothers don’t love you or take care of you, I mean usually they go overboard but because trouble seems to follow them as if it were literally a part of them. From Mammon dragging you into chaotic and worrisome schemes and interactions with witches, to Levi not being the least bothered by the outside world and forgetting 3D humans exist, to Satan losing his temper, to some old lovers of Asmo becoming angry, to Belphie falling asleep in dangerous places… Your life seems to be in a lot of danger and so unless Beel or himself is present Lucifer would have a hard time leaving you completely alone in their care. It would be even harder if you all were actually leaving the dorm. I do think though he would be most forgiving of what happened with Belphie because he would blame himself. 

I know this seems contradictory since he usually does leave you alone but its usually in places which are a) safe like RAD or the Dorm and b) places where Beel, Diavolo, Barbatros or himself would be easily accessible. 

Overall I don’t think he is the most protective but he is definitely up there in that he wants you to be safe, happy and not on the verge of death at any point of time. Yes you may get hurt sometimes especially emotionally and he might not be the most sympathetic but at the end of the day its only because he wants the best for you and if someone does go too far he is more than happy to pay the person a visit or even send Beel. 

MAMMON: 1

Writing fluffy stuff for Mammon always makes my heart flutter because the poor thing is so sweet and sensitive even if he hates letting people see that side but I am still going to do my best. I think he is one of the main brothers who is not just protective by all standards but he is also the most protective in each and every manner and though he will deny it later he does not think at all before stepping in. 

Again I can see several reasons for it but the most prominent one that comes to mind is that he really likes the idea of taking care of someone, having someone depend on him and making him feel needed. This can also be why he feels so possessive of you and always claims to be your first man because he wants to be the first one to come your mind for anything. Despite being the second oldest, due to his sin and the reputation he holds, his brothers don’t depend on him as much as he may want them to which is why not only do their words hurt so much each time but he is really starved of love and so he takes that need to protect and directs all of it on you. His indulgence in his greed takes a toll on the relationship between him and his brothers and so they might not come to him seeming him as almost inadequate and that stings. For the first time there is someone who actually looks up to him for love, reassurance, comfort and safety and so he takes it very seriously. He never wants you to think that he can’t be there for you or that someone is more apt for looking after you other than him and this would be the case even if you guys were best friends and not in a relationship. 

Another reason I can see him being protective of you is because and this is especially if you are kind hearted or compassionate or even just naive; He knows people will take advantage of you and all that you have to offer. He is the literal Avatar of Greed, he knows that people are often greedy for things besides money and would take advantage of someone like you so he sees it as his moral duty to just keep you from this side of the world you know… Its just he knows the world can be cruel and he can’t help but want to shelter you from all of it. Despite being a demon he loves the innocence you hold and just keep with you. You are also probably the positive ray of sunshine for him no matter what your personality is. He looks to you for the very things he can’t find anywhere else and so he wants to protect your smile. 

Unlike Lucifer he won’t realise that some experiences in life are necessary. This would be reinforced when you open up to him about what you may or may not have gone through once you both get closer or when he sees you cry for the first time. In this sense I feel like Mammon’s protectiveness of you is the most pure and loving of the brothers not because the others love you less but because despite being greedy it doesn’t come from a place of selfishness or atoning for past mistakes. He is not going to hold back in favour of you learning things nor is the protectiveness driven by the fact that he lost Lilith. I think he does the best job at separating you from her, it is driven solely by love and genuine want to see you happy. 

With that said if he were to see any demon get verbally or physically rough with you he is immediately stepping in no matter what you say. A demon that had the gall to call you weak or say anything else; woman hold Goldie while Mammon clobbers them, only he gets to call you that. (you know that UR card of him shaking his fist while wearing bunny ears - I imagine that same image just without the ears). Someone tried to hit you in anyway; He gets someone else to cover your eyes or to distract you while he beats them into a pulp (I imagine like cartoon noises while Asmo covers your eyes and gets Solomon to cover your ears; boom/bamf/slap). On that note he is also protective of what you see; He doesn’t want you to lose your positivity so he doesn't like letting you see like bad things. I can see him like covering your ears when something dark graphic or sad is being said or like covering your eyes when someone is getting hurt or something. He would then take you back to your room all the while grumbling about how he did it cause Lucifer would chew him out when in reality the idea of you remotely hurt he just can’t stand. He would then sit and have a movie night with you which would eventually end up with him hugging you and making sure you are okay. 

When it comes to his brothers, I think yes, he trusts them and he knows you would be safe with them but I think he doesn’t like the idea that its true and this would only happen after everything has resolved itself. He is protective before because he knows he has the best control when it comes to not letting his anger get the best of him. Except for Asmo each brother has come close to literally obliterating you and so I can see him holding caution if that makes sense. I also can see him never leaving you alone after the Belphie situation (if you know you know). I think the Belphie thing will never leave him like ever, thats just going to sit in his chest because it would be a reality. He now knows exactly what will happen and what it feels to not have you and so in that sense with Belphie around he is protective. 

Overall, I genuinely think he is the most protective of the brothers. Some may argue that Beel is more but I think Mammon is the most sensitive when it comes to you and he is more protective of you. Whether Beel is better equipped to be protective of you is a different question but in my head Mammon tops the list. It comes from a place of love and sincerity and I think thats what would make it seem so beautiful. 

LEVIATHAN: 11

Okay for Levi I won’t lie it was a bit difficult for me to write only because his character was difficult to grasp in terms of character development (Same for Satan and Asmo btw). With that said I think his protection for you would come in a completely different form form the others. I think physically despite being a demon and being amazingly strong he underestimates himself and would not jump into a physical altercation with anyone. (unless his demon form took over or it is Mammon) He would probably leave that to Beel or one of his other brothers instead trash talking the other person as just support. Emotionally also I think he has such a bad self image that things that may be emotionally burdensome or hurtful for you he thinks are normal. Though after he spends time with you he will start changing that way of thinking. Emotionally he might just insult that person back for you though I think, regardless of whether it’s true or not, he believes that you can hold up your own and so would not get involved. 

His protection (though with Levi I genuinely don’t think thats the right word) would be giving you confidence when you need it most and backing you up if that makes sense? I guess you can see that as emotional protection but I genuinely only see him being protective when like someone is blaming you for something you haven't done or like your sincerity is being questioned. For him thats bigger than any physical or emotional insult, not because he thinks you are like invincible but because he has learnt to brush them of and he thinks everyone can do the same. However because he believes so strongly in your values and morals as a person he would not, could not and will not take any insult for you in that way. I think thats why he is so important as a character because he balances out the others by being sort of different because his way of protection is different. He is physically strong, he is also quick witted and has sharp tongue but unlike the others he doesn’t see these as his strengths. He sees support and diligence in being a friend as his strong suits and actively shows that to you; I think thats so beautiful. So for example if Lucifer is chewing you out for a bad grade despite the fact that you worked hard for it. I can see Levi standing up for you and telling Lucifer that the work you put in is what matters more. He would do it casually. Though these times are rare I think these are times Levi is most vocal. 

I also think he would be the first to realise that sometimes a person needs protection most from themselves and so another way he would protect you is by teaching you to brush of others or when you are being too harsh with yourself and just pushing yourself too much due to his persistence and somewhat loud reactions he will force you to take a break and take care of yourself even if you don’t want to. He understands pushing yourself also because he does it for his games but he does recognise the difference in seriousness of the situation and would step in. 

With his brothers it really depends on a) the situation b) the brother and c) the duration for which he has to be outside his room. For example if it is Beel, Asmo, Satan or Lucifer I think he would be completely fine and would not care because he would know that all four of them would not let anything happen to you or would step in before anything could (whether this judgement is true or not is still up for discussion). With Mammon I think because their sins are kind of similar but also different in that they are both greedy but unlike Mammon who would just indulge in the greed Levi sulks about not getting it. So he would not like leaving you with Mammon but at the end of the day he knows Mammon does love and care for you and so if there was a situation where he had to leave you with Mammon he would do it... while grumbling. The only person I can see him holding extreme caution with is Belphie. He would play it under the guise of either he doesn't want to leave you in an awkward situation with Belphie but I think the deeper insecurity would be having his friend taken away from him again. Here is someone who hasn't just agreed to be his friend but actively tried to engage and deepen the relationship and for him that is probably rare, even more so because unlike Solomon who wanted to make a pact with him your love for this relationship comes from a genuine care and want to get to know him and the fear of having someone take that away from him would mean he would be protective with Belphie around, maybe not as much as Mammon but still. 

Overall i’ve done my best to see him as somewhat protective but honestly in this character list for this trait he comes last. His relationship be it friendship or romantic is based more on mutual comfort and care and so I think him being protective is rare. He prefers to show his care and love for you by spending time with you, making you laugh, caring for you. The image I have is like there are two separate doors. One is to his world and the other is yours. Every morning you both go and deal with all the annoyances of your lives and then come back battered and bruised; sometimes it’s not that bad but other days its the worst right and then as you come back you both kind of nurse the life back into each other and just soak the comfort of the other in and thats the way I see that relationship build. The only other thing I could see is when envy turns into jealousy (and YES they are separate things) but that would be once you guys start going out. I also think no matter what personality you have, you would be the more protective one solely because he needs it more in life. 

SATAN: 4

Okay so Satan I think is very interesting in this regard because despite being the Avatar of Wrath he is not the most visibly protective. Key word; visibly. So far Lucifer; physically more so than emotionally, Mammon; the most in both regards, Levi; the least but all still very apparent in their protectiveness. I really think and actually like the idea of Satan being protective but kind of from a distance like he is watching over you without you ever realising it. This is for a couple reasons. 

The first being that he prides himself on his ability to control though obviously he doesn’t have the best control of the brothers I think proportional to the difficulty of his sin he does a pretty amazing fricking job. Given that, he wouldn’t at any point want M/C to see him lose control except for the times they already have right? And since being protective can mean he could lose control, he would not visibly be protective.

I also think he likes to hold onto this idea that he is the most nonchalant and unaffected by what goes on around him. He likes to hold a reputation of being cool, pragmatic and like he has control; a lot like Lucifer actually (what a surprise) and so if someone (especially M/C) were to see him get huffy he would be really irritated. Lastly again like Lucifer he thinks besides books the best way to enrich your own life is by experiencing things first hand or at least trying them once and so he would want M/C to learn to stand up for themselves especially in situations where the brothers may not be there and you would have to hold their own (this is rare but still).

With that said I think he actually is probably fourth most protective on this list (12 other character so thats pretty high) and this is only because he protects you from a distance. So say a demon had picked on you in class right or said something hurtful, something that you are insecure about. In the moment Satan would not react allowing you to handle it yourself, letting you feel the accomplishment of having gotten through it and standing up for yourself. Then later he would catch the demon when no one else was around and thats when he would make a move. He would make it clear that if the demon were to ever attack you in anyway again Satan would not be nearly as lenient as he is being now. He would definitely rough up said demon so that they knew he meant it. He is also a bit of sadist so if anyone were to hurt you he would let the person think they got away with it only because the chase for him would be all the sweeter and he would get to blow of steam. 

I also think that Satan is one of the more emotionally intelligent demons and does a better job on picking up on emotions faster similar to Levi the protectiveness or better yet the care would come after. He would make sure that whatever the situation, there were no long lasting effects on you. So say that demon had picked on an insecurity right, Satan would make sure you knew and understood that not a word of it were true and that you were oh so loved. He would make sure there were no nightmares following the situation and if you needed someone to be there and to talk to he would be there. 

I think if it had been physical right? Yes he would jump into it and make sure that the other person didn’t go too far but again to avoid showing you his true wrath he would find the demon later and would not let him get away. I think this is also where he might, despite his aversion to the oldest demon, ask Lucifer to step in and send one of the other brothers solely because like I said Satan’s protectiveness of you is based on this not having any long lasting effects. He would want to be the first one you go to for comfort or even to patch you up. He knows he has physical strength and obviously wants to hold this person accountable but your emotional well being comes first. 

When it comes to his brothers I see this going two ways. Firstly (this makes me sad) despite knowing his brothers do dumb stuff and keep getting everyone into trouble he trusts them in keeping you more safe than he ever could because he is the Avatar for Rage which just makes me want to cry. He feels like he is always strung too tight and despite having marvelous control (again proportionally) he would still be wary of being alone with you for too long and would think he is worse than his brothers. (On a similar note; it really pisses me of that it’s not recognised how unfair Satan’s sin truly is. The others are indulging in their sins and its written of as being okay but for Satan that is not a luxury he can afford) 

On the other hand I think he trusts Mammon, Levi, Belphie and even Beel as far as he could throw them when it comes to you. Mammon because well its Mammon. Levi because Satan is worried he would literally forget that you exist or might break your brain by talking like one of his 2D characters. Mammon and Levi together is an interaction Satan actively makes you avoid without even realising because Diavolo forbid you get caught in one of their squabbles. He would literally have you stand behind him when those two are together. Belphie because despite his possessiveness of you as the Avatar of Sloth he doesn’t like putting energy into things and would definitely not be fast enough to jump into saving you if the need arose. Also I think Satan would be somewhere in the middle on the scale of trusting Belphie because he understands anger better than anybody else but he also knows what Belphie did was not right. Beel only because despite Beel warning Mammon that whatever he is doing is not safe he waits until the last minute to intervene and for someone like Satan who literally plans for everything preemptively thats very draining to worry about. 

Overall he is protective on most standards but he likes to be protective from a distance almost like a guardian demon you know. He gets to keep to his ideas and values while still giving you space and not being suffocating but also still taking care of you and I think thats really beautiful that the avatar of wrath goes to such extents and its all for you like thats pretty amazing. 

Okay hopefully ill get the other brothers up soon enough but yeah as always i hope you guys like it and please reblog and request stuff :)

Masterlist

[xoxo-ren-xoxo]

Tommy’s (and Tubbo’s) Character /rp /dSMP

This is a bit of a rant so like be warned. I have nothing against any CCs mentioned in this, this is all roleplay, lighthearted, and just a bit of fun analysis. Mostly this is a ramble about how I see certain people analysing Tommy’s character on tumblr and twt, and why I think they’re wrong. This isn’t directed at anyone specific, just a trend I’ve been seeing that kinda irks me. I don’t dislike the fandom, just a few ‘takes’ have been really weird for me.

TW for everything below: analysing the effects of trauma, abuse, manipulation, gaslighting, and lack of therapy.

I’m not really liking how victim-blamey everyone is getting currently in the dSMP, both in fandom and canon. In canon with certain characters but especially in fan analysis posts and especially about Tommy and Tubbo. People legitimately celebrating that Tommy might start ‘apologising’ for his actions more and 'growing as a person' somehow don’t realise that hes been made this way through a tonne of negative reinforcement. abuse, and gaslighting. And people blaming Tubbo for actions he had no choice in, rather than the actions he did choose.

Currently, as I see it, Tommy is so scared that anyone would find a reason to be pissed off at him that his fighting spirit has been completely crushed. He was exiled and abused when he should have been helped and given an understanding figure to guide him and teach him how to deal with things non-violently. In everyone’s eyes, the problem was that Tommy was creating violence with no real reason, acting recklessly and commiting crimes. Tubbo, having made him a part of his cabinet, knew that this would only harm the country. So instead of talking to him reasonably, he got angry, put him on trial, and punished him with the logbook (humiliating him by making him report back to Fundy, which he obviously hated). Tommy’s actions were, of course, bad, but did he deserve everyone ganging up on him? No. Especially when Tubbo was supposed to be in his corner, helping him out like he always said he would (”It’s me and you vs Dream” etc). This is the first betrayal of trust from Tommy’s POV. He doesn’t understand what he did wrong to its full extent, and no one can explain it to him. 

However, Tubbo was under a lot of pressure from Dream and George, and he’s a literal child President, so his ‘safety over friendship’ actions are understandable. I don’t believe Tubbo is solely to blame for anything he’s done in season 2, but it can’t all be excused. If you are to blame Tommy for his recklessness, you have to blame Tubbo, at least partially, for his disregard for Tommy’s feelings and mental state. There were other ways to go about the entire thing, including the trial, which was just horrible to watch, and agreeing to give Dream the disc, something Tommy gave him in pure confidence that it would be safe with Tubbo. Yikes moment.

At that time, Tubbo knew a lot of things about Tommy. In fact, he probably knew the most about Tommy out of anyone on the server. He knew the discs were incredibly important and a comfort item for Tommy. He knew Tommy had trauma from being exiled in the past. He knew Tommy was abused, or at least manipulated by Wilbur, in addition to growing up in war. Wilbur once told Tommy to stop being reckless, and Tommy listened, changing his attitude because he looked up to Wilbur so much. Then Wilbur said ‘let’s be the bad guys’ and stopped trying to mentor Tommy. There’s a conflict here, because Tommy was told by Wilbur that he wasn’t good enough to be President (links to the idea of ‘not being strong enough’) but he knows that Wilbur was a bad person. But Tommy is never given the chance to reconsile his feelings surrounding Wilbur, both because of Ghostbur and because of the conflict he starts with George. So he is harbouring a mixture of emotions about his mentor and brother, not understanding how to untangle the ‘real Tommy’ from the manipulated boy he became. 

What was going through his head when he stole from George and griefed him? Perhaps the thought that he needed to show he was still the same old Tommy. Maybe the need to ‘prove himself’ as a strong person? It could have just been an outlet for his trauma. He’s grown up in a world where everyone is either a friend or an enemy. George isn’t a friend. How was he supposed to know that hurting him was bad?

Tubbo was pressured into the actions he took against Tommy, but he was pressured far too easily. There is no moment where Tubbo turns to Tommy and makes sure he’s okay, he views him as ‘selfish’ and overdramatic, and sees his actions that way. This makes sense from Tubbo’s POV, he’s struggling to be President in ways that Wilbur *knew* he would, but in Tommy’s eyes this is the worst betrayal he’s ever known. The moment Tubbo (rightfully, but poorly executed) defies Tommy’s plan to hire Technoblade (ahem, seeing Techno as a weapon again) and exiles Tommy is the moment their friendship shatters. They’re two people who don’t understand each other anymore. Two people who are technically in the right, but only hurt each other. 

What Tommy needed was a therapist, instead he had Dream, who put out the fire of rebellion that made him so strong, and Techno, who was trying to help but doing it in the wrong way. 

People see tommy's change post-exile as a good thing because he's not as rebellious anymore and he’s thinking things through a lot before he does them, but they will soon realise that his rebellion was one of his best traits and the fact that no one saw it as anything but a problem really shows. He now second-guesses himself so much and is so scared of being wrong that everything seems too difficult and too dangerous. Every trait can have a positive and negative side. Tommy's defiant nature would have made him the perfect negotiator with a little practise. In fact, he had plenty of good ideas before he was exiled (using spirit against Dream, though it didnt work in the end, for example). The negative side of this was recklessness and the desire to cause problems on purpose, but what he needed was a friend (looking at you Tubbo) who understood that hes been through several wars, was manipulated by Wilbur, and hasnt known a time of peace where everyone who wasnt on his side was out to kill him. Now that ‘fight’ is gone he's just become easier to manipulate.

He may be getting better (see: telling Dream to go fuck himself) but there hasn't been any long-term growth because he was never told what kind of rebellion was good and what was bad. He was just told it was all bad. By Dream (and by Tubbo). Who he doesn't trust. So he's just going to revert back to his old ways because no one told him what was bad in a way that didn't make him feel like everyone was against him. Dream is the enemy (though Tommy’s feelings towards him are complicated, they make his brain go all ‘flippy floppy’) and Dream told him that rebellion was bad, so rebellion must be good always, right? 

And then there's Techno. Techno did nothing wrong except for when he did. Techno is 100% right except for when he isn’t. He doesn't understand Tommy because Tommy was never fully open about what Dream had done and how it affected him. That's not Tommys fault though, because who the fuck openly talks about their trauma? So neither of them are to blame for pretty much anything up until the confrontation at the community house. 

However, Techno's methods and ideology were not what Tommy needed. He was thrown from one extreme to another over and over again, from complete subservience to total rebellion. Neither of these inforce good attitudes in Tommy. One, as stated before, makes it so that he will regain his negative traits again. The other reinforces those violent traits as good, just like Wilbur did. The only difference is that Techno had good intentions, he wasnt trying to use Tommy, which is why he feels so used when Tommy 'betrays' him (Techno doesnt realise that he himself betrayed Tommy by teaming with Dream, he sees it more as a transaction than a personal thing). Techno feels so hurt by Tommy ‘viewing him as a weapon’ that he goes on with his no-mercy attack, completely dropping Tommy at his lowest point. 

Tommy says he doesn't want to be like everyone he's hated. In fact, he say's he is 'worse' than all the villains. This is very obviously untrue, though he was clearly going down a dangerous path with Techno's influence (see: bullying Fundy, spawning wither, kidnapping Connor, and saying that the discs are more important than Tubbo, more on that later). He's not a villain but who exactly has said he's not a villain. Dream? Techno? Neither of them can be trusted in his eyes. They say he's a good guy, Wilbur wanted to be the bad guy, who's right? He doesn't know. He has a crisis of morality. 

And? Some people want to point at that and say 'aha! Character development! He's finally realising his actions have a negative affect on others!' OH GOD NO??? He's a *child* who thinks that he is worse than his abuser. Does that sound like positive character growth to you? 

Lastly, the discs. We know theyre a comfort item blahblahblah. He hates himself for valuing them more than he values Tubbo. He's literally innocent in this. He’s been horribly manipulated by Dream to believe that the discs are worth anything. Theyre really not worth anything if they are being used as tools rather than, yknow, discs. My poor boy. He doesnt trust people, so what can he trust? The discs. But then he says it out loud and realises he misses Tubbo and he wants to be with his best friend again and and and WAHHHH. This also isnt really character growth its just fucking sad leave me alone. 

Anyways what the fuck guys. @ Niki and Jack what the fuck. Yeah we get it it’s miscommunication but wtf. Kinda worried that the actual lore will make Niki and Jack’s hatred of Tommy justified in some way and take on a big victim-blamey vibe, but I’m hoping that everyone is smart enough to not do that. I cannot praise Tommy enough for how he’s portrayed his character. I’m currently hoping that he himself understands the true complexity of it all. I’m sure he does.

Mostly though im actually pissed off at all the people praising tommy's character for 'maturing' when hes literally just got trauma. Nice one, tumblr and twt users. Thanks. Great job. He hasnt 'learnt his lesson', he’s traumatised. What the fuck.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk, leave your responses in the reblogs and comments.

[the-blue-fairie]

On what #bringelsahome COULD BE vs. what it has become...

Sometimes, I become sad because one of the first things I wrote after viewing Frozen 2 was a short ficlet repudiating Elsa’s line in Show Yourself as she was approaching Ahtohallan that “I’m arriving / and it feels like I am home.” You can read that ficlet here if you want to.

In that ficlet, I was expressing frustration with the fact that Show Yourself was connecting the concept of “home” with Ahtohallan and connections found through memory and the past instead of the living, breathing connections that can be found in life. In that ficlet, I was also disputing the film’s concept of change because, as I wrote, “Home is not a lineage, a source, a gift. Gifts are given. Home, you make for yourself. Each step, a step forward. Not into the cold ancestral wonder of Ahtohallan, but into the warmth of the future. Holding tight to those she loved was not the absence of change. It was change itself, each day carving out a new shape, a new bejeweled crystal more fabulous than any on the glacier.” And I ended that ficlet repudiating Ahtohallan and having Elsa turn back to the home she has made in Arendelle with Anna, Kristoff, Olaf, and Sven. It was a ficlet born deeply out of my love of this image:

Now, the scary thing for me now is that there are parallels between my sentiments then and the... what do I call it? aggressive stance?... to #bringelsahome, which is rather unpleasant for me because that aggressive stance has become an excuse for racism and toxicity which I absolutely do not want to be associated with.

 But I’ve been thinking about something that @themountainsays mused about, and that @hb-pickle​ added to, asking what the ultimate goal of #bringelsahome actually is - because if the most hostile people actually wanted to change people’s minds or reach the creators, all they’ve managed to do is burn bridges and undermine their own cause.

I mean, look at me, when it comes to them burning bridges. I have conflicting feelings about F2′s ending and I’ve offered critiques of it - but the loudest members of #bringelsahome won’t look at those critiques because I openly reject the racism and toxicity that they push forward. 

But at the same time, there’s also a part of me that... understands where the basic sentiment to “bringelsahome” comes from and that’s gotten me to thinking about what #bringelsahome could be vs. what it has become.

I have friends who remain devastated by the ending of Frozen 2, and most of these friends have largely left the Frozen fandom either because they simply want to move on to other pastures or, even though they dislike Frozen 2, they’d rather not have any association with BEH - which... can you blame them?

But the pain of these friends, a pain they do not express in a toxic way, speaks to what #bringelsahome could be if it wasn’t rotted to the core by this point by racist rhetoric and aggression.

That pain actually emerges from a deep connection to Elsa and a valuing of Elsa’s connections to other people. These friends I’ve spoken with often reference a deep anguish that Elsa’s journey in Frozen 2 is structured so that she sheds traveling companions across the whole adventure - leaving Kristoff behind, leaving Anna and Olaf behind, going it alone when there is strength in working together and shorts like Frozen Fever and OFA highlight how when this found family works together, it has a positive impact on Elsa.

They wanted to see Elsa trusting Anna’s judgment, not pushing Anna and Olaf away in the ice boat, not falling into the same mistakes she did in the past... and their pain was heightened by the fact that, when Elsa seemed to fall back into those same mistakes, the film never really circled back to that or addressed it again... even when the film went out of its way to point out that Anna and even Olaf was angry. 

And... yes, it’s valid to say that Olaf - the most innocent and childlike character - becoming angry feels like a turning point of some kind... which then goes nowhere and that the film does nothing with. That’s a valid criticism of something that feels disjointed and off about F2.

And... I’d even argue that it’s valid to say that Elsa feels off at times over the course of Frozen 2 - and I’d put that down to, well, Elsa being “too much” for Disney. She means too many things for too many people. Her basic metaphor resonated with countless people - more than Disney ever imagined - and now they have to preserve that popularity, but the writers are trapped within the incredibly restrictive Disney system. They can’t make Elsa openly gay because the Mouse loves making money and making money means appealing to the broadest crowd, including the homophobes. And they want to keep Elsa broadly relatable so they try to lean into he concept of “magic” as an aspect of Elsa’s difference and also “explaining” that magic because certain people wanted an “explanation” for Elsa. 

But the problem with that vague (and therefore, in the film’s hope, broadly relatable) magic metaphor is that it’s vague and, unlike the previous movie, not really tethered to Elsa’s connections with people. The first movie, while it still used the metaphor of “magic as difference” grounded that metaphor in Elsa’s interactions with her sister, with the people of Arendelle, with how other human beings interact with her and the deeply human aspect of Elsa’s love for those other human beings. Frozen 2, in contrast, could have that... but it doesn’t.

I’ve argued several times over that Elsa’s arc in F2 would be stronger if the filmmakers had deeply enriched Elsa’s connection with the Northuldra, gave us more scenes of her bonding with her mother’s people, more scenes that expanded the Northuldra characters’ development. Maybe even start the film out with the deleted prologue focused on Iduna so we get the Northuldra’s perspective right fom the start and we can connect Iduna’s pain with Elsa’s own feeling of otherness.

Frozen 2... only gives a few brief scenes of Elsa with the Northuldra and has her shed members of her found family across the film... so F2 loses a human element that he first film never lost sight of. The “magic-as-difference” metaphor has to work more as metaphor, without the same human emotional grounding as the first film.

And because we don’t get those scenes with Elsa and the Northuldra and the film chooses to have Elsa leave behind members of her found family, I can understand why people would feel Elsa feels off in F2.

Because the film seems to care more about Elsa’s connection to magic than her humanity. That’s why there are several incidences of Elsa bonding with the spirits - and far less of her bonding with Northuldra characters.

This actually speaks to a legitimate, valid critique of the film - and people could use it to point out flaws in the film. Moreover, a critique like this could even be antiracist because it would be advocating for the expansion of the role of the Northuldra and more scenes of Elsa bonding with and learning about her mother’s people.

Critique actually has an important place within fandom - and critique can actually benefit the filmmakers if it is valid and valuable critique. Asking, “Why does F2 seem to care more about Elsa’s magic than her humanity and how does that undermine her arc?” is actually a valuable question. If the filmmakers reflected on it, then in a potential Frozen 3, they could make sure to reject the negative implications of distancing Elsa’s humanity. They could pause to think, “Oh, we didn’t INTEND to suggest this, maybe, but our second film did kind of give those implications, so let’s avoid those implications next time.” By EXPANDING the Northuldra characters. By reinforcing Elsa legitimately working together with her found family instead of feeling she has to go on alone.

That’s what bringelsahome could be - a movement to point out flaws in the film and a better way forward for the betterment of future projects.

Unfortunately, that’s not what it is - since the racism of certain people at its forefront has corroded it from the inside.

But I still find that tragic, because... it could have actually been something valuable. And there are aspects to it that still could be something valuable. And I still know many people out there with legitimate critiques who can’t voice their feelings about F2 because they disagree with Isa’s racism, so it doesn’t matter to Isa if they dislike F2; in her eyes, you’re either with her or against her...

[ndjams]

it always goes back to that mf what an asshole

you know what i think a lot of my stressing mentioned in the last post was a reaction to sumn my dad told me earlier. when i didnt wanna hang out with him he got mad said "you havent done a thing all summer" and slammed the door. his fucking voice is always in the back of my head, so much of what i do and how i do it is with him in mind and it fucking hurts when he criticizes me at all (due to him being a shitty person, i feel like him criticizing me makes me worse than him) so i internalize it and it poisons how i think about myself. i know hes aware that thats what i do because hes brought it up before yet he continues to do the narcissist thing where when im not compliant with his immediate desires he starts fucking with my head. lss i think im stressing getting down on myself about not being productive cos my dad said some sideways shit to me. my immediate thought after rereading that last sentence was to say "oh well its my reaction to him i am very sensitive so maybe he didnt know" but like, fuck that. this is a pattern of behavior for him and me being on the sensitive side doesnt exhonerate him in any way. he partially created that instinct i have to apologize and let go to control me and im fucking tired of it.

[so-i-did-this-thing]

Bro how are you so good at making shit. You can just want to make something and suddenly you can and you have it now. That's so badass. I want to learn how. What the fuck dude. I love your content

Thank you! Seeing repeat likes on my stuff is instant serotonin for me. :)

So, on Making Stuff. Being older helps, in that I have built up some experience and resources. But if you’re serious about wanting to learn how to do Stuff, it’s all about being good at How to Teach Yourself.

Advice under the cut.

I could talk about this a long time, but here’s the salient points.

How to Teach Yourself to Make Cool Stuff

1) Cultivate your tastes. Just collect a bunch of shit you enjoy. Pinterest and tumblr are great for this because you can organize stuff by tags and add your own commentary.

2) Describe why you like the things you like. Get as specific as you can. Don’t just say, “I like the color palette”. What about the colors do you like? What kind of tones are they? Do they contrast? Are they unusual for the subject matter, materials, or style?

Challenge yourself to write 10 specific things you like about every thing you favorite/re-pin. Also include some things you don’t care for or would like to see done different.

Be specific -- you’re trying to figure out how your brain works, and learning how to describe your tastes will help you research how to make similar stuff. This is hard, but you gotta do it!

3) Learn what materials, tools, and techniques are and what they’re called.

You’re learning names of stuff not to ace any pop quiz, but rather, to build your vocabulary so you can ask better questions and do better research.

How do you learn this stuff? Asking people is helpful, yes, but what if you don’t even know who to ask yet? Search for content using the words you know now -- you’ll expand your vocab as you go. Stuff like “leather bag diy” or “how to draw with a digital tablet”. Don’t be afraid to use super basic search terms. If you don’t know what a grommet is, a search for “hardware for holes in leather” will lead you to the term pretty quickly. Just keep slamming search queries against the wall until you start getting consistent results.

Then:

Watch videos of people making things you like.

Read forum and other social media posts.

Read tutorials on sites like Instructables, even if they are beyond your skill level.

You’ll notice I haven’t suggested buying books and tools yet. This is because you are still figuring out what will even be useful for you. Just be a sponge.

4) Seek out the pros and learn from them. As you’ve been doing your research and collecting inspiration, you’ve probably noticed certain names coming up over and over. See what sort of training they offer. Classes are ideal, but training can also take the form of videos and books.

For example, Tandy Leather offers in-person beginner’s classes at their stores for pretty cheap (about the cost of the tools you get to keep). Black Raven Academy does a pre-recorded leatherworking video series, with access to the instructor throughout the course. If you’re into EVA foam, Evil Ted doesn’t do classes, but has very comprehensive (and free) videos. Some Makers have books. Etc.

You want to look for professionals who use projects as a means to teach you techniques you can apply to your own work. It’s the whole “learning a recipe” vs “learning how to cook” philosophy.

Also, don’t limit yourself to people who make exactly what you want to make -- I love Kamui Cosplay’s content because she shows off some very useful techniques. Ironically, I probably wouldn’t cosplay as a single thing she does, because I have different interests. I still admire and learn from her work, though.

Don’t go hog wild buying books and supplies -- pick a professional or two and absorb their content until you feel almost confident to try making something.

5) Make a Thing! I said “almost confident” in step #4, because perfection is the enemy of Good. Just jump in. You’ll probably suck, that’s ok. Try to complete the Thing. Small or Big, you know yourself better than I do on what motivates you best.

6) Review your Thing. You know how in step #2 you learned how to be specific with what you liked and didn’t like? Be specific with BOTH about your own work. Know how in step #3 you broadened your vocabulary? Now use that to research how to make your Thing better. I’ll bet you tons of folks had similar learning experiences and got good advice.

7) Practice often, but practice thoughtfully! Practice isn’t just repetition. Building motor memory is important, but it’s meaningless if you don’t practice thoughtfully. The purpose of practice is to figure out root causes of your problems and the best ways to correct errors and reinforce what you do well. I play the oboe professionally. When I practice difficult passages, I don’t just start slow and speed up, one metronome click at a time. That’s how you get frustrated and train your fingers to screw up every damned time. So, I’ll play starting in the middle of a run. I’ll play in a different key. I’ll play with the entirely wrong rhythms. I’ll memorize it. I’ll play when I’m dog tired and standing on one foot. I’ll do a bunch of things to figure out exactly why something is hard -- it’s seldom as simple as “it’s too fast”. (Usually it’s because I’m uncomfortable with a fingering, my hand position is bad, I’m being lazy and don’t even know what all the notes even are, I’m not using enough wind, my oboe is out of adjustment, etc.)

15 min of thoughtful practice is so much more valuable than hours of rote exercises.

Practice can be fruitful, too! When I do projects like design matchbooks, stickers, and stamps? That’s a form of practice for me -- you can practice skills by making things. And sometimes the most important skill to practice is finishing things.

Be honest with yourself and always remember to not focus solely on the negative -- always look for stuff you like about your creations.

8) Experiment! Need to substitute materials? Have a cool idea? Experiment, review, and iterate.

9) Rinse and repeat. Making stuff is all about continual learning, and that always starts at the beginning. Go back to Step #1. And even learn about Crafts you don’t plan to participate in, because inspiration is everywhere. :)

[painted-starlight]

Frozen 2:The Impression of Accountability, Iduna and Agnar Characterization Analysis

Warning: LONG POST, Anti-Frozen, spoilers for Frozen 2, swearing, talking about racism and mentions child abuse. If I get anything wrong on the issue of accountability, please don’t hesitate to correct me. 

Summary: Examining the inconsistencies between Frozen 2′s depiction of the behavior of Iduna and Agnarr and how this affects the overall themes of Frozen.

Introduction 

I’ve let myself sit on Frozen 2 and how I feel about it for a couple of months now. I’ve mostly focused on the meta-aspects of the film, from it’s character design to the early spoilers, but nothing too in depth until recently. 

And I’ve come to this conclusion that Frozen 2 is almost accountable, but backs away from any true accountability on the part of Arendelle and, most controversially from the response from my posts, Elsa and Anna’s parents. 

Arendelle: The Spirits Hate Them But Not Really

Frozen 2 is often praised for it’s handling of holding Arendelle accountable for it’s crimes. The spirits are angry with Arendelle for the previous king, Agnarr’s father Runeard for killing the leader of Northuldra. It is up to Anna and Elsa to right the wrongs of the past and destroy the damn that brought only grief to the Northuldra and the spirits of the Enchanted forest. 

So, I have a question. If the spirits were so angry with Arendelle, then why trap the Northuldra and allow Agnarr to leave to rule Arendelle without any real repercussions? Sure, King Runeard is killed in battle, an immediate consequence for his actions but that was ultimately a good thing because he sucked. Only a few soldiers were left behind as well. And King Runeard was later succeeded by king Agnarr, his son, who sucked slightly less than him. 

Arendelle was allowed to prosper with a better king, and Iduna is rewarded for saving his life by the spirits by having her child be gifted with magic. 

For saving the son of the man who murdered the Northuldra leader. 

Because that is something to reward...?? 

I’m starting to think that the concept of accountability is kind of twisted in Frozen 2. Arendelle is explicitly in the wrong, and yet, they are rewarded constantly for no reason. 

The entire Northuldra community, who have a good relationship with the spirits and were merely acting in self defense, were collectively punished and forcibly kept in a magic barrier for 34 years. That doesn’t sound very fair to me.  

Arendelle is Rewarded Rather Than Truly Punished

Yeah, Arendelle is wrong, but they get more benefits than punishments in long run. In fact, you could argue they were exponentially REWARDED for their heinous actions because as a result of the battle they have:

A super powerful monarch who wields magic (which no one else has because Elsa is special)

A better king than the one who died in battle to succeed him (King Agnarr) and who is married to the woman who is the favored child of the spirits

Citizens allowed to go anywhere they want and do trade with other countries to their benefit

Any consequence of said powerful monarchs magical actions (eternal winter) maybe only lasted three days, TOPS. After that she is immediately accepted for her powers and now Arendelle is essentially bulletproof because they have a magic ice queen to defend them.

Allowed to get a warning before the flood of Arendelle, but the Northuldra didn’t get any. 

Allowed Elsa to stop the flood to spare Arendelle, because for some reason the spirits are super cool with Arendelle now?

Like, how fucking crazy would it have been if the spirits woke up and immediately destroyed the dam while everyone in Arendelle was sleeping? THAT would’ve been a life or death conflict. 

But the movie is determined to deal with accountability with kid gloves, or weasel out at the last minute. 

Part 2: Iduna and Agnarr

Now, the aspect I want to talk about is the way that the story frames Iduna and Agnarr and how this contrasts with what we know about them up until the most recent movie. 

This is an examination of the theatrical installments of Frozen because they are the most canonical. Extra stories in books or supplemental material that wasn’t widely released or accessible don’t really count. And not to mention, the consistency between the theatrically released movies and shorts are mostly made by the same team. Therefore, have most canonical elements to them.

Iduna and Agnarr’s Relationship with their Children

Up until Frozen 2, the general consensus was that Iduna and Agnarr’s parents was...misguided. 

Misguided being a very soft term in my opinion because I truly feel that what they did was completely out of line and extreme, crossing the border of abuse. But that’s my personal opinion and it’s not how they are framed in the movie. 

Control vs. Love Theme

Iduna and Agnarr love Elsa and Anna. That much is true. However, Frozen, like a lot white disney princess movies believes that good intentions means benevolent actions. (Please note: I’m going to refer to Elsa and Anna as white coded, because that appears to be the most appropriate given that they are canonically white passing Indigenous characters. Yet, all the white disney princess tropes definitely apply to how they are framed and their characterization in the first film). 

However, this is not true whatsoever in reality, but most importantly, it’s not consistent with what is shown as a result of their desire to control Elsa. 

And yes, their desire to control and contain her meant that their “love” for Elsa-- least the impression they gave her and never made her feel otherwise--was conditional love. It means that as long as she controlled her powers they approved of her and gave positive reinforcement.

Iduna and Agnarr’s Love Had Conditions, Anna’s Didn’t

Their approach love can be compared to Prince Hans, because he is another extreme: He wouldn’t be interested in Anna if she didn’t have the power he desired. Many characters in Frozen are compared in whether their love comes with conditions, or is unconditional. 

Iduna and Agnarr, unwittingly, proved to Elsa that their love for her was conditional. Yes, they loved her, but they didn’t love every part of her. And that, in of itself, is placing conditions on their love. 

If we go by the narrative context of Anna’s love in comparison, hers comes without condition. Elsa’s powers are at their most controlled when she is given love without strings. Which is why the solution was (admittedly very cheesy and somewhat out of place) “love.” 

The more specific kind is the love Anna has for her sister. She never stops loving Elsa, even after she is hurt by her. She might be angry, frustrated, but in the end loves Elsa the right way.  

Frozen Fever

Subsequent installments drive home this point even further. In Frozen Fever, more is revealed in implications about their parents without directly referring to them by name. 

Iduna and Agnarr don’t celebrate Anna’s birthday after the incident. Elsa cannot recognize when she is sick and in need of medical attention. She feels like she needs to go overboard in celebrating Anna’s birthday, is highly self critical, because their parents never allowed either of them to celebrate it. 

Olaf’s Frozen Adventure

Olaf’s Frozen Adventure goes even further into the theme that Anna and Elsa are moving away from their parents traditions and expectations. 

Elsa laments not having a Christmas tradition, because her parents only rung the bell in front of the citizens as a superficial way to signal “everything’s just fine,” when it wasn’t. When all the mandated bell ringing was done, they went back to separating the sisters. 

At the end, Elsa and Anna make their own unique traditions, and that ringing the bell doesn’t matter anymore. Their bond is what makes Christmas special for them. This is narrative cue that they are moving away from their parents and looking toward the future. 

Frozen 2: Iduna and Agnarr’s Love is Depicted as Unconditional

And then we get to Frozen 2. 

I have problems with the way they portray Iduna and Agnarr as parents in Frozen 2. It started when the film opened with Elsa and Anna playing with Elsa’s magic while their parents look on smiling. 

That’s confusing, and a little out of character. I didn’t get the impression in the first movie or shorts that Iduna nor Agnarr particularly cared for Elsa’s powers, and I also didn’t think they would be so cool with her using them so blatantly. 

Elsa’s ice powers were the bond that kept Anna and her together. That’s why they had to go and play in secret. Because Elsa’s powers were supposed to be something that couldn’t be played with out in front of their parents. That was the first cue that something was very different about this Iduna and Agnarr. 

And Frozen 2 is telling it’s audience that the parents would be supportive? Then why would Elsa feel so anxious about using them and locking herself away for so long after her parents explicitly made changes to the staff, the access to the outside, and refusing to tell Anna about Elsa’s powers? Her actions didn’t come from nowhere. Their negative reaction to Elsa’s powers was a common occurrence. 

In fact, that very same night where he looks on lovingly at Elsa’s ice magic, we hear Agnarr immediately placing blame on Elsa for an accident and exacerbating her trauma. This is a reprimanding that has been done before. Her ice powers were something to be hidden.

Agnarr: “Elsa, what have you done? This is getting out of hand.” 

Elsa “It was an accident, (to Anna) I’m sorry Anna.”

Iduna: “She’s ice cold.”

Agnarr: “I know where we have to go.”

Does this sound like the same man and woman who, just hours earlier looked on with happiness at his child using her ice powers to play pretend with her sister? It really doesn’t. 

King Agnarr and Queen Iduna specifically decide to “Lock the gates, reduce the staff, and limit her [Elsa’s] contact with people. Keep her powers hidden from everyone...including Anna.” 

The filmmakers really pulled out all the stops in the sequel to make sure that all the pain and suffering Elsa went through was actually totally just her own decisions, and the not the decisions that her parents made for a young child. 

I’m not going to lie, I get why they made so many changes. They wanted to expand on Iduna’s heritage and explain Agnarr’s view of magic without complicating the story too much. 

But these morally gray elements to their characters and the revelations on their backstories didn’t need to be mutually exclusive. If the filmmakers held Agnarr and Iduna accountable, we could’ve had a very unique set of parents in disney canon. 

Personally, I think that portraying them without the morally gray areas of their actions and having with an unambiguously supportive relationship with their children in Frozen 2 conflicts with their earlier actions. It makes the story flow a little bit better in the sequel to uncomplicate their relationship, but I think the way they set them up would’ve been interesting too. 

Olaf’s Recap Removes the Parent’s Decision to Lock Elsa Away

I was also tipped off that the whole framing of the parents was being twisted when I saw Olaf’s recap in Frozen 2.

Olaf: [As Elsa] Anna, no too high! Blast! [a Anna] Ohhh! [as Elsa] Mama Papa Help! Slam, doors shutting everywhere, sisters torn apart. Well, at least they have their parents. [beat] Their parents are dead. 

The way he describes the situation is bizzare to say the least. He doesn’t mention “conceal, don’t feel” even once. He mentions the parents positively, stripping their role in Elsa and Anna’s separation and only leaving it between the lines. I think this is because if they remind the audience about the things the parents did, the audience would have a harder time accepting their sudden support for Elsa’s powers. 

If the parents actions weren’t controversial, then I think that they wouldn’t have this problem. But it’s like they went out of their way to make it appear that it was actually all Elsa’s decision to lock herself away instead of her parents expecting her to do so without protest. 

It Was Iduna and Agnarr’s Decision to Isolate Elsa, Not Elsa Herself

When we really look into the specifics of Elsa’s isolation, we can’t ignore Iduna and Agnarr’s role. The only reason why Elsa became so secretive is because she was conditioned to do so by her parents. 

How many times did Anna go to her parents and ask what was wrong with Elsa, only to be turned away to the point where she doesn’t bother anymore? 

How could they look at this situation for more than a week, and just allow this to happen? Easily, because it was a solution that worked for them. It honestly looks like they got used to the situation after years of Elsa’s isolation.

Just look at the body language of Elsa’s farewell to her parents, Elsa is NOT happy. Unlike Anna, she remains a good distance away from them. She is nervous and sad without her parents to direct her. 

This is reaction they are most likely expecting. Her parents smile on, almost as if to say “she’ll be ok for a couple of weeks, then we’ll be right back to normal and keep her in check.” It’s a reassuring smile, that things will go back to the way they were once they come back. And they don’t.  

Elsa Hiding Things is Learned

Look man, I feel like Elsa should be held accountable for a lot of things. Abandoning her people, twice, in the middle of a storm she created. Not getting help for Anna when she was injured and kicking her out of the ice castle instead. All things she should get shit for. 

However, I also think that her parents shouldn’t be let off the hook. 

My other problem comes from Frozen 2′s emphasis on Elsa hiding things from Anna. The constant references to Elsa shutting Anna out, making decisions without her, would definitely lead a more casual viewer under the impression that it was all Elsa’s decision to lock herself away for years at a time when this simply wasn’t true. 

On a meta note, I’ve seen people place all the blame on Elsa to lock herself away to in order to prop up her parents and give them the benefit of the doubt. That they were trying their best in a situation they didn’t have any knowledge of. However, this is an extremely inappropriate reaction to a character who is depicted as a child under the care of her parents. 

I think that there is an intrinsic desire for people to believe the framing of movies, and that good intent creates good results. But the text of Frozen shows this isn’t true either. Iduna and Agnarr should be able to be morally gray characters who made decisions that aren’t always beneficial, even with the best intentions. 

Elsa and Anna, like most siblings, have wildly different feelings toward them. For example, Anna insists to Elsa after finding out the truth about their death that she is not responsible for their decisions when Elsa blames herself. 

On one hand, this seems to be an acceptance by the story that they were not perfect people and that Elsa needs to take into consideration that she is not responsible for their actions. 

However, the way that this conversation is framed shows that this is a different conversation altogether. Anna means that they gave their lives to HELP Elsa, and that she is a gift for Iduna saving Agnarr. It martyrs their sacrifice, something that most fictional parents, who are portrayed as ultimately good, would be. They died to help her, because they were good parents who made good decisions.

They are Flawed Characters

But...they didn’t make good decisions. They were very flawed individuals. Once something is portrayed as flawed, it can’t be flawless. You can’t just dump their decisions on how they grew up, or say it’s all Elsa’s fault they treated her that way because mature writing means that you accept that your characters need to be held accountable for their decisions. 

No matter how many sad looks they give to convey their sympathetic nature in Frozen, the reason Agnarr and Iduna used the gloves and kept Elsa in a constant state of fear so much was because it was working. It wasn’t a good long term plan, nor ideal for them, but it was the one they went along with because it kept Elsa’s powers in check.

I personally don’t like how the filmmakers made them the idea of parents. Iduna is the idea of a mother and Agnarr, the idea of a father. We are supposed to put fond memories of good parents into their characterization because they rely on audiences not really remembering them in the first movie. The biggest scene with them is their death in the original movie. 

If they simply were just parents who died, then the characterization is Frozen 2 would be a welcome expansion of underdeveloped characters with little screen time.And within the vaccum of the sequel, their unconditional love for their daughters makes sense. If we place the generic idea of a mother into Iduna’s role, we get to know the mother who always loved her daughter finally reconnecting with her after her tragic death. With Agnarr we get a loving father who only wanted what was best for his daughters, who was misguided on the truth of the past. 

But Iduna’s big duet with Elsa, “Show Yourself” only highlights the parents role in her involvement with making Elsa suppress her powers with “conceal, don’t feel” since it’s a direct response. 

Agnarr’s misremembering of the past is used to highlight the truth that needed to be revealed. It’s portrayed as tragic, since we can assume he never learns the truth. And their treatment of Elsa’s powers is never brought up in detail, just glossed over. 

Even Parents With the Best Intentions Can Hurt Their Children

The problem is that we could’ve really examined how Iduna, forced with suppressing her identity, made mistakes in trying to protect her daughter. Sometimes people from marginalized groups who have no choice but to assimilate force their children to hide their identity to protect them from harm.

Agnarr’s upbringing is often pointed to as the source of his extreme views on magic, and that he inherited it from his father. But ultimately he is responsible for his actions, and he hurt his daughters. Sometimes people who seek to do better than their parents end up making the same mistakes.  

Maybe Iduna regrets hurting Elsa but felt it was a better alternative than being killed for who she is, or Agnarr so focused on protecting her he never realizes it was doing her more harm than good because it was controlling her and giving him the results he wanted. 

This could’ve been parallel with his lack of critical thinking when recounting the enchanted forest story. He doesn’t question why the conflict started, even though he has the pieces to put it together himself. He told it in a way that benefited him the most, without considering the people around him. 

Both parents could still be held accountable for the pain they caused Elsa and they would also be characters who inspire different feelings from both daughters. This could also be a turning point in Frozen 2′s theme that the sisters are on different paths. 

Final Thoughts

Like I said, I understand why the filmmakers of Frozen 2 decided to tone down the harsher implications of the parents actions. And maybe in the end, people really prefer this version of Iduna and Agnarr. But I can’t really ignore what they’ve done because their actions permeate the very themes of Frozen’s views on love and control. 

However, these are personal feelings toward this subject and I think it could’ve been handled a little better. 

[biostudyblog]

Learning

Classical Conditioning

While researching dog digestion, Ivan Pavlov accidentally made an interesting discovery; the dogs were learning to pair sounds in their environment with their food, eliciting natural responses like salivation even when no food was present. Pavlov had accidentally stumbled upon the concept of classical conditioning. He looked closer into this concept and made many interesting discoveries which became invaluable in understanding how learning works in both humans and animals. In his experiments, there was an unconditioned stimulus (US), which is something which elicits a natural response in subjects. For example, food causes salivation- the salivation is the unconditioned response (UR). By pairing a neutral stimulus such as a tuning fork with the unconditioned stimulus, the dog’s learnt to pair that sound with food, and began to salivate when the tuning fork was rung, even without food being present. At this point, the salivation is now a conditioned response (CR), and the tuning fork is a conditioned stimulus (CS).

It is considered learning when the animal responds to the CS without the US. This initial learning is called acquisition, after the acquiring of new behaviour. Repeated pairings of a CS and US can yield stronger CR’s, but only to a certain degree. The order and timing of the pairing also impact the strength of the CR. The fastest acquisition occurred when the tuning fork is rung, and while it is still ringing, the dogs are presented with food. This is called delayed conditioning. There are other kinds of conditioning but have not been shown to be as effective.

Trace conditioning: The presentation of the CS, followed by a short break, followed by the presentation of the US

Simultaneous conditioning: The CS and the US are presented at the same time.

Backward conditioning: US is presented first and is followed by the CS. 

Unlearning behaviour is known as extinction. This is defined when the CS no longer causes the CR. An interesting part of this process is spontaneous recovery, where after the extinction of the conditioned response, it briefly reappears when presented with the conditioned stimulus. The tendency to respond to similar CS’s is known as a generalisation (the dog responds to a bell as well as a tuning fork). Subjects can also learn to differentiate or discriminate between different stimuli. 

Many other experiments looking at Classical Conditioning have taken place, however, one significant one was John Watson and Rosalie Rayner’s Little Albert experiment. They brought a little white rat to the little boy and taught him to associate the rat with a loud bang, causing him to be afraid of the rat. The boy ended up generalising, as he was afraid of other white fluffy things such as beards and a white rabbit. This is an example of aversive conditioning. Where a negative response is taught to a subject, rather than a positive one. Another example of aversive conditioning is the use of horrible tasting nail polish to dissuade nail biters from biting.

When a CS elicits a CR, it’s briefly possible to use the CS as an US to condition a response to a new stimulus. This is second-order, or higher-order conditioning. 

Biology & Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning does not always work. Recent research has shown that humans and animals are more biologically prepared to make certain connections over others. A good example of this is learned taste aversions. If you eat too much of certain food and begin to feel nauseous, you will learn to avoid that food or drink. They can cause powerful aversions after just one bad incident, and in fact, the two events are often separated by several hours. Taste aversions most commonly take place with strong and unusual tastes. The CS (the food) must be salient (noticeable) in order to cause the aversion. John Garcia and Robert Koelling performed an experiment showing how rats made certain associations more than others. The results of that experiment are shown in the table below. The ease with how animals learn taste aversions is known as the Garcia Effect. 

Operant Conditioning

Operant Conditioning is a type of learning based on the association of consequences with behaviour. Edward Thorndike was one of the first to research this phenomenon. His experiments involved putting a cat into a puzzle box. The cat was in a cage next to a bowl of food and had to get out to get the food. The amount of time it took for the cat to get out of the box decreased over a series of trials. The amount of time decreased gradually showing that the cat was learning the new behaviour without mental activity, but just by connecting a stimulus and a response. This led to Thorndike’s law of effect, which states that if the consequences of a behaviour are pleasurable, the stimulus-response connection will strengthen, and the subject will likely repeat that behaviour. If the consequences are negative, the likelihood of the behaviour will decrease. He labelled this instrumental learning.

B.F Skinner coined the term operant conditioning. He invented a contraption called a Skinner box which delivered food to an animal by pressing a lever, pushing a button, or pecking a disk. The food is a reinforcer, and giving the food is reinforcement. There are two types of reinforcement; positive and negative. Positive reinforcement is the addition of something pleasant, and negative reinforcement is the removal of something unpleasant. Escape learning allows a subject to terminate an aversive stimulus, while avoidance learning enables them to avoid the stimulus completely. If a child causes a fuss in class and is asked to leave, that is escape learning. If he decides to skive off altogether, that’s avoidance learning. Behaviour can also be shaped by negative consequences. This is known as punishment. Positive punishment is the addition of something unpleasant, while negative punishment or omission training is the removal of something pleasant.

Punishment vs Reinforcement

Punishment is operant conditioning’s aversive conditioning. It is most effective if it is delivered immediately after the undesired behaviour. Harsh punishments can have unintended consequences, for example hitting your dog may dissuade it from misbehaving, but may cause fear or anger in the dog. 

To get the rat to pull the lever in the box, Skinner used a process known as shaping. Shaping reinforces the steps used to arrive at the desired behaviour. If you’ve ever trained a dog, you’ll know that training requires incremental steps towards the behaviour, instead of immediately expecting them to do it. By rewarding approximations of the behaviour, it increases the chances they will stumble upon it later. Animals can also be taught to perform a number of responses successively. This concept is known as chaining. 

Vocabulary used for classical conditioning also works with operant conditioning. Here they are with the context of a rat in a skinner box.

Acquisition: The rat learns to press the lever to get food

Extinction: The rat stops pressing the lever as it no longer gets food

Spontaneous Recovery: After extinguishing the original behaviour, without further training, the rat begins to press the bar again.

Generalisation: If the rat presses things like buttons, not just levers to get food

Discrimination: If the rat is only taught to press a specific bar, or only to press the bar when a sound is playing (in this scenario, the tone is a discriminative stimulus.)

There are two kinds of reinforcers. Primary reinforcers are naturally rewarding.  Things like food, water, and rest that we don’t need to learn to enjoy. Secondary reinforcers are things we have learnt to value, such as praise or allowing someone to play a video game. Money is a generalised reinforcer, as it can be traded for virtually anything. An application of generalised reinforcers is called the token economy, where every time a person in a token economy performs something desired, they receive a token that they can trade for one of a variety of reinforcers. Not all reinforcers are desirable, and they’re not desirable all the time. Try rewarding a teen who’s just stuffed their face with cake, with even more cake and see how willing they are to win it. The idea that the reinforcing properties of something depend on the situation connects with the Premack principle, where whichever of the two activities is preferred can be used to encourage the less preferred activity.

Reinforcement Schedules

When behaviour has just begun to be learnt, continuous reinforcement is best, however, once it has been learnt, a partial reinforcement schedule tends to be ideal. According to the partial-reinforcement effect, behaviours are more resistant to extinction if the animal hasn’t been reinforcement hasn’t been done continuously. The types of partial-reinforcement are described in the table below.

Noticing a break in a variable pattern is much more difficult, which is why variable patterns are more resistant to extinction.

Biology and Operant Conditioning

As cool as operant conditioning is, it has its limits. Animals will not perform certain behaviours that go against their natural inclinations, for example, rats will not walk backwards. The tendency for animals to ignore rewards to pursue their typical behavioural patterns is called instinctive drift.

Cognitive Learning

The Contingency Model

The Pavlovian model of classical conditioning is known as the contiguity model as it states that the more times two things are paired, the greater the learning that will take place. Robert Rescorla’s research revised the Pavlovian model to apply it to more complicated scenarios.

In his experiments, he had two dogs, both of which were presented with food and a bell 10 times. However, one of the other dogs was also presented with 5 trials where the food was given with no bell, and 5 trials where the bell was rung with no food. Common sense says the first dog would have a stronger response, but the contiguity model says that their responses would be the same.

In comes Rescorla’s revision; the contingency model. This model states that A is contingent upon B when A depends on B and vice versa. In other words, the presence of one event reliably predicts the presence of the other. For the first dog, the food is contingent upon the presence of the bell, however, for the second one, the relationship between the US and the CS is less clear, making the following response less strong.

Observational Learning

 As children grow up, they learn how to behave based on how the people in their lives do. This is known as observational learning, or modelling, and was studied extensively by Albert Bandura while he was forming his social-learning theory. 

Modelling has two basic components: observation and imitation. In a scenario with two brothers, while the older brother is playing football outside, the little brother watches his little brother, and imitates his behaviour, playing football as well. However, modelling isn’t all positive. Children who grow up in abusive environments are more likely to model that behaviour when they grow up, leading to a cycle of behaviour.

Latent Learning

Edward Tolman did substantial research into latent learning. Latent learning is learning that only becomes obvious when reinforcement is given for learning it. 

In his experiments, Tolman had 3 groups of rats go through a maze. One group was rewarded every time they finished the maze. Their performance in the maze improved rapidly. The second group was never rewarded and showed gradual improvement. The third group wasn’t rewarded for the first half of the trials, but for the second half received a reward. In the first half, their performance matched with the second group, however in the second half of the trials, their performance spiked, showing that the rats had learnt their way around the maze in the first half of the trials, however, their performance didn’t drastically improve because they weren’t motivated to improve.

Abstract Learning

Abstract learning is the idea that we learn in general, not necessarily about specific behaviours. Some animals used in skinner boxes like pigeons and rats have shown this ability. Pigeons, for example, have learnt to peck pictures that had never seen before if those pictures were of chairs.

Insight Learning

Wolfgang Kohler performed insight learning experiments on chimpanzees. Insight learning occurs when someone suddenly realises how to do a problem. A moment of insight can happen when you’re taking a test when all of a sudden you realise what the answer is. Kohler argued that learning happened in this sudden fashion because of insight and not because of the gradual strengthening of S-R connections. 

In his study with chimpanzees, he put them into scenarios to see how they’d solve problems. In one, he suspended a banana from the ceiling, out of the chimps reach. He found that the chimps would spend most of their time unproductively using their time rather than gradually working towards the banana. All of a sudden, they would have a moment of insight, and stack boxes to reach it. 

[feste-the-jester]

Do you know what’s fun?

Picking the blog of someone you don’t like, and seeing how far you can twist things to make it fit the BITE model -criteria to identify a cult. GREAT fun. All you need is a bit of creativity and a total disregard for accuracy. Don’t believe me? Let’s have a try and see how we do! The Bite model can be found here, with many thanks to the Fool for bringing it to my attention.

I. Behavior control:

6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep.

The Fool lives in Australia and most of his readers are in a different time zone. This means that every time he starts publishing numerous posts about the latest drama, his followers are likely to get absorbed in it, depriving themselves of sleep and becoming more susceptible to his interpretation of things.

9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet.

Each time the Fool decides on a new “sin”/aberrant behavior that the “enemy” is guilty of, he will publish many posts repeating the same assertion. Frequent repetition of the core message is a well known indoctrination technique. Many of the Fool’s followers are likely spending an inordinate amount of time on his blog, judging by the speed and frequency that “likes” from the same people appear.

10. Permission required for major decisions.

The Fool often receives and publishes asks, asking him for permission to create a blog similar to his, asking if it’s ok to follow or interact with Simon Alkenmayer, whether they or their friends are safe etc.

11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors.

Readers inform the Fool of what is happening on Simon and Kristina’s blog, report (often mistakenly, rarely, if ever, corrected) what Simon has said or done, both on tumblr and on other social media, such as Twitter. They also contact the Fool to report on their own thoughts and reactions to Simon.

12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative.

Readers who agree with the Fool and mirror his opinions are rewarded with sympathy (for their negative experience) and by having their intellect and critical thinking skills praised. Anyone who disagrees is deemed to be naive, immature, indoctrinated by Simon, incapable of logic etc. Indeed, the whole continued existence of the Fool’s blog is arguably a form of punishment for Simon “threatening him” with legal action back when the blog was first created. This communicates to members what kind of retribution they may expect if they cross the leader’s boundaries.

13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think.

Any reports confirming the Fool’s assertions about Simon are immediately welcomed, believed, and adopted into the canon. Dissenting voices are “sent by Simon”, “haven’t read or understood the Fool’s arguments” or have been “manipulated.” The Fool does not acknowledge that it is possible for an intelligent, reasonable and objective adult to read his arguments and disagree with him.

14. Impose rigid rules and regulations.

Such as not answering asks that are not formatted to his liking, and he “can’t be bothered to read”.

16. Threaten harm to family and friends.

The Fool will publicly assert that he has never threatened anyone. However he has gone out of his way to connect Kristina to Simon, who is portrayed as “the enemy”. Several people, including this Jester, have been warned by friends to be careful of attracting the Fool’s and followers’ ire.

18. Instill dependency and obedience.

Readers expect the Fool to tell them which of Simon’s behaviors are problematic. Anyone who disagrees is likely to be accused of the same. (“If you think this isn’t racist, then you are also racist” etc.)

II. Information control:

1. Deception:

a. Deliberately withhold information.

Such as selective quoting, neglecting to withdraw statements that have been proven wrong, and not acknowledging any outside posts that don’t fit with the narrative.

b. Distort information to make it more acceptable.

Such as selective quoting, ignoring context and applying his own interpretation to things said by the “outsiders”.

c. Systematically lie to the cult members.

For example repeating that Kristina accused him of physically setting a fire on her drive.

2. Minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information, including:

a. Internet, TV, radio, books, articles, newspapers, magazines, other media.

Frequent repetition of how “unreadable” Simon’s books are, or how “long and ranting” his posts are can be seen as discouraging his followers from accessing them and forming their own opinion.

b. Critical information.

Any posts sharing positive experiences involving Simon are either ignored or discounted.

d. Keep members busy so they don’t have time to think and investigate.

Every time one of the Fool’s theories on Simon’s misdeeds is disproven, the Fool quickly moves on to a new accusation, keeping his followers from going back and reconsidering his previous posts.

4. Encourage spying on other members

b. Report deviant thoughts, feelings and actions to leadership.

The Fool often receives and publishes third party reports on Simon’s posts and behavior, inside and outside of tumblr. These are not fact-checked, but are welcomed and encouraged.

c. Ensure that individual behavior is monitored by group.

The Fool often receives and publishes third party reports on Simon’s posts and behavior, inside and outside of tumblr. These are not fact-checked, but are welcomed and encouraged.

5. Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda, including:

b. Misquoting statements or using them out of context from non-cult sources.

The Fool will often misquote Simon, and those misquotes will go on to be repeated with frequency by him and his followers.

III. Thought control:

1. Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth.

a. Adopting the group's ‘map of reality’ as reality

If you don’t believe the Fool to be right, you are illogical, brainwashed or “reaching.” Frequent use of phrases such as “Obviously,” “We all know” etc reinforces this.

Everyone the Fool interacts with must acknowledge that what he is doing is critique, despite all evidence to the contrary.

b. Instill black and white thinking

Simon is “a bad person.” Everything he does must be seen and interpreted through this lense, which is reinforced frequently. The Fool often writes or publishes that Simon is “a bad person,” “a garbage person”, “an asshole” and similar descriptors.

c. Decide between good vs. evil

The Fool gets to determine what is good and what is evil. Simon is evil, and must be called out at every opportunity. The Fool and his followers are good, so any slurs, lies or offensive statements they make are excused and covered up.

d. Organize people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders)

The Fool’s followers are intelligent, “have brains” and would never endanger anyone. The Fool trusts them to handle things appropriately. Simon’s followers are simple, impressionable, a mob. The Fool does not trust them to report their own experience, and their judgement is compromised by definition.

2. Change person’s name and identity.

The Fool calls Simon “Si”, “Krimon” and “Kristina”. Anonymous visitors to his ask box are encouraged to choose a “code name” to protect them from the evil Simon.

3. Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words.

Using loaded terms such as “misappropriation”, “grooming” to describe Simon’s actions and descriptions such as “critique” for his own writing help the Fool elicit the reaction he wants from his followers.

6. Memories are manipulated and false memories are created.

For example an influx of Anonymous asks that somehow suddenly realised years later that Simon behaved badly towards them, even if they didn’t think that way back then.

8. Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism.

The Fool has blocked people for disagreeing with him. He frequently shuts down polite questions and uses sarcasm to avoid answering. Despite not affording Simon the same luxury, the Fool expects his readers to “take his word about what he meant” with a post, even if the messenger is politely explaining how it came across.

9. Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed.

For example saying that he will “not publish any asks defending antisemitism. Even if that’s not what you think you are doing.” In effect, if you disagree with the Fool’s interpretation of Simon’s behavior as antisemitic, then you are defending antisemitism. No dissent allowed.

10. Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful.

No one possibly believes Simon is an actual monster, and if they do, they are unable of critical thought.

11. Instill new “map of reality”.

Commenting on someone’s art, mocking them, calling them names, is “literary critique”. Attempts to answer to accusations are “rants”. Asking someone if the possibility of legal consequences bothers them is “threatening” and “becoming irrationally angry”. And so on...

IV. Emotional control:

1. Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish.

Simon’s feelings are not even real, according to the Fool. Simon could not possibly be affected by the Fool’s actions. He is not real and has no feelings. Instead, he is only capable of “ranting”, “manipulating” and “doing things for attention”. Any concerns brought to the Fool about how his actions are affecting Simon, are answered with “You need to remember he’s not a real person”.

3. Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault.

If Simon or his readers are upset, it’s their fault for looking at the blog. If anyone’s reputation is damaged as a result of claims the Fool makes about them, it’s on them. The Fool is free to make any comments he sees fit, with no consequences.

4. Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness, such as

b. You are not living up to your potential

Being part of Simon’s group means you are allowing yourself to be manipulated and brainwashed. You can not reach your full potential unless you renounce Simon.

c. Your family is deficient

Your “found family” of gentle readers is deficient.

d. Your past is suspect

Your past experiences are not proof of anything. Bad things may have been happening in Simon’s space, and you may have been part of them.

e. Your affiliations are unwise

You are choosing to affiliate yourself with someone bad. And you are unable to tell he is lying to you.

f. Your thoughts, feelings, actions are irrelevant or selfish

If you share your thoughts, feelings or actions to defend Simon, it doesn’t prove anything, and by defending him you are harming others.

5. Instill fear, such as fear of:

b. The outside world

c. Enemies

The Fool makes sure to repeat often enough that readers might be targeted by Simon and his followers. He curates that expectation and then reinforces it by publishing Anons who agree.

8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority.

Not so much fears of leaving the Fool’s group, as much as cultivating fears of leaving/going against Simon’s group. The Fool’s group is presented as a safe haven.

d. Never a legitimate reason to leave; those who leave are weak, undisciplined, unspiritual, worldly, brainwashed by family or counselor, or seduced by money, sex, or rock and roll.

Those who don’t embrace the Fool’s blog and choose to remain with Simon are weak-minded, brainwashed, unable to reason, or bad by association. There can be no legitimate reason to like Simon.

e. Threats of harm to ex-member and family.

No explicit threats are made, but seeing the treatment of Kristina Meister is implicitly threatening.

See? Of course all this is just an exercise -a thought experiment. But it’s about as well-argued as the Fool’s original analysis. (Which is to say, neither deserves to be taken seriously.)

[amelia-grant-md]

If you were to re-do the scene with Bucky and his therapist but with Amelia instead, how would the scene go?

Oohh that is an interesting question! (although I also kind of have to sort through what I, me, Josie, would do (as someone who really likes the fictional character Bucky and his backstory and also writing) vs. what Amelia would do (as a fictional therapist invented by a writer who knows fuck-all about therapy). Bc Amelia is very different to the therapist-character both as a) a therapist and b) a person. And that’s less about “what makes a good therapist” but “how does Amelia deal with things and what does she consider good therapy.”

For me, personally, I think what really bothers me the most about those therapy scenes in Falcon and Winter Soldier and really the way Bucky is being treated: This therapy is forced on him in the first place. He doesn’t want to be there. And this therapist often treats him in a very passive-aggressive way, especially in the first therapy scene. (I especially hated the thing with the notebook considering that Bucky and doctors with notebooks...yeah, they have a history).

And I know that a very common fandom reaction to his therapy scenes was that it is nice for Bucky that he is in a position where he can choose to push back, to refuse stuff - something he couldn’t do in ages. But personally, I don’t think putting him in a conflict position is the best way to get him to open up. I mean, it’s nice to teach him to push back (which is actually something we know he already can do bc we often see him do it when interacting for example with Sam and the entire idea of Bucky being some soft trembling flower is kind of a fandom-take) but I think the guy has bigger issues. 

Now, talking specifically about Amelia and the kind of character I see her as:

 One thing that I try to make Amelia do a lot is that she tries not to push people. She has a stubborn streak when it comes to how she perceives herself, but she doesn’t push that on others. That is for example why she told Val and Jacopo that they could leave any time if they needed to take a break or why she let Val get coffee when it was obviously her way of stalling - bc she could tell that Val was uncomfortable and didn’t want to add to that by saying: “Hey sit your ass down and talk now.” So it’s easier to let Val get her additional three minutes of getting coffee and then having her sit down for good.

It’s also why when she was invited to their house for the first time to check whether this is a good place for Jacopo, one of the first things she told Val was that she has no intention to take Jacopo away and that she wouldn’t be angry if she found something amiss (it’s too long ago for to me to remember what exactly she said but they had a brief conversation of that sort) - because she knew that putting additional stress on Jacopo’s parents would just give them reasons to hide stuff from her and not to tell her the truth which in turn would prevent her from helping Jacopo, so instead she wanted to give them the liberty to be honest without consequences and if she found something wrong, she could give them actual advice.

Or that’s why she never told Jacopo something along the lines: “stop cutting!” or “you shouldn’t have run from home!” - or for example when Jacopo told her that he considers stealing to show Jlo that stealing is bad, she doesn’t say “you shouldn’t do that” or “stealing is bad” or “that’s a dumb idea” or even “Wow you would be a thief and I hate thieves”, but just points out that he might get in trouble - not indicating any personal feelings on the matter. Because if she did that and he stole something, he might not tell her. So she just reminds him of the consequences.  

When it comes to Bucky, I think one of the biggest differences is the apologising thing. I don’t think Amelia is averse to advising a person to apologise if a person genuinely feels bad and she thinks this might help them feel better, but she’s also someone who focussed her career on dealing with abused children (who tend to blame themselves for things they are not responsible for). And ironically, Bucky is also not responsible for the things he did when he was the Winter Soldier. 

Now, I’m not a therapist and I don’t know whether apologising would maybe really help a person like Bucky feel better or not (it might! I’m not saying it wouldn’t!) - but just ignoring how therapy really works in the real world and just looking at characters and how fictional Amelia regards fictional psychology; I don’t think she would make him apologise unless he would insist on doing that. In which case, again, she would be very non-judgy and more matter-of-factly and point out the pros and cons for his mental health (and the mental health of the people he apologises to) and generally the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. And if he decided to do it, she would very frequently go over the results with him in a neutral way.

Obviously, we have to keep in mind that she was developed as a therapist for Jacopo so a big thing for her is that she’s always very: “Hey, this is not your fault.” and “You are not (stupid/slow/untalented)”. And I feel like for her, setting Bucky up to make apologies would be setting him up to internalise that he has something to apologise for - when really, he is the victim. It would be like...if someone grabbed your arm, made you slap someone, gaslit you into believing you hit that person and when you talked to someone about this, they would tell you: “Well, apologise to the person you slapped, and you will feel better!” - Again, I don’t know whether this would help a real-world trauma patient, but in terms of fictional psychologists, I don’t think Amelia would make him do that. Instead, she would focus on sorting through his trauma with him, teaching him coping strategies with stuff like flashbacks, nightmares, and other tendencies. And use that as markers of progress, not some third persons reaction to an apology by the guy who killed someone they loved. (which is another thing: Consent. I will say some more about this later but I think for her, consent is a big deal and involving those victims in Bucky’s therapy would be something she would really want do some check-ups on bc she cannot put her patient’s well-being over that of stranger’s.)

Another thing is the scene where the therapist takes Bucky’s phone, looks through his calls and then tells him it’s “sad” how few people he spoke to. That’s also something Amelia would never do - she has a very “glass is half-full”, “you tried your best!” approach. Also, again, she wouldn’t go through his stuff without consent and if she found out how many people he called, she would either not comment or she would at least find something praise-worthy about it.

In my own pedagogy studies, one very interesting thing my psychology lecturer always stressed is that any positive or negative attention from a person in authority* is automatically reinforcement vs. punishment. You know that feeling when your parents say: “Ooohh look, you left your room, huh? How nice of you to show your face for once!!!” - that is negative attention bc it’s indirectly saying: “Well you are never here you asshole.” (even if it’s not meant that way). And the thing our lecturer really broke down for us about punishment vs. reinforcement is that reinforcement is the more well-directed force – it’s like a laser while punishment is like a leaf-blower:

- If you tell a student who draws a lot in class: “Peter, stop drawing and focus!” (negative attention-> punishment) you can at best have one result: That the thing he won’t do is draw. You have no idea what he’s going to do instead. He might start throwing things for all you know

- But if you actually have positive reinforcement for Peter when he’s not drawing and you find a way to praise him for doing his work without the “ooh you left your room!”-undertone, you are actually reinforcing the positive attention he gets for doing his work and this is the one thing you are encouraging here. Even if you just say: “Hey, you really put a lot of effort into this and I can see your progress, good job” – already positive attention.

*(and yeah, I’m kinda projecting that from a teacher over to a therapist (bc again, not a therapist), but then, it’s also a court-mandated therapist we are talking about here and Bucky can get arrested for not seeing her - which is something that gives her a lot of power over a former POW whose captors infiltrated military and law enforcement)

And yeah, since this is...one of the few things I know, this is something that informs the way Amelia treats people (which is why she brings muffins to an uncomfortable appointment -> sugar makes people happy. So if someone is feeling down, they get a muffin).

Going through someone’s phone and telling them it’s sad that they called so little people is negative attention and therefore punishment. What she’s encouraging here is that the next time, Bucky simply might not bring his phone and lie about his social life (same as he already lies about his nightmares).

Also, again on the subject of consent: There is the question of adding someone else to a session. It was very important to Amelia to talk with Val before this entire thing was set up bc a) she wanted her explicit consent to this session and b) to make sure that Val knew about this and this was not something Jacopo had decided to spring on her to get his way.

Bucky’s therapist just pulls Sam into the session, putting him a very awkward position without his consent.

 So yeah, how would I set up such a scene....(cough aka answering your actual question cough)

Now, ignoring for a moment how I would actively write such a scene from an stylistic point of view but just focussing on how I would picture Amelia setting up such a session/therapy in general:

I think the first thing would be that Amelia would be very open about this being a court-mandated therapy and acknowledging that Bucky does not want to be there. Personally, considering her own stance on consent, I’m already in the doubts here whether she would accept a court-mandated patient but then, I think she might if she was really optimistic about being able to help that person and since she’s a trauma specialist (although for children and young adults) she might give it a shot.

On the other hand, just the way she sees her practice, I don’t think she would be able to treat someone who doesn’t want to be treated in a way that they don’t feel comfortable with. She’s really not a “we have to dig into the things you don’t feel comfortable with!”- therapist and very “I will nudge and encourage them to bring forward what they want to.” (on that matter: She also didn’t really expect Val to put her survivor’s guilt all out in the open. But just to say which incidents lead to Jacopo running away from home from her perspective)

So, I can very well see her say to Bucky: “Hey, I know you don’t want to be here, I’m not going to force this on you, so let’s just have a tea and some croissants and I will non-bindingly talk a little about trauma management strategies and different places any person with trauma can turn to in an emergency and btw here is how you can contact me at any time.”  That would mostly be an excuse to say a) yes, court-people, therapy has happened here are records on what we talked about and b) a way of hiding some real attempts to get him to talk. She might even pick fairly neutral topics like “do you know that new bakery downtown” (to gauge whether he goes out and explores or stays at home and shuts off) or planned vacations (does he plan ahead/does he have things he wishes to do or see and does he make efforts to do them?) or something in the hopes that he responds and she can gently nudge that conversation to more personal subjects.

Now, we have to keep in mind that Bucky is kind of…a dangerous person. Even if he’s not violent, he has super-powers, can be brainwashed and has PTSD a mile-wide which can make people irritable and even cause violent flashbacks. I think one priority for her would be to assess that danger potential – both to himself and to others. So, while she tries nudging at those subjects, I think central themes would be:

a)      His emotional state (is he an angry person? How does he talk about his past? How does he talk about other people in general? How does he interact with his (21st century) environment? Also, he grew up 100 years ago, so she might actually try to get a read on how his thoughts and feelings on stuff like race, gender, sexuality – bc a lot of stuff happened since then and even someone with the most progressive ideas and intentions from the 1930s might at worst be out of touch with the 2020s and at best actually…mean well but say or do something that is highly inappropriate in the 21st century and put himself an awkward position in every day life, so I think she would try to get a read on that and give him pointers. (especially since she herself is a woman of colour with a phd working in the medical field (something that wasn’t a thing when he grew up) and treating a white man who got iced in the 1940s and was kept by actual Nazis for 70 years is probably something she would have some expectations and concerns about. I think generally, she would just want to observe how he interacts with her, considering that this is an uncomfortable situation for him and if she wants to know whether the Winter Soldier is dangerous – might just see how this legendary mystery killer reacts to being put in the room with a court-mandated personality-prodder and being served pastries. Now, we might be reading this from a position where we know Bucky and know he’s mostly a very decent guy – but Amelia doesn’t know that going in and while I picture her as a very encouraging and positive person, I also think as a professional, she would try to prepare herself for some fucked-up shit.)

b)      His living situation (the thing where he sleeps on the floor is actually something a lot of former POWs and people who were imprisoned do so I imagine this is exactly one of the things she would be on the look-out for: Does he have a place to stay? Does he have food? Does he have someone who checks up on him? Does he take care of himself? – and depending on that outcome, she might encourage the efforts he already makes and offer help and give tips, mostly neutral ones at first like easy recipes that don’t require a lot of effort? Or if it’s really going badly, I think she would actually offer him to check up on him, much in the same way that she checked up on Jacopo’s  home, as: “hey, this won’t have negative consequences for you, you don’t even have to let me in, I just want to see you alive once a week and maybe drop off some leftovers from my kitchen.” Now, this is something I know therapists should not be doing bc it blurs the line between private and professional life, but I think it’s definitely something Amelia is very accommodating about (I mean, she cAnoNicalLy lets her patients call her any time of the day if they have a problem and if Jacopo had called her that he was running from home, she would probably even have let him stay at her place until she had figured something out. I think she’s a person who really puts her patients first, even at the expense of her privacy…and well-being)

c)      His danger potential (when he talks to her, does he mention feeling aggression?  Does he disassociate? Does he have flashbacks and what are they about and when does he have them? Does he slip into that brainwashed personality?)

 I think gauging those things mixed with providing help to acute difficulties Bucky shares with her would be her first priorities.

Now this can go two ways: Either he completely refuses to participate. In which case I imagine she would accurately and dutifully record that and either the therapy gets extended and she keeps going the way she does until he changes – or the court says: Well, we tried, therapy over, good luck Bucky – in which case she would probably give him her number and ways to contact her, maybe a self-help book and tell him her door is always open. Or if he does participate, I think she would slowly shift from gauging problems and providing direct solutions to immediate problems (“You don’t have the mental energy to cook? – Here are some quick recipes and these are my favourite pizza places in the area”) to long-term strategies and even medication plans, however they might look like for Bucky.

I think she would encourage him to develop a healthy social life same as his canon therapist and encourage him to seek out contacts but again, she definitely wouldn’t call it “sad” that the brainwashed ex-POW born in the 1910s has difficulties finding people to relate to but try to encourage the relationships she has (she would definitely give some positive feedback about Sam trying to reach out to Bucky, as he apparently did because a) he’s an Avenger and knows some of that superhero shit Bucky is dealing with and b) he also has experience supporting people dealing with trauma and c) he knew Steve, one of the biggest anchors in Bucky’s life.)

I also, think she would provide some medical help for the nightmares and teach some strategies for dealing with those.

And yeah, a lot of those factors depend on their effectiveness and I think it would be somewhat trial and error because Bucky’s situation is…pretty unique and not her field of speciality, but just in short, I think one of the central themes with Amelia as his therapist would be that she would try to get him to want to participate and a transition from a) getting a read on his danger potential and b) offering immediate help to immediate problems to offering long-term strategies and perspectives to deal with shit. 

[b4nanaa]

PRESENTATION DRAFT

What is the article’s argument?

So this week, I read the article Seeing What We Know by Amy Vidali. Basically the paper talks about the role of disabilities in metaphors and the theories surrounding it.

What it basically explores is the relation between physical experiences with the body and how that influences metaphors. For example, postures can determine mood. We associate up with happiness and down with sadness, so if we see someone slouching we might naturally assume they're low on energy versus someone sitting up right.

An example the article primarily explores is Knowing is Seeing, which refers to metaphors rooted in the role of vision being part of a human knowing. For example, "I see what you mean" or "It's clear to me now." Here, vision is highlighted as a positive thing because it allows for knowledge and coherence. Whereas the oppositive and negative would be blindness, like "She was blind to the critique." Here, blindness would represent misunderstanding or ignorance.

It assumes that everyone has had this as a primary experience and excludes disabled experiences

Metaphors kind of assume you had the "primary experience" (like being able to see and hear, etc.) without any regards to those who probably didn't ever experience it at all (aka those with disabilities)

Metaphors around or involving disabilities are usually in a negative manner

It serves as the 'opposite' to what is a normal body, it represents the disorder both physically and socially. (A blind person cannot see like others, she was blind to the truth vs she could see what he meant)

Reinforce that the opposite of disabilities is good. (Ex: Her pleas fell on deaf ears, he was blind to the truth, blind leading the blind)

Metaphors mostly embody one type of body and doesn't really cover disabilities. Like we assume up/happiness and down/sadness. But what about people who are always drooping because of a disability? Do we assume or view them as being sad, despite the fact that's how they are naturally and cannot stand upright to be happy?

Instead of metaphors reflecting the "universal" bodily experience, they should recognize and include disabilities too

Knowing is Seeing can be an issue since visual channel isn't the only main way of learning or expressing knowledge

Knowing is seeing devalues the complex ways in which we "know"

While we don't have to change it, we should diversify it to include other senses to make it more widespread to others to use/relate to

What is your personal position on this argument and why?

I can see where the author is coming from. When I think of the metaphor, "blind leading the blind", I actually do picture two blind people leading each other and being aimless because they cannot see, similar to how the metaphor is trying to represent ignorance leading ignorance.

It also reminds me of the war argument we had over cancer, if we should change the metaphors around battling cancer or diseases because it brings war into what is actually a natural process.

How does this argument relate to (some of) the ideas of perception, cognition, self, cosmology, and narrative?

How does this article enrich our understanding of the accompanying literary text?

-Small summary:

-Dive into points you liked and explain

-Choose a passage

[ghostmartyr]

It's too bad you seem to find this thing with Eren kind of boring. I find it fascinating because Eren is stuck in his mind and that's how everyone works (I see comparisons with depressed people and how they see the world in a very tunnel-visioned manner). He thinks he has no choice right now, but he does. (c)

(c) Yes, Eren has always championed freedom and choice and thought there is a choice, but I think constantly being exposed to the negativity of the world would have the of effect of no longer seeing any other choice on him, add to that, usually people stuck in their heads also exgaggerate the situation. Why I find all of this interesting is because it plays with the idea of self-perception vs. reality. (c)

(c) I see a lot of people say, oh why doesn't Eren just NOT do this and it reminds me how a lot of people treat mental illness. "Just start being positive again!" How, if the only thing you can see is the bad? Eren character is supposed to always see a choice, but I can't help but feel it makes a lot of sense he can't see anything else after he experienced some dreadful memories really personally and everything else just kept reinforcing that view. But that's my perspective. (d)

The boring part to me is that really, you’ve got a bunch of titans stomping people, and no solid way of stopping that. Paired with the active avoidance of Eren’s perspective, I feel like all the interesting aspects are too watered down to fully appreciate.

I think Eren completely losing it is a valid way to go. Each arc has chipped away more and more of him, and exploring that is fun. Being humanity’s hope destroys his own, and he can’t see a way out.

But we’ve spent so little time with that disintegration recently, I can’t vibe with it. Eren has four years of not telling his friends this horrible thing is coming. The implications of all that are something I appreciate, and could enjoy, but it’s a story I want to read, not have implied.

I won’t say this is all the easiest material to write, but I really think that playing a shell game with Eren’s perspective has made it fall short. Don’t get me wrong; it’s pretty obvious that he’s a disaster, and disasters don’t have to be linear. I still think that the way Eren’s helplessness warps around to becoming a monster needed more time. He’s scared and doesn’t know what to do, so he commits to the devastating power he knows he has, because at least that’s something.

The pacing and perspective fail to make that feel genuine. It’s easy to follow, but hard to give a damn about. Eren’s been on a journey we haven’t shared.

Stomp, stomp. Everyone’s dead.

Plot points that people legitimately can’t do anything about just strike me as incredibly dull. Eren’s so lost that a conversation isn’t going to save him, and he’s so powerful that the entire world’s combined might can’t stop him. There aren’t any cracks or cheat codes to exploit. Just death.

I will note that I don’t expect it to stay that way, but for right now, it’s not working for me.

[ironwoman359]

Thoughts on Remus Sanders

So the new video came out and I have a lot of thoughts on a lot of different things, but for this post, let’s talk about our new resident trash man, Remus Sanders, aka The Duke, aka the Dark Side of Creativity. 

Remus’s Role (who or what is he?)

First off, Remus’s ‘Side Title’ as it were is definitely Creativity. He is not simply “Intrusive Thoughts.” That is not his function, intrusive thoughts are a result of his function, an area of thinking that he is responsible for. Like Roman, he embodies Creativity and the Imagination, but unlike Roman, he deals almost exclusively in ‘dirty,’ mature, dark, or disturbing ideas. Sure, the video was about intrusive thoughts specifically, but that’s not all that Remus does. He said himself twice, once in song and once in regular speaking, that he wants Thomas to explore more mature themes in his videos and to be more “realistic” with his creations. So while the other “dark sides” like Deceit and Anxiety (maybe Paranoia?) have different functions than the “light sides,” Remus and Roman are two sides that embody the same trait: Creativity. 

As Thomas said, the Duke and the Prince literally wear black and white, because his relationship with his imagination while he was growing up led to Roman encompassing the “good” parts and Remus the “bad” parts. Both ‘sides’ of creativity are important over all, but Thomas specifically gave Roman, the light, the positive sunshine rainbow unicorn side, more import than the dark, the twisted macabre disturbing side. Hence Roman is a Prince, while Remus is merely a Duke, a lesser rank of nobility. 

Remus’s Goals (so what does he want?)

Like Roman, Remus wants Thomas to create things, things that he can be proud of. And more SPECIFICALLY, he wants Thomas to be remembered, to have a legacy. Roman, you will note, wants this too. All sides, after all, want what they believe is best for Thomas, but they all have different views of what that looks like AND of how to get it. And Remus believes that the darker sides of creativity that he encompasses are the way for Thomas to get that notoriety he craves. Just look at the way Remus talks (or sings) about himself in relationship to Thomas’s content:

“If you really wanna challenge your viewership, then you need to stop limiting me.” 

“If you want the spectrum A-Z you’ll need a little help from me.”  

(in reference to Thomas only wanting bright and happy things in his content) ”Hey Prude, your art is Bad.”

“What will our legacy be? Will you even have one? How about this: you get buck naked on camera and self immolate to Taylor Swift’s Shake it Off! That’ll leave an impression!” 

Remus wants what ever creator/performer wants: he wants to be remembered. But unlike Roman, he holds no reservations about how they get there. 

But Remus ALSO a rather chaotic force in general, and you get the feeling that he really just wants to have fun...unfortunately, what’s fun for him is not very fun for most people, Thomas included. Remus is more like the way many of us characterized Deceit at his first introduction: likely to be cruel for no reason. Because it’s fun! Right?! 

Roman vs. Remus...why?

I have a headcanon that Patton (or Patton’s influence) is largely responsible for the development of Remus and Roman as separate entities, actually.  During their conversation about Just Like Heaven, Patton mentioned that a happy ending “makes good cinema.” And...no, it doesn’t. Objectively, good cinema, good ART is not dependent on whether or not it is happy. Now, whether or not it is happy is certainly a valid indicator of whether or not YOU as an individual like it. But not it’s objective quality. And that’s what has happened with Roman and Remus, anything that Thomas’s Moral Code (again, Patton himself or his general influence) deemed as “bad” or “wrong” got shoved into Remus, while Roman kept all the good parts for himself. 

When you look at it that way, it’s no wonder that Remus spends so much of his time sending intrusive thought’s Thomas’s way. (Yes, intrusive thoughts are fairly common, but not everyone has them, and not always to the severity that Character Thomas does) That’s basically his ONLY creative outlet, as everything else has been given to Roman. And why it makes sense that he is desperate to be more involved in Thomas’s creative process. Intrusive thoughts are all fine and well, but if Thomas isn’t ACTING on them, then Remus is effectively not being listened to, which as we all know is every single side’s greatest source of frustration. 

His Logo (this is a pure guess based on my own theories and observation, but it’s fun to think about.)

It’s been theorized before that the “dark sides” have something animal themed in their clothing and/or appearances. Deceit’s is obvious the two headed snake, and Virgil’s is largely thought to be a raccoon, and if we look closely, Remus seems to fit this theory. His animal is some sort of tentacled sea creature, as evidenced by the thumbnail of the video, his green coloring, and the belt buckle he wears. Some have suggested a squid or octopus, but this IS Creativity we’re talking about here...it could be Something Else. Something a little more...creative. 

“Whoa, you guys are acting fishier than the Kraken’s crack.” -Roman, timestamp 3:43. 

I propose that his ‘animal’ is a Kraken, a giant sea monster known for causing great destruction, killing sailors and dragging ships down into the depths of the sea. Sort of like how our Dear Old Duke seems to take pleasure in being destructive towards both himself and others and dragging Thomas’s thoughts down into the depths of depravity? Huh? Maybe? Imagine a logo similar to Roman’s, but instead of an idyllic castle, it’s a giant sea monster. Perhaps reaching it’s tentacles around a ship? Or perhaps looking a little sleeker and going for something like the Hydra logo in Marvel? I dunno, it’s fun to think about! 

The Rainbow Theory (no, I’m never gonna let this one go)

Remus’s existence, and more specifically, his color palate, only reinforce the Rainbow Theory as being canon. Thomas is Full Rainbow all the time, and each of his sides encompasses one color on that spectrum. You have Red (Roman), Orange (a yet to be discovered “dark side”), Yellow (Deceit), Green (Remus), Blue (Patton), Indigo (Logan), and Violet (Virgil). 

One of the reasons I really like the rainbow theory is that it allows for a sense of balance between Thomas and his sides. I like to imagine it like this: There are three “light” or “good” sides, (Roman, Logan, and Patton) and three “dark” or “bad” sides (Deceit, the Duke/Remus, and an unnamed, Orange party). I use quotes on these labels because arguably, any trait could be used for good or for bad, and no side embodies this more than Virgil. Violet, the odd little shadowling out. The side that is now canonically CONFIRMED to have once been considered one of “the Others,” but who now has an equal seat at the discussion table. The side, if you will, that is the tipping point on the scale between whether or not Thomas is a “good person?” Ah, but that’s a theory for another post ;) 

If you combine the rainbow theory with a color wheel, Remus’s appearance also all but confirms some theories that we’ve had about “dark” sides in the past: they are opposites to/extensions of/foils for a corresponding “light” side. It’s no secret who Remus’s corresponding side is, both he AND Roman are literally both creativity. And what is Red’s complimentary color on the color wheel?

Green. 

While it’s harder to tell who Deceit’s foil is, since the blue/indigo and the yellow/orange parts of most color wheels you look at are more blurred, but I’m leaning towards Logan, the darker blue, the indigo, being the foil to Deceit’s Yellow, and Patton’s lighter blue being complimentary with the Orange Side yet to be revealed, since the light blue is closer to the green and the orange is closer to the red. 

This also solidifies the idea that I have that Virgil himself has no foil. I see some people suggest he could be Logan’s foil, but I honestly think that Logan’s foil is either Deceit or Mr. Orange, and the Patton’s is whoever Logan’s isn’t. Virgil’s trait doesn’t necessarily have a perfect foil...and purple in particular has no opposite color that isn’t already sort of taken by one of the other three “light” colors. But I digress, this post is about Remus, not Virgil. I just like talking about the rainbow theory, I think it’s neat! 

Other, smaller observations (mostly just fun things I noticed/liked about his character)

As much as they are opposites in ways, Remus shares many mannerisms with Roman, from his expressions to his vocal ticks to his gestures. 

Literally less than a minute after he first appeared on screen, he broke out into an entire Disney Villain style musical number. (no really, he appeared at 6:00 and started singing at 6:53)

I sort of mentioned this earlier, but he is not only responsible for the darker parts of imagination, but also clearly things like childish potty humor and sexual innuendo. For THOMAS, this is a “bad” thing banished to it’s own separate side, but for some people, that kind of humor doesn’t cross the line. Joan, for instance, has both a raunchier sense of humor and darker sense of humor at times than Thomas, as holding up a disembodied corpse prop’s middle finger is, yeah, TOTALLY something they would do without Remus’s influence. 

He cannot be insulted through traditional means, as he takes them as compliments. It is only through him being discredited/weakened by Logan’s words that we see him having any sort of negative reaction to the others. 

Again, a point to get more into detail with another post, but he was particularly interested in beating down Virgil specifically, and in ways that seemed less relevant to what was going on like his taunts to the others. Just like with Deceit in the courtroom, he clearly knows Virgil well enough to get under his skin, and he relishes doing so. 

The trash boi does not sit still, if he’s not engaged by what’s happening, he’ll find some other thing to occupy himself with, such as picking his nose or eating deodorant. 

Like Deceit before him, he gets huffy when he doesn’t have his way, and then does his best to just be a general inconvenience (read also: a dick) to Thomas if he can’t be actually listened to. 

That’s all for now! Thanks for reading <3