#that's half the reason for all the discourse that occurred in may

[the-physicality]

"if the money, timing, & security can be appealing enough"

LMAO name me 3 things the wnba doesn't have for $200

[rpfshippingpolls]

⚠️ DON’T START DISCOURSE ABOUT RPF IN THE NOTES!! YOU WILL BE BLOCKED IF YOU DO SO ⚠️

Do you ship it?

Reason under the cut

“These answers from Quora question "Why did Zhou Enlai promote Mao Zedong to the apex of power in the Communist Party instead of taking such role himself?"

// "In summary, Zhou was the ultimate diplomat, a smooth operator, handled people appropriately, organisationally immaculate with an eye on detail, and flexible in approach whereas Mao was a person with immense talent, militarily a genius, politically a maestro like puppet master and possessed of incredible guile. He was not interested in quotidian details of running an organisation and knew he had to rely on Zhou. Yet he always knew he had to look over the shoulder at Zhou because as the other CCP leaders told Zhou, Zhou was the only person ever who could take over from Mao. It was like a kind of love hate relationship between two brothers entrusted with the task of establishing and managing a country."

// "Back to the question itself, I have to say the peronality of Zhou En-lai was almost a saint. He didn’t raise, or just somehow got rid of any personal dislike and jealousy towards Mao. I feel that Zhou’s judgement is completely follows the objective fact. His eager for ideal overcame personal emotion. Since he found that Mao is the gifted one and his work could benefit the revolutionary ideal the most, Zhou simply put all other factors out of consideration and uttermostly supported the man he think could push the revolutionary career forward. Zhou En-lai was unusually humble, selfless and resolute. For more than half a century, he was the key adhesive of the Party. Zhou kept the walking god could stay with mortals, and he pacified the factional conflicts within the party in a wisdom and fair way. His work as prime minister and intelligence chief could be done by someone else, but the role as mediator was definately irreplaceable. CCP would be impossible to obtain victory without Mao’s lead. Without Zhou, well, the party may implode long ago. Using this traditional idiom is quite improper, for the metaphor violated their lifetime goal of equity. However, this is the best one to conclude their relationship. Mao Zedong and Zhou En-lai were exemplar of “君臣相得”, which literally means “A right correspondence of a right emperor and a right chancellor”. They happened to occur in that time, in same time. It’s one of the greatest grace of destiny for Chinese civilization."

// These passages from a Zhou biography:

// "Tsunyi was the watershed, the great divide. Here began Mao Dzedong's supremacy. Here too began the bond between Zhou Enlai and Mao Dzedong, an indissoluble linkage, until their deaths. Not an easy alliance. Deep entente, and profound discord. Devotion and loyalty, but also resentment. The two men exercised upon each other a mutual fascination, because they were so utterly different, in character, mentality, physical build. [...] Greatness, in China, not only lies in personal achievement but is also organically linked to the discovery of talent and genius in others. Zhou had discovered Mao Dzedong. Discovered genius, an amplitude, a breadth of vision, in which his own passion for China could recognize itself. The tragedy of this bond would come later, much later. When Mao, betrayed by the power lust of all around him, feared and envied Zhou Enlai, the only man who had never betrayed him, who had never wanted to wrest power from him, because he had never needed power to assert himself. Robert Frost has a line of poetry: "The heart knows no devotion, greater than the shore for the ocean." Zhou was the shore to Mao's ocean, forever stemming the transcending waves, yet inseparable from them. A Chinese scholar has another view. "Zhou Enlai knew Mao was a tiger. He, Zhou, thought he could ride that tiger.""

// "Zhou as usual walked briskly about, inspecting the rooms that were to be used. He spoke to the cooks. "Remember the Chairman likes his food with red chili." It had become second nature to Zhou to care for Mao's bodily comforts, as he cared for his wife's, for his friends'. But he was also exhibiting his affection for the Chairman, possibly to make Mao feel he was revered and loved, for he sensed how mortified, how heartsick Mao must be, now that his grandiose scheme had broken down."”

[bedlessbug]

(PDF) A Postmodern Thanatic Triad: Crisis, Pornography and Renaissance of Death. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274700552_A_Postmodern_Thanatic_Triad_Crisis_Pornography_and_Renaissance_of_Death [accessed May 21 2025].

In Z. Bauman’s opinion death is an empty idea, an idea without contents (Bauman1998, p. 20).....The mind cannot invoke the image of its own inexistence. This gives grounds to a perception ofdeath as an absurd and ultimate failure of reason. It nullifies the trust in the power of the mindand the feeling of safety it provides. In a loud and clear voice it proclaims the lie of reason(Bauman 1998, p. 23) because death is the event which cannot be thought. It is the mystery ofhuman existence and an empirically occurring event.

Thus began a slowprocess of claiming death by the medical discourse which resulted in institutionalizing deathalmost to the point of the absurd in the second half of the 20th century......banished from the sight of ordinary people and derived of its individualcharacter. Death became a malady, an incurable illness – “a plague” spreading destruction andfear while the dying became second class, who in order to prevent distress to the living,endures agony in isolation from public space.

There is now a new death,“obscured by the screens in hospital” where the dying person’s body is punctured by needlesand tubes whilst only the muted hum of medical equipment counts the last moments. THIS SOUNDS A LIFETIME MORE HORRIFYING THAN TO BE MASHED UPON TARMAC.

The most widely accepted form of passing is a calm and quiet death, which does notinvolve the surroundings or captures attention as if it is “ashamed of itself” so it hides inobscure corners of hospitals trying to avoid the involvement of the living. It is a lonely death,a “mannequin” described in medical terms, veiled by latin phrases, without a name anddignity. Helpless and alien, sometimes even pathetic – as if “not from this era” IN THIS WAY BALLARD BRINGS DEATH OUT OF ITS TABOO, RE-INTRODUCES IT TO SOCIETY, LIKE TAMING A WILD BEAST AND YET, ALAS, THE BEAST IS CONFINED TO THE PAPER CAGE, BUT FINDS ITS LIBERATION IN OUR SEXUAL DAYDREAMS

Certain areas of human experience are treated asscandalous or disgusting in nature therefore it is prohibited to discuss them openly and theyare experienced in hiding and usually involve feelings of degradation and guilt. This blockedarea becomes then a subject of intense intimate imagination, more or less realistic (Gorer1997, p. 199)

Pornographic in the sense that, as G. Gorer points out, natural death iscontinuously and increasingly obscured by prudery while tragic death gains a more prominentrole in creations of imagination served to the masses Media is acatalyst of the fear of death, which is nothing new yet in modern times has been inflated toalmost absurd proportions. The grounds for this are given by displacement of natural death byprudery exemplified by multiplication of images of drastic and sudden death OBVIOUS LINK TO ACCIDENTSAFE ADVERTS

There wasnever a successful method of censure (Gorer 1997, p. 203).

Death created for the sole principle of pleasure, which becomes thesubject of show and fascination, is present countless times in movie sequences, video games,informational shows, advertisement and many other forms used by mass media

Media death is digitalized – therefore repeatable. Witnessed from safe distance as iffrom behind glass, made unreal to such a degree that it does not have any impact on a viewerfamiliar with violent scenes. BEHIND GLASS....

In show, as he explains, the most important thing is to “experience anevent where attendance of others and order in all its complexity of cultural festivalcounts”(Eco 1999, p. 212). Death as well becomes a show, placed in public view it transformsinto a medial spectacle of dying, an amusement for the masses ROAD-SHOW

The image of death must beextremely sharp and detailed so that it might interest and incite the viewer who expectsshock that would allow him to recover from the torpor induced by overabundanceof information.

information culture repurposes death towards its own ends. The reason forthis state is given by the fact that the dead are exceptionally obedient, they say what they areasked to say, they are begging to be used by someone (J

https://www.wirtualnycmentarz.pl/katakumby Digitized and media based,“an aesthetic death” – which terrifies nobody, but rather placates or amuses. The reason is thatmodern man does not perceive death as an adolescent with a torch in lowered arm or the grimreaper (Scheler 1994, p. 96). Death is increasingly seen as virtual cemeteries and internetheavens. It is the digital eternal flowers or burning candles for months on virtual tombs... an interactive rendition of the deceased, making him/her more real only “one hyperlinkaway” from the living. .... OKAY, TERRIFYING, BUT NOW THINKING ABOUT IT: SENDING OF GIRLS 'GIFTS' IS THE SAME APPROACH TO SEX. WE MIGHT AS WELL BE FUCKING OUR CARS

[stitching-in-time]

Voyager rewatch s2 ep24: Tuvix

Yet another epsiode I dreaded having to watch- what is this, the twelfth time this season? This season's batting average isn't great, to say the least. This particular episode is one I especially dislike because a lot of the fandom discourse around it is pretty obnoxious. But even before I was aware of the fandom, I didn't care for this one.

It starts out with Neelix being jerky to Tuvok on an away mission- Neelix, for some reason, can't stand that Tuvok thinks or feels differently from him, so he makes it his business to badger Tuvok into behaving how he wants him to. I know this intro was meant to set them up as being so opposite to make them being mixed up into one person cute or funny, but honestly it just makes me dislike Neelix. Tuvok wasn't being mean or rude, but Neelix would not listen to Tuvok's stated desire to focus on the mission and not talk about his feelings. Neelix never respects Tuvok's culture or personal boundaries, and it's not cute or funny, and it makes it really hard to sympathize with him. And it goes on this way for the whole series. The way Neelix treats Kes is bad enough, but he treats Tuvok badly too, so at this point I can't just wave it away as occasional bad writing- it's a consistent character trait that Neelix treats the people he loves or wants most with complete disrespect. And it does taint whatever nice moments they give his character elsewhere, for me. But Neelix isn't in this one for long, because there's a transporter accident! Whoops, Neelix and Tuvok are fused into one person! And, though it seems impossible, he's even more annoying than Neelix himself!

For starters, Tuvix looks like a creepy evil elf creature with those red contacts. Secondly, I'm scratching my head and laughing over how someone thought that if you molecularly mix clothing with an abstract print and a solid color, you get a floral print, lol. Sorry, but prints on fabric do not occur at a molecular level. It’s a cute design choice, but more suited to a magic spell than a transporter accident.

And then we get to Tuvix himself, who is so arrogant, selfish, and obnoxious that Neelix was actually preferable. And the way he went after Kes was so skeevy! Her boyfriend basically died yesterday, and Tuvix is like 'who cares, let me just pick up where Neelix left off!' even though she's clearly distressed, and he's a stranger to her. And when he’s like ‘sure I love my wife T'Pel, but I still wanna date you!' it was like eww!!! Gag!!! Tuvok would NEVER do that, EVER. Nobody who is even half Tuvok would do that, and honestly, even though Neelix can be an asshole sometimes, even he wouldn’t be THAT insensitive. Ew. And when she asked him to leave, though she's clearly uncomfortable, he's still standing there trying to convince her! And then he has the gall to go in for a kiss! Eww! I was grateful it was only a cheek kiss, but still, what a creeper!!!

The only thing I liked in this episode was Janeway and Kes having their little mother-daughter heart to heart chat, and finding out Janeway was reading Tuvok's old letters because she missed him. Brb sobbing!!

Also, does no one in Starfleet know how to cook?? Really?? All those grown ass adults couldn't handle cooking for themselves without Neelix there?? And they call millenials helpless! (Though apparently Tom and Harry knew how to cook, because they were sitting at a table already eating while everyone else was flailing around- they may be Voyager's pretty boy squad, but at least they have some life skills to fall back on lol)

I know people love to slam Janeway for ordering Tuvix to separate back into Tuvok and Neelix, but she made the best decision she could from every standpoint, given that in universe, it was a no win situation, and from a Doylist standpoint, she had no other option but to choose Tuvok and Neelix.

In universe, she had to think of her crew and their mission, and Tuvok and Neelix were more useful separately than as Tuvix. Starfleet captains order officers to their death all the time in the name of their mission. It's part of the job, and Tuvix, being half Tuvok, would have understood that. I honestly don't think Tuvix would have lacked the selflessness to choose to save Tuvok and Neelix at the expense of his own life, since neither of them would have protested sacrificing themselves to save others.

Secondly, Tuvix did have to use their bodies and minds to survive- who's to say his right to live was greater than theirs?

Thirdly, Tuvok was her best friend- who the hell isn't going to do whatever they can to get their best friend back? Tuvix himself seemed cool with killing Tuvok and Neelix to stay alive. He insisted they lived on in him, in a way, so their deaths were no big deal. If it's truly no big deal to kill them, like he says, why is it a big deal for him? Why should he have a problem living on, in a way, in them? Him making a fuss that they're killing him to bring Tuvok and Neelix back is in itself a tacit acknowledgement that he's killing them to survive- and he expects that all these people are gonna let him kill two of their friends to keep him there?? Please. If it had been Kirk having to kill some unholy combination of Spock and Chekov to get Spock back, he would have, no hesitation, and no one would blame him, or call him a murderer for separating 'Spockov' back into two people. He's a man, so people accept that men in leadership positions have to make tough choices, and can't always be nice, far more than they do for women. It's crappy to give your main character a no-win scenario that will make them look mean or callous no matter what they choose, but it's worse when it's the first female lead, who will get less leeway from viewers just by virtue of being a woman.

But fourthly, and most importantly, whatever one might consider the morally correct choice to have been, keeping Tuvix would have been a terrible story choice. I mean, Tuvix was annoying and a jerk??? Literally who would want this guy around forever??? He has all of the two characters bad qualities, and none of the good ones that make them interesting, so that honestly would have sucked to be stuck with him for how many goddamn seasons, sorry. What do the people who criticize Janeway for her decision want- should they have actually fired two actors, and written their characters out for good?? No thank you! I don’t like Tuvix, so too bad! Welcome back Tuvok and Neelix, because I like them better!! It's a show!! It’s all fiction!!! I want to spend time with the characters who are my friends on the little space ship on the tv screen, so Tuvix gets to die!! Honestly they couldn't kill him fast enough!! Sorry not sorry!!!

And at the end, the focus was on Janeway and how she had to steel herself to do this thing she found difficult and distateful, and there was no pay off of Tuvok and Neelix saying 'thanks, you made the right decision!' to soften how awful what she had to do was. We don't even know if Tuvok or Neelix remember being Tuvix, for all that! Both of them seem pretty unfazed by having been another person, 'dying' and coming back as themselves- but like, they shared a mind! Do they understand each other better now? Couldn't this have been a gateway to the both of them agreeing to have a more respectful and less adversarial relationship from now on? It should have, but it was totally glossed over and never brought up again! Why even bother to do this episode if it ended up having no effect on anyone, except to make the fandom whine about how mean Janeway is??

Tl;dr: An attempt at raising an ethical conundrum that ultimately failed, because the writers painted themselves into a corner- they created a character that had to die no matter what, so every point they tried to make was moot from the start.

[sideprince]

He was the reason I read the books tbh. I loved him from the outset because he didn't fuck around. He was snarky and mysterious and his motives were clearly complex. Every time he appeared on the page you could feel the air in the room shift. There was something immensely intriguing and charismatic about him. I kept reading in large part to see what happened to him and what would be revealed about him.

From the moment it was revealed in the first book that he wasn't the villain, that he'd been trying to protect Harry, I knew that he would never be a villain. It felt like foreshadowing and I had faith that whatever his motives were, he was on the same side as Harry come what may. When he killed Dumbledore I was immediately suspicious, because it made no sense for him to be a villain with all the work Rowling had put into making him a foil. It took me maybe a day after finishing HBP before something in my brain clicked and I flipped back in the book and compared the language used to describe Harry giving Dumbledore the potion in the cave and Snape right before he casts the killing curse. Sure enough, Rowling used the exact same words, switching up their order and conjugating them differently to keep the parallel from being too obvious. There was no convincing me Snape was a villain after that, and I was curious what the backstory was.

I can't remember if I put two and two together between that and Dumbledore's injured hand. I definitely didn't figure out Snape was the Half-Blood Prince but I also wasn't trying to. I don't think I clocked his heritage either, though after HBP I had a sense that he came from a more modest background than any other character we saw. My first read of each book were more about enjoying the ride, I didn't really ask questions or try to answer any until afterwards (which would lead to second and third readings). From OOtP onwards I had a deeper appreciation for Snape as someone who had been bullied and who had experienced domestic abuse. His character made more sense in the context of these experiences which would have made him cynical and defensive. I was definitely aware of the wealth Harry's parents left him and that James had acted inexcusably cruelly in SWM and it definitely painted a picture of an entitled kid, but I don't think I actively put much thought into comparing the socioeconomic backgrounds of these characters until I got into fandom discourse.

The Lily reveal took me by surprise, to be honest. It didn't occur to me at all. My first reaction to it was actually disappointment, because it felt a bit flat. While I do think that it makes sense for Snape to be so deeply affected and motivated by the one person who had ever shown him love, I felt it was written less effectively than it could have been. When I started getting into fandom and reading meta and started thinking more about the idea of him and Lily being platonic friends, it just sat better with me and the two of them made more sense. Nevertheless, I picked up on some kind of wistful romantic longing vibe as far back as the first book, and always found the idea of Snape finding someone to love and be loved by comforting and appealing. There was definitely a romanticized loneliness that always hovered around him even though it was unspoken. Which tells me that the seeds of Rowling's intention were always there.

I wasn't expecting him to die, though. That was a rough read. I looked at how little was left of Deathly Hallows at the end of that chapter and still thought, "you killed your best character?" I genuinely felt less interested in the rest of the story once he was gone. I think the chapter title "The Prince's Tale" kept me going more because I knew we would finally get his backstory. And once that was done I read the rest of the book to know what happened, but I felt like Snape's absence was palpable and made everything a bit more grey and colorless.

early snape fans, what were your first impressions? did you clock his blood heritage early? what did everyone think? did you immediately call bs when he killed dumbledore? any inklings towards lily?

[veliseraptor]

okay i just have to...well! taking a risk here but the fact that I feel like I’m taking a risk here is sort of part of the problem.

so the thing is:

I’m starting to be (have been for a bit) genuinely a little distressed by the way people on this webbed site talk about feminism and misogyny, which is to say that it’s started to seem like the subject of misogyny in and of itself is “terfy,” or tied to white supremacy, and therefore suspect. that any discussion of the oppression of women and patriarchy (a real thing!) is assumed to be the prerogative of terfs, if not hedged around with disclaimers (and sometimes even with). the “signs of terfs” lists that go around every so often and include...very general tenets of feminism come to mind.

and I just...yeah, okay, I have skin in this game, but I feel like there’s been some loss of sight of the fact that (for instance) transmisogyny is misogyny, that the misogyny in there isn’t incidental (that it is, in fact, about women); or that misogynoir is also misogyny: that half of the portmanteau isn’t race-specific but actually about gender.

it feels like there’s been this full swing in leftist circles in particular where misogyny is incidental or presumed nonexistent or at best subordinate to other causes, and at worst an imagined phenomenon used to prop up bigotry.

and that’s a problem! actually! if nothing else because it means ceding all the ground of talking about misogyny as a real thing that all women do experience (yes, including trans women, including women of color, in a sense where it is still about them being women specifically) to terfs. and do I need to explain why that’s a problem?

if you surrender discourse about an issue (and I mean discourse in the classical sense, not the wank sense) so that the only people talking about it are people with bad politics, the people who want to talk about that issue are going to end up gravitating toward and finding solace with the people with bad politics. and that’s bad, because the problems are real, and the solutions that people are being offered do a lot of harm - but those people looking for solace and a place to talk about their suffering may not be finding other options.

additionally, not to pull out my ~credentials~ but speaking as a Jew on the left: there’s also something particularly painful about seeing yourself re-marginalized by people who you agree with, who you’re aligned with, who you want to be in solidarity with. it feels different - hits different - than hearing it from someone “outside the house,” as it were. and I think it’s important to acknowledge, for strategic reasons if nothing else, the alienation this sort of dynamic generates among potential allies.

and to be extra clear, just in case: I’m speaking from a place where I do want that solidarity. intersectionality demands it, honestly, because people can occupy multiple identities - but intersectionality doesn’t just mean particularizing marginalizations into “combinations.” transmisogyny is a particular phenomenon that occurs at an intersection of identities - but it is also transphobia, specifically, and misogyny, specifically. not just a smoothie blend of both.

just, I don’t know. think about it, maybe.

[littlemisssquiggles]

... I think we need to have a small talk about how discourse in certain certain fandom communities should be handled....

Am I the only one who gets a bit bothered whenever I go into fandom community tags and there are these strange posts that ultimately call out the whole community and put everyone on blast for a certain problem currently happening within the community… when in actuality, the problem isn't with whole community per say.

Usually, the real root of the problem lies within a much, much smaller population of the community.

That being said, I'm not saying that fandom communities can't have their fair share of discourse. It's just that, as a member of said fandom community, I'm just tired of being put on blast or being involved in some kind of petty drama that I have no direct correlation to, y'know what I mean?

Shoot; most of the time I don't even know what's going on yet when these moments of discourse occur, the people actually involved have the nerve to create posts either blaming the whole community for their personal grievances with certain members of the community or worse blaming each other for "upsetting the community" when the reality of the situation is:

Homie; no one else outside of that small inner circle directly involved with the issue would know of its existence if ya'll did not bring attention to it with your posts.

And in this instance, this is NOT an "entire community" problem. This is a YOU problem or a YA'LL problem.

This is an issue that started because one person or a small group of people within a community got into a scuffle with one another and now that scuffle has been escalated to the point that these folks are no longer just fighting amongst themselves behind closed doors but are also bringing that fight out into the open; bringing it to the attention of the rest of community (and any other onlooking spectators).

But even if this is the case, this is still not a whole community problem. It's ya'll problem.

Because most of the time when these so called problems arise, half of the community don't even know what the f*** is going on yet here we're being indirectly mentioned in posts that imply that the issue is with the whole community (inclusive of oblivious, innocent parties) or something the whole community just needs to know about or be involved in when really, it isn't…? Or shouldn't. Not really.

It's a personal problem within a very, very small group within the community and from the perspective of an innocent party, I just don't think its fair for the rest of the community to be held at fault or roped into it a fire started by a certain certain "dramatic" group; y'know what I mean?

And in respect to that certain certain "dramatic" group, if the folks involved can't handle their issues on their own behind closed doors amongst yourselves like reasonable and understanding individuals then perhaps it would be best to not bring that mess into the rest of the community .

Whether doing it is an attempt to garner sympathy from the rest of the community or to turn the rest of the community against their opposing party in the drama, either way it STILL isn't fair to the rest of the community since the rest of the community wasn't involved from the start with the drama and aren't aware of all the details in the issue i.e the full REAL truth.

That's as much as I'll say on this topic.

While I may not be as vocal on here as I used to, this squiggle meister has been noticing some weirdness happening in certain certain communities that I genuinely liked.

This isn't to target any fandom community in particular. This is just a repeatable habit I've noticed in fandoms I've been in over the years including one happening recently as I type this.

And while I may not have all the details on what's truly been going on under the surface, the most I can say is that I don't like what I'm seeing and really wished the folks involved would "handle things much better" to sort things out amongst themselves.

~LMS (2022)

[lick-me-lennon22]

Your Beatle BFF Based On Your Beatle BF✌

(hello, everyone! :) sorry I haven't been posting much- a lot of my time has been taken up by family health and financial problems :/ however, that doesn't mean I've abandoned this blog!! posts may still be slower for the next while, but I'll try my best to stay active 🌟 thank you from the bottom of my heart for all of your support ♡ it means the world to me 🌌)

Paul:

George

getting into a relationship with Paul was one of the best decisions of your life

you two are compatible, get along well, and are very happy with one another

you love Paul more than anyone else in your life- of course you do, he's your boyfriend after all

that being said.. we all know that he can be quite the drama queen

sometimes, when he gets a bit too huffy and prissy, you just feel the need to get away and relax drama-free...

that's where George comes in!

when those off days occur or you just need some mindless respite, George will always invite you to spend the afternoon with him-

chilling out on the couch, binge watching whatever new series he's been blabbing to you about, pigging out on every snack imaginable

after enough of these hangout sessions, you two have formed a strong bond and know things about one other that you wouldn't share with any of the other lads

you know you can always turn to George for honest advice, or even just for a midday movie marathon

he's become sort of a sweet, mellow older brother to you, and never hesistates to protect or defend you

 

John:

Ringo

you adore your boyfriend John and couldn't imagine spending your life with anyone else

however, it's fairly obvious that he can be.. overbearing a lot of the time, to put it nicely

when you and John have gotten into a squabble, he's had an outburst, or his jealous ways have gotten to you, you turn to your best friend Ringo to talk it out

he's an amazing listener and offers advice neither you nor John could have thought of, blinded by your frustration with one another

you, of course, assure Ringo that you'd return the favor if ever he needs a shoulder to cry on

he's also great at cheering you up and cooling you down after even the most heated of arguments

he'll spout off his trademark nonsense sentences just to take your mind off of your troubles and put a smile on your face

you two often play board games and card games together, along with some light chatter and many, many jokes and outlandish statements from Ringo

he never fails to lighten your mood, pick you up when you're down, and supply you with (more than) a few good laughs

 

George:

Paul

as head-over-heels as you are for your boyfriend George, he really loves his sleep

and I mean really- he'll sleep for 12 hours on some nights and still proceed to take a midday nap after inhaling his lunch

as frustrating as this can get sometimes, you've grown accustomed to it

a big help in dealing with George's... unconventional sleeping habits has been your ever-growing friendship with Paul

whenever George decides he's going to sleep half of the day away, you'll wander over to Paul's place or he'll come pick you up for a day of fun and laughter together

on some occasions, Paul will drive you into the city and you'll spend the day window shopping together

others will start and end with the two of you locked in an intense game of Go Fish, records playing softly in the background, the music drowned out by your lighthearted discourse

though George can get jealous of your close bond with Paul, he understands why you spend so much time with him, and he's secure in the knowledge that neither of you would ever betray his trust

 

 

Ringo:

John

as much as you adore Ringo's humorous and compassionate nature- after all, that's one of the main reasons you chose him to be your partner- sometimes you want to be a bit cheeky and exchange a dirty joke or two

it's not that Ringo is completely pure and innocent; your raunchier jokes just tend to fly right over his head and he can't quite play off of them like John can

whenever you catch John standing around, tuning his guitar or having a smoke, you often tease and poke fun with one another in a way you can't with Ringo

John can keep a joke or conversation going like no other, and so his witty banter with you has become a common occurence

eventually you two began hanging out together casually:

listening to him jam out and generate ideas for new songs, watching a comedy movie together-

one time even baking banana bread with one another, which you proceeded to share with Ringo

(though he'd die before he admitted it aloud to anyone else, John enjoys cooking and is quite the baker)

you and John have forged a close bond and he feels protective of you now, as if you're the little sibling he never had growing up

[imatechbummerliketomholland]

You are my world. you three are my world now - h.h

hello there! I'm back ! Sorry if it tooks so long, i have a lot of work during these holiday. I hope you like this little request. I didn't have time to be proofread (but a big thank you to@petersasteria who is always there to support me!). Remember that my native language is French, so don't be so mean if i made mistakes!

Feel free to like, share, comment and tell me what you think. Send me a message if you want to be added to the taglist for my next work!

Word count: 2300 Warning: angst, mention of pregnancy, small mention of blood, mention of placental abruption Pairing : harry holland Request: yes!

ღღღ

You didn't expect to be pregnant with twins at your age. The announcement of your pregnancy had also surprised more than one. Despite her support, Nikki Holland had still given the discourse on the importance of safe sex to her son. But Harry had given a more than mature speech in defense of both of you. He was able to prove to his family and to yours that you were ready and that the decision to continue the pregnancy was not rash.

You were now at the half of your eighth month and nothing could stand in the way of your happiness.

Nothing except maybe this.

Nikki had offered to have lunch with her this afternoon. Despite his work as a photographer, no longer having the company of his four children - since three of them left the family cocoon to live their own life as grown-up adults- weighed heavily on her. You accepted with pleasure. Harry, who was editing his third short film, had left you this morning to go to the edit suite, not without checking that you were okay. So, you joined Nikki at the restaurant. You shine in your long floral maternity dress. In the middle of the meal, you felt a violent contraction.

At almost eight months pregnant, it was no surprise that you could feel twins’ movements. You winced a little at the pain and your mother-in-law put a reassuring hand on your arm.

"Are you alright, darling?" she asking, a little bit worried.

"Yeah, yeah. They've just been in great shape for a few days now."

You apologized and went to the bathroom, struggling to cope with the pain of your contractions. When you noticed that your underwear was soaked with blood, your heart rate increased. You suddenly realized that a series of symptoms corresponded to what you had dreaded early in your pregnancy: the nausea that had occurred last night, the violent contractions since this morning and now the blood. Rather alerting signals that suggested a placental abruption. The obstetrician told you that this was a possible risk since you were having a twin pregnancy. You started to cry and panic for several minutes that Nikki ended up knocking on the bathroom door.

"Darling, is everything good in there?" she asked you with her sweet and worried voice.

"Could you come in please" you sobbed.

"Sure, darling. Are you sure you're feeling okay?"

She stepped carefully into the disabled cabin that you had used for space reasons. Nikki immediately noticed your state of stress. And you just told her everything in strangled sobs. She put a hand behind your back and gave you a very serious look.

"We have to go to the ER. We're going right away."

"I want Harry"

"Don't worry, I'll call him on the way"

And you haven't wasted a minute. Nikki simply left her phone number and table number at the counter before you got into your car. Dom will retrieve Nikki one's later. Holland family been known from the restaurant, the staff were comprehensive about your leaving without paid the bill. When you arrived at the hospital, the nurses greeted you directly and wasted no time either. You were taken to the operating room without being able to get your boyfriend's support.

☙♥❧

Harry arrived within fifteen minutes of receiving the call from his mother. No doubt he would receive a speeding penalty ticket later. He looked like a madman, mortified by worry. He was a bundle of nerves and sarcasm. Her mother was standing by the reception desk, waiting for her. She looked anxious. Tom was there too, trying to contact their father on his phone. When Dom finally picked up, the oldest Holland brother announced the urgency. Harry was shaking with worry.

"What happened mom?"

"I don't really know, baby. We were at the restaurant and the babies kicked. She went to the bathroom and when she didn't come back, I went after her. That's where she asked me to come into the bathroom and you know the rest. I called you straight after that. " Nikki explained, trying to get the stress out of her.

"Oh my god… where is she now?"

"The medical staff took her for surgery. I had to wait here. I couldn't go with her, baby. I’m so sorry."

"Ok ... Ok, I guess I have to wait here. Hope she's okay. God, please make her be alright."

They all made their way to the operating theater hallway for the public to wait for more information. Tom was still on the phone with his father, explaining that it would be better if he stayed at home with Paddy so as not to overcrowd the waiting room. He promised his father that they would all give news as soon as possible. A nurse in a surgical gown entered ten minutes later.

“Who's the father of miss y/l/n's babies?”

“I am. Harry Holland, I’m the father!” he almost screamed and cried at the same time.

“Come with me”

Nikki stood up cautiously and walked over to the nurse. Harry was ready to follow the nurse without giving any further information to his family.

"Excuse me. Can you give us more information on her condition?" Nikki asked

"Sure. We had an emergency caesarean. The babies are fine but there seem to be some complications with the mother. The surgeon is taking care of her."

"Is she going to be okay?" Harry asked hastily.

"She's losing a lot of blood but we're doing our best. Now please follow me." She said to curly one.

☙♥❧

Harry followed her to the nursery. His heart was pounding in mixed emotions. He was so impatient to meet his babies but at the same time he was worried about you. What if you don't survive from the complications? What was to become of him? Would he be able to live without you? Would he be a good father?

His last question vanished when he saw his two little babies in the incubator. Your twins had arrived about fifteen, almost a month earlier than expected, it was normal that they were in an incubator. Harry was going to have to make sure they put on weight. After filling out a few papers, one of the nurses offered to do some skin-to-skin contact with the twins so that they could get to know the three of them. Harry could not but be impatient with this and once prepared he settled into a seat. He was overcome with emotion, understanding how his parents had felt when Sam and him were born. He completely forgets the time, spending several minutes with his sons, one after the other. Harry knew he would place all his love in the two little beings he had taken turns holding in his arms. He was ready to lift mountains, cross the tides. Part of his mind was on you and he truly hoped he could go through life's trials with you. May your family experience all the times they deserve.

The nurse who had brought him to the nursery go up to him with a half-smile. She was sorry to disturb him during this privileged father-son moment.

"Your ... hm ... miss (y/l/n) is in the recovery room. You can go see her now"

Harry's heart burst with relief. He let out a sigh he didn't know he was holding back. The very new father nodded before placing his son in the nurse's arms so that she could put him back in the incubator. He decided to go find his family who had been waiting too long now. When he entered the waiting room, his mother and brother were still seated. Tom had his elbows on his knees, the phone in his hand. He seemed to be talking to someone. When the actor noticed his brother's presence, he spoke to him.

"Hey mate, Sam's here. Wanna talk to him? What's up? Does y/n's alright? And the twins?"

"Too much question. Give me Sam first!"

But the result was exactly the same. Sam asked the same questions as Tom and Harry winced as he tried to answer consensually.

"Hello to you too, brother. The twins are fine. I swear to God Sam, they look like a mini version of us. Two sons by the way ... y/n is fine, she's in the recovery room, I'm going see her right after that. I wanted to talk to mom and Tom first. "

"Glad to know I'm the last to know." Sam informed sarcastically.

"Hey, I was going to call you but I had to, you know ... go meet my sons. Father's job, it seems."

Sam chuckled behind his phone screen as Harry smirked in a mischievous and petty manner. He ended the call with his twin and turned to his mother and Tom. Nikki made her understand that she had heard, she seemed relieved that you were okay.

"Hey, before I go see y/n ... you want to see your grandsons ... and you, your nephew and godson, asshole."

"Harry, language" said Nikki.

"Of course I want to see my godson, stupid"

"Tom!"

The two brothers smile at each other. Just because one became a father and the other was a movie star, didn't mean they were going to change their ways. It was also their way, both of them, to decompress events. Nikki sighed in annoyance but kept quiet, too happy to meet, even only through a window, her first grandchildren. After a brief walk in front of the nursery, Harry announced that he was going to find you, leaving his family to admire your twins. They seemed so impatient to meet them in person but knew they were going to have to wait while you woke up.

☙♥❧

Harry entered the recovery room and walked over to your bed. You seemed to have already woken up from your artificial sleep. He grabbed your hand to give you the support you needed. A feeling of emptiness was felt in you, your gaze landed on your stomach, flatter than you had seen in recent months. Your eyes widened in panic but the reassuring pressure of Harry's hand drew your attention to him.

"They are fine, my love. They are fine. They are in an incubator in the nursery."

You burst into tears. The emotions being so strong.

"I'm so sorry Harry. I'm sorry ..."

“Hey… hey… you don't have to. You're okay… the twins are okay. And I still love you, I love you more than ever."

"Have you seen them?"

"Yes ... ugly like their father" he joked

You chuckled with a few more tears in your voice. You knew he didn't mean it, but humor was Harry's best way to decompress, and it worked on you too.

"My family is here. You scared the hell out of them. I think Sam was about to order a flight to kick your ass."

You chuckled again. It was so impressive to see the love that reigned in this family. You could never have asked for a better way to build your own family. Harry leaned over to kiss you.

"I love you, y/n. You are my world. you three are my world now"

"I love you more, Harry."

You stayed a few more days before you could get out of the hospital. You had decided to introduce the twins after their own discharge from the hospital. That's why, after almost a month of going back and forth to the nursery, you could finally bring your twins home. So you organized a little visit to Harry's parents.

☙♥❧

The sun was shining on London and you squeezed the doorknob of one of the maxi-cozy, Harry carrying your second son as you opened the door to the Holland family home. You were amazed at the ease with which Harry assumed his role as father. He was doing so well that you fell in love with him again.

"Is there anyone here?" He asked

"We're all in the garden, buddy!" Tom said

"You are obviously in the kitchen, dummy"

"For god's sake, Harry. Come into this fucking garden and let us see the twins!"

You let out a frank laugh as you mentally noted that you were going to have to have a conversation with Harry and his brothers about the vocabulary they were using.

You are therefore entering the garden. You noticed right away that Sam had come all the way from Scotland. Harry must have organized this with him too. You smiled, Nikki rushed over to help you with the change bags and you thanked him.

"So where is my godson?" Tom asked in the same way he did at the FFH premiere when he was looking for Jake Gyllenhal.

"Where's mine?" Sam asked too.

You approached Sam, putting the maxycosy on the table to unbuckle the seat belt and take your son in your arms. Harry was doing the same with your second baby.

"I'm happy to introduce you y/s/n"

"And there's y/s/n(2)." Harry added, so proud.

Everyone raved about the twins as you wipe away a tear, happy and proud. You were so moved by the love that reigned. Harry came to kiss you on the forehead, you closed your eyes, appeased by his gesture. The world could only turn better in his company.

"It's family portrait time!" Nikki said, her camera in her hands. "Tom, please get closer to your brother. Sam, stand next to y / n"

You all followed Nikki's instructions, who couldn't be more than happy to capture this important moment, bringing her work and family life together. You all smiled as you and Harry were in the center of the photo, carrying your twins in your arms. And at that moment, you were sure that your life could not be more beautiful than at this moment.

[bunfart90]

endogenics might be legit. in this essay i will...

I always feel bad trying to tell others what is or isn't going on in their head because the only way we can know is if that person chooses to explain. so the way I see it is that endos probably aren't lying about their experience, and perhaps we just aren't far enough yet scientifically to fully understand the why and how of being endo, etc. just because there's pretty much no research on endogenic systems doesn't mean they don't exist, they just haven't been examined on the same scientific, empirical level as DID/OSDD.

that being said, because we have a limited understanding of what being endo is like for others, it can be hard not to use language regarding traumagenic systems like did/osdd. I think endos (nontraumagenic ones, that is) using that lexicon is where controversy occurs. due to the lack of research into endo systems, they don't really have their own terms to use. a lot of trauma survivors yearn to solely possess terms to regain control, but simultaneously that traumagenic and endogenic are clearly different experiences.

but they also do have some overlap, as traumagenic and endogenic can sometimes be mixed. an example of this is extraumagenic, which means "a system that is partially or wholly formed from some form of trauma, but the system does not know what kind of trauma it is or does not wish to disclose which kind of trauma it is" (citation here). then there's parotraumagenic, which is "system or headmate was created to deal with trauma; for example, to ward off loneliness during bullying, or someone to do tasks the original was unable to do due to triggers." (citation here). these are considered endogenic origins because they aren't purely traumagenic, even though trauma was part of the reason for the system forming. I personally see the cup half full and believe that any system with any traumagenic origin whatsoever is traumagenic. maybe both if you want to be technical. but there is a lot of gatekeeping (i don't know what else to call it, that's just what it is) around this.

while we're here, i'd also like to just point out that gatekeeping is harmful to questioning systems who may feel like they'd be appropriating DID to self-dx into that community, but shunned if they identify with the broader spectrum of endogenesis. this risks system collapse, in which they go from questioning to singlet, even if they are actually plural. disallowing the possibility to identify as endogenic forces questioning systems to think about potentially having been subjected to severe childhood trauma that they don't remember, even if that's not necessarily the case. we should be more mindful of how damaging it can be to (repressed) trauma survivors to basically say "either you have csa or you're a faker". forcing the trauma recovery process actively hurts trauma survivors/systems.

i haven't been too massively involved in the discourse but i know all there is to know about DID and I try to be as empathetic and considerate of others' experience as humanly possible. traumagenic debaters and endogenic debaters feel attacked by each other. traumagenic debaters feel that endos appropriate what they believe is a solely trauma based disorder and endo debaters feel that traumagenic debaters are speaking over their experiences and completely erasing how they identify. so i understand the rage on both sides. but you have to admit that we simply don't have a whole lot of research out there about endogenic systems. too many people take the scant research to mean it's not real. but i'm sure there are plenty of ill-researched dilemmas in history that eventually proved to be valid and very much real, so as non-professionals we shouldn't be jumping the gun.

i do think that those who know for sure that they're purely endogenic and are fully confident in that label should at least consider creating their own space separate from DID/OSDD spaces if they haven't already done so. as a trauma survivor i understand why traumagenic systems want their own space, and i think it would be just as useful for endogenic systems to foster a space just for themselves as well. but i believe that those who are somewhere in the middle should have the liberty to move around between these two spaces as they please because they do belong to both communities. with these certain rulesets i don't see why discourse would continue, besides the traumagenic systems who see the cup half empty and ridicule any smidgen of endo origin, despite the potential existence of traumagenic origin within that system. it's overgeneralizing and as a result it does harm to those traumagenic aspects of what they may consider an endogenic system.

at the end of the day, all systems look a little different from each other and that's okay. systems shouldn't be expected to fit a cookie-cutter mold of how they present.

before i go i'm gonna say this: in no way am i trying to attack anyone by putting this rant out there. this is a collection of what i've observed, woven with what i feel is the kindest way to perceive endo discourse. this is really meant to be a calm and respectful discussion, if you choose to add on with your thoughts. any attempt to belittle me over my beliefs will not be tolerated.

[roo-bastmoon]

why not just admit that jimin and jungkook haven't seen each other? it's not that difficult as an adult to say that they're not meeting up and that jimin is very obviously not jungkook's priority if he's out and about having dinner the night jimin got in. you know it. you had it on the tip of your nose not even 1 month ago and what changed? a 2 second clip of them being nervous in front of cameras? i know you're a logical individual, but this is a bit questionable to see you try to reason it.

Dear Questionable,

What I freely admit—and I keep saying this, but I guess I’m not doing a good job of being clear—is that I haven’t SEEN Jimin and Jungkook see each other privately in a while.

And that really struck me as odd this spring because I binge watched nine years of Jikookery in less than a month this winter as a baby Army. So my sense of what was normal for them was skewed.

I’ve since learned that often we don’t know about them hanging out unless it gets mentioned (sometimes by other members) months or even years later. We didn’t know about Jimin’s insurance and apartment issues for three months until it hit the press—and still Jimin and no other member has ever mentioned it, but it happened.

They are both sharing fewer details about their personal lives with Army right now, and there’s a lack of regular content to gauge the vibes on a consistent basis. Jimin’s also been busy as hell—eating, sleeping, working out, and crafting PJM1. So there’s just less to see. It really doesn’t seem crazy to me that he’d come home from a long flight and want to collapse into bed regardless of what JK planned to do for dinner.

From what little I have seen since they were so loud in Vegas, the members don’t treat them differently and Jimin and Jungkook seem comfortable, relaxed and giggly with one another—so whether they are together or not, I’m fine and happy for them.

How many different ways do I need to say that before I’m believed?

I don’t know if they’re together. I don’t know if they’re not. I don’t know when things happen in real time versus when other people post about it. I am not sure of the timeline for half the stuff they’ve recorded that was released this year. I don’t know what, if any, conversations are occurring between them. I don’t know if they live together. I don’t know if they see each other only when time allows. I don’t know if they only see each other for work. I. DON’T. KNOW.

And neither do you.

So why are you so pressed to make a judgement call? Why not just relax, enjoy all the cool content that is being shared, and wait to see if more about Jikook comes to light later?

And if it doesn’t, and it becomes obvious over time that we aren’t seeing Jikookery because there actually is consistent physical and emotional distance between them, then we will say so, respect that they must have had their reasons, and still support them as individuals without making anyone out to be a bad guy.

I may not be able to understand JK’s feelings as well as I can gauge Jimin’s, but there’s no evidence that either of them are assholes who neglect people callously. So maybe hold off stating their personal feelings as proven facts?

Now look, I don’t mind being questioned, not at all, I actually enjoy discourse… but if you condescend to me with language like “you had it on the tip of your nose a month ago,” we are gonna part ways. I have always maintained the right to change my mind with every new piece of evidence I uncover.

I made a whole post detailing the Jikookery I’ve seen in 2022 and the reasons I’ve decided to take a page out of older Army’s book and just wait a bit before pronouncing with certainty that I think Jimin and Jungkook no longer are involved.

If my agnosticism bothers you a great deal, please know I’m not forcing you to come to my blog, or agree with me. You can think Jungkook no longer prioritizes Jimin and I won’t seek you out and try to change your mind. If that’s your honest take on the situation, then it’s your honest take, and no one can ask you for more than that.

You have my honest take right now:

I don’t know what their status is, but they seem perfectly okay with each other, so I’m hopeful they are still together, but we will have to wait and see more over time to feel confident about it.

I don’t know how else to justify my wait-and-see stance to you, and frankly, I’m not sure I should have to. Isn’t it reasonable in the absence of data to wait for more data before drawing conclusions??

Hm, maybe I’m talking in circles. I hope this post makes sense. It’s late and I’m super tired. Gotta wish you good night now and try to catch some zzzs.

Yours, Roo

[spn-romantica]

So I watched SPN for years, right up until the end of S11, when they brought back Mary. I heard that S15 would be the last season, and I was like ‘oh ok I’ll rewatch (for like the 8th time) and finish SPN then’ BUT THEN 15x18 happened and I was violently pulled back into the SPN fandom. I still haven’t caught up fully watching yet, but I’ve read so much discourse now...and I have thoughts. Hypotheses currently. I’ll wait to finish the whole show for real to call any of this theories but, I wanted to record my thoughts.

They’re about Chuck. As a villain. Which weirds me out. As an antagonist? Sure. As evil? No. Can’t envision it. I just finished my rewatch of S5 and, damn, but if Chuck is the ultimate villain, S5 reads very differently. :0

But I recently saw a post comparing Dean’s reaction in 1x18 (I believe) to his in 10x05 (for sure) about when someone mentions his mother’s death. In 1x18, it’s Sam when they were children and Dean gets angry. In 10x05, it’s a group of high school girls and Dean just bops his head along to the song. The post was framing it as 10x05 not understanding Dean’s thoughts about his mother, but I think that both episodes understand Dean. When Dean is a child, the trauma over his mother’s murder is still fresh. By 10x05, the event is 70 years in the past. Of course it still affects Dean. Of course. You never really get over something like that. But I’d argue that after 70 years, Dean has moved through the stages of grief to acceptance. It still hurts, but like an old ache, not a fresh, still-bleeding wound.

Interestingly, 10x05 is when we see Chuck, after a long absence. He’s watching the play, probably happy that someone loves his work enough to even make a musical, but he is also watching the Winchesters. The actual episodes of the show, aka the books Chuck writes, are what Chuck knows/cares about regarding the Winchesters. Despite being God, I’d argue he doesn’t pay attention to every second and all the little minutia of the boys’ lives. So, here in 10x05, we have confirmation that Chuck is around to see that Dean has healed from his mother’s death.

Later, in S11, Dean acts as therapist/life counsellor to Chuck/God, regarding Amara and Lucifer. And it works! Dean teaches God about family and about healing. Why does God listen to Dean Winchester, a random human? Perhaps it is because of S1-5. Perhaps it is because Dean and Sam were part of God’s test, as God himself describes it in 5x22.

What was the test? Was it God’s experiment about choice and free will? About freedom vs peace? Or, perhaps, was God trying to understand sibling relationships? He and Amara are two faces of the same coin. They are siblings, but with very different outlooks and it caused a rift between them, caused Chuck to seal Amara away before she could destroy his creations. Chuck regretted this, but saw it as a necessary betrayal. But then, some time later, Chuck’s angelic children experience their own betrayal and sibling rift. Lucifer tries to turn the angels against God, rebel and reject God. He makes demons, for sure, and maybe even Hell. But why? God figures that Lucifer was maybe jealous of the new baby (humans) like others in the show postulates. Or maybe Lucifer had beef specifically with Michael, because humans are little more than amoebas from an angelic perspective. Aside from Castiel, Anna and a handful of other angels, angels consistently view humans as humans might view dust mites. Maybe humans were the cause of the rift between Michael and Lucifer, but it was Michael and Lucifer’s relationship that needed fixing in the end, regardless.

So God is left with the sad conclusion that maybe close siblings will inevitably betray each other and be unable to forgive and heal. He wants to heal with Amara. But he also wants Michael and Lucifer to be able to heal. (It doesn’t occur to God that maybe Lucifer’s problem was never with humanity or Michael; it was with God.)

So God has research to do, to see if it’s possible for siblings to experience such deep betrayal and still heal. He turns to his little hairless apes, the only sentient species on Earth with potential to parallel the angels. He starts testing siblings. Cain and Abel are first up. Needless to say, but the betrayal was too strong and left no room for healing. But on down the line of Cain, God continues testing. Eventually, we come to Sam and Dean.

God has scheduled Michael and Lucifer’s family counselling session for 2010. All the data up to this point says it can only end badly. Maybe it’ll half-kill the Earth, but it’s finally time for Michael and Lucifer to meet and for one of them to die. God isn’t happy about this conclusion, but it’s what the data says. So, finally, the last test subjects, the last in the line who will be the vessels for Michael and Lucifer’s showdown, arrive. Sam and Dean Winchester are to be the last sibling test. The conclusion seems foregone at this point, but there is no point in cancelling the last bit of the test after so long, so it continues. God watches. And Sam and Dean surprise God. Siblings after siblings had failed for millennia to heal. Betrayals too strong, healing too little, too late. But Sam and Dean. no matter how badly they hurt each other, find a way to come back together and heal. They don’t give up on each other, despite millennia of data to the contrary. Still, the angels and demons push and push at Sam and Dean until their rift is as wide and as deep as Michael and Lucifer’s, as God’s and Amara’s (in late S4). It seems, despite the brothers’ best efforts earlier on, it’s all for naught.

But there is a further element of randomness, something God couldn’t foresee. Castiel. God hasn’t had occasion for romantic love in his own experience, so he is entirely blind to what choices Castiel is likely to make. He provides an element of randomness to the experiment, an essential part that gives Dean the ultimate chance to go back to Sam and begin to heal (4x22).

Throughout S5, Sam and Dean heal. There is hurt, still, of course, but they love each other and forgive each other. By 5x22, they’ve surprised everyone. Even the angels have given up on turning them against each other, and have shrugged and settled for using Nick and Adam as the vessels for the showdown. Sam and Dean passed their test. They were siblings who betrayed each other and healed from it. God reconsiders how family counselling will go with Michael and Lucifer. He figured it would be the Apocalypse, the end of the problems between Michael and Lucifer, as one of them dies, as had always happened before. But, Sam and Dean showed God, that though it is rare, it is possible to heal. So God gives Sam and Dean an out. He gives Sam the strength to seize back control from Lucifer, should things go south.

Finally, the showdown arrives. Michael and Lucifer meet. They talk things out. To God’s surprise, Lucifer reveals that he never had a problem with Michael. He had forgiven Michael long ago. But Michael couldn’t forgive Lucifer. He had to be a ‘good son’ and do what he thought God wanted him to do. But Michael didn’t realise, that God doesn’t give orders. Free will all the way, baby! But the whole thing comes as a surprise. Apparently, all this time, the problem relationship wasn’t siblings, it was parents.

Oops.

Good thing God had a back-up plan.

Sam throws himself and Lucifer (and Michael and Adam) into the Cage. Michael and Lucifer have an eternity to figure things out between each other now. But that’s beside the point. The point is, now, that God has to start testing all over again. Not how to fix sibling relationships, but how to fix parent-child relationships.

God restores Castiel, perhaps for a few reasons because God exists outside of time, but originally it may have been just for one. He likes Castiel. He is impressed that Castiel invented free will for himself, broke free of angelic programming (multiple times over), and did it all for love. It’s novel. It’s interesting. God might even think it’s sweet. But God has had time later, and thought about it, and he has a plan. And Castiel is essential.

But Dean Winchester is the key.

Sam and Dean’s relationship with their own father has been strained, but both boys find a way to forgive John his flaws and failings, and love him. Whenever they do get a chance to see him again, post his death, they don’t hate him. They’ve healed. John’s relationship with Sam and Dean is one point of data, Abraham and Isaac another. There are many data points that God can reflect back on and consider.

But as S6 through S10 roll on, God watches Sam and Dean and Castiel. He even watches Crowley and Rowena for another data point. Dean is his main focus, however. (This is a little meta, but as the story focuses more on Dean than Sam post S5, it ties in. Prior to S6, both Sam and Dean were essential - the sibling test. Now, post S5, the parent test, Dean is the most essential. Of course, Sam and Castiel are important too. But Dean is key.)

Dean is a good father. He was a good father to Sam, even when he was only 6 years old himself. He was a good father to Ben. He was willing to die for Bobby John. He’s always good with kids. Not only that, but Dean is blunt enough, brave enough, and crazy enough to tell God to God’s face what he thinks. God needs Dean’s advice, his perspective and opinion on family relationships, but he also needs to see what Dean would do if he were in God’s shoes.

[Edit (1/04/21): After seeing Michael and Lucifer (mostly) heal, and after seeing Sam and Dean heal their relationship, God finally has hope for him and Amara. So God logically wants to retrieve Amara from her prison. But how? Well, he could just wander on up to Cain and do it himself, but what would Amara say? “So I see you’ve come crawling back, eh, Chucky?” She wouldn’t be impressed with God. She wouldn’t understand, because she’s hopeless too. SO how to give her hope? How to make her see that she and God can be okay again? Why, stick her near Dean Winchester, of course! So God sets things up for Dean to get and lose the Mark of Cain, thereby ensuring that Amara will feel a connection to Dean and stick around him/keep him alive long enough for Dean to work his life-coach magic.]

In S11, God and Amara heal their relationship because of the hope Sam and Dean gave God, and also the direct advice Dean gives God. God and Lucifer, not so much.

God needs more data. He needs to see what Dean would do. In comes Castiel’s relevance. God sets things up so that Lucifer can have a son. A nephil. Jack. And God points Castiel in Jack’s direction, trusting Castiel’s ability for unconditional love to keep Jack alive long enough for the experiment. Castiel becomes Jack’s father. But Castiel will never betray Jack, the way God betrayed Lucifer. And, besides, Castiel isn’t the target of this experiment. But it is Castiel’s relationship with Dean Winchester that provides the link needed to get the experiment rolling.

Because Jack is Castiel’s son, he is therefore Sam and Dean’s nephew. Except, God has been watching Castiel and Dean. And, frankly, their romantic love for each other is so obvious even God cannot miss it. Through Castiel, Dean sees Jack as his son too. He loves Jack, exactly like a son. In this way, Dean parallels God, and Jack parallels Lucifer.

But God knows Dean would not easily turn on any child, let alone his own child. So God had a plan for that too. One that Amara helped him with.

They brought back Mary Winchester.

Mary is the one person in existence whose loss would hurt Dean enough to spur him to action. So, she was brought back to die. It was a matter of only a few years of gentle prodding to get everything in position. Jack causes Mary’s death. Dean is faced with a horrible decision. If Jack can kill Mary, what’s to say that Sam and Castiel wouldn’t be next? Mary’s death is like everything beginning all over again for Dean as well. Her first death set off a chain reaction, a series of unfortunate events that spanned decades and nearly caused the ruination of not only Dean’s life, but Sam’s and John’s and even the world. That scar, which had healed as well as it could after 70 years, that God saw was healed in 10x05, has been violently opened up again. It’s the only thing that could force Dean’s hand, that could get him to betray Jack and try to kill him. If Jack had killed Sam or Castiel, it wouldn’t have had the same effect. Both Sam and Castiel had died and come back so many times, and while it would hurt Dean and make him doubt Jack, their deaths would be a sacrifice that Dean would feel obligated to respect, to give Jack a second chance like they would both want. (And God has been laying the groundwork for Dean, convincing him that Jack is evil, will be evil like Lucifer, can’t be allowed to live. All things God has thought about Lucifer over time. Was Lucifer inherently evil? Was their rift inevitable?)

So, here it is. The big test. Will Dean kill Jack? Will he betray Jack and cause an unhealable rift? Or will he find a way to heal, like he did with Sam against all the odds?

And, once again, Dean impresses God. He refuses to kill Jack.

But now we’re in the endgame. Sam, Dean and Castiel are aware that Jack’s life was only on the line because of God. It’s not something they can forgive, or understand. They’re all God’s guinea pigs, and while he loves his guinea pigs, he knows he’s hurt them in the name of science, of knowledge. or healing, and God can’t undo what he’s done. Free will is linear, after all. So it is time for the Winchesters, Castiel and Jack included, to be done with God. God is done with them, too. It’s time for them to be free and at peace. The experiments are done. God has decided not to kill Lucifer. He has decided to try to heal. He can get Lucifer out of the Empty and talk and try to fix things. He has forever to fix things, now that he knows he can. (The last element of this, Jack forgiving Dean for trying to kill him, is something I have limited knowledge of, but I am under the impression happens so... To be added in the edit once I finish the series.)

But the only way the Winchesters will be able to rest, is if they think God, the last and greatest villain, is out of the way. They know they’ve been manipulated their whole lives, first towards the sibling experiment and now the parent experiment, so they need to think God is gone so they can feel secure in their free will once more. Truthfully, God never took their free will. He set them up in situations, maybe even gave a bio-chemical nudge of anger (Dean) or attraction (Sam and Eileen) every now and then. But the choices were always theirs. Still, God knows they won’t see it that way. So he sets things up so that they can defeat him.

He lets them win. He wants them to win. They cannot defeat God, after all. It’s not God’s time, and Death is the only one who can claim God in the end, as the two embrace as friends and walk to the next existence. But the Winchesters need this, and so God allows it. A last gift, to the beings who have been such help, hope and inspiration to him.

With an eye for an eventual S16, 15x20 is written to be ‘an ending’ but also one that could easily be reframed as a bad dream.

For example...

Unfortunately, after Jack, suped up on a extra Grace God lent him, restores the Earth and expends all the Grace (”giving up the mantle of God so that their is no God, no plans, only Free Will”), and Dean, Sam and Jack head back to the Bunker to regroup and gather the ingredients to do the spell to rescue Castiel from the Empty, they’re jumped by monsters who are angry with how much God has fucked with them on behalf of the Winchesters. 15x20 is all a djinn dream Dean is trapped in.

16x01 is Dean waking himself up from the djinn dream, Sam and Jack escaping their own monsters, and then the end of 16x01 is Dean saying something about waking Castiel up from his own dreams in the Empty. The rest of S16 sees the boys save Castiel, reunite with Eileen, start a monster-hunting Bobby Singer/Men of Letters-esque organisation, Dean and Castiel getting together and getting married on Valentine’s Day, Jack getting to live a normal life, going to school, making friends, etc.

If their is no S16 ever (which would be criminal), then 15x20 makes no sense, unless it is plainly a recount of an old, hopeless ending written by God. However you spin it, 15x20 is not the way it seems (like owls).

All things being said, God is an antagonist, but he’s not evil. He’s an asshole, sure, but he never once worked against the Winchesters, never bet against them, never tried to erase or end them. He wanted them to win. He wanted to see the fruits of free will be love, second chances, hope, forgiveness, healing, and happiness, not just betrayal, pain, selfishness, jealousy, disappointment, and hopelessness.

Why is the ending he shows Becky ‘hopeless’? Because God is. He has spent his long existence losing his most loved family members. Amara, Lucifer. How can things end well for God, when they can’t even end well for humans? But Sam and Dean defy the script, again and again. They surprise God, defying the statistics, defying the hypotheses, throwing the experiment into disarray. Giving God hope. Sam and Dean were okay. Dean and Jack were okay. If God had a romantic love, he would find hope from Dean and Castiel being okay. But when God wrote the book he showed Becky, he was writing what he thought would happen. In the end, surely, not even Dean can be enough to hold Sam and Cas and Jack together. But in the end, as we see, as God sees, he is proven wrong and he’s happy to be wrong. He’s hopeful. And he can leave Dean, Sam, Castiel and Jack, and all the angels and all the humans, to rule the Earth and the Heavens. He doesn’t need to learn anything more from them, so he heads to the Empty, with Amara, with Lucifer, with Death (Billie or not, Death is there for God in the end), and they can all depart for a better existence of their own.

If you read all of this, thanks! I eagerly anticipate watching the remaining 10 seasons so I can come back and edit the heck outta this, but until then, if y���all have any thoughts, I’d be interested to hear them~

TLDR: God is a morally bankrupt scientist and the Winchesters are his guinea pigs, but he’s not evil and he does love his guinea pigs, even if he could really treat them nicer.

[knickynoo]

I loved your recent post about Marty and his ADHD! It was soo spot on. And, I saw in the tags that you mentioned Alex Keaton and how you believe he’s not neurotypical either. Care to elaborate? Do you have any headcanons about neurodivergent™ Alex? I’d love to hear your thoughts! :)

Oh, hey, thank you! Marty having ADHD seems to be one of the most common headcanons in the fandom, so that post was a lot of fun to work on.

As far as Alex goes...yes, I will elaborate, BUT I'm putting it under a cut because ya girl is really going to E L A B O R A T E.

I've mentioned before that I think Alex's overall personality/demeanor comes from a variety of different places. Some parts of who he is are likely caused by all the pressure put on him to be a high achiever, due to being so academically gifted from a young age. Other parts are due to being overly coddled and spoiled by Elyse and Steven. Still, there's probably a part of Alex that genuinely enjoys being difficult and getting a rise out of people. Then, there's the obvious anxiety he struggles with, which even MJF has talked about in some interviews when discussing how he approached playing a guy like Alex.

"Giftedness" & anxiety are already included under the umbrella of neurodiversity but in Alex's case, I actually think there's even more to it than that. Yeah, Alex is a funny character whose actions/words are so often played for laughs. He can also be a really irksome character when he's dishing out the sarcasm and being selfish. But I also can't help but look at Alex and think, This guy is just so not NT and he is struggling, somebody Help Him. And since Alex P. Keaton is one of my favorite characters AND I love to analyze/ do deep dives AND the topic of neurodiversity is a particularly strong interest of mine... well, here you go....

Mans is autistic.

• Difficulty with social cues and "reading the room". Seriously, there are so many instances of everyone around him all being on the same page about something or dealing with something serious, and Alex walks in and just proceeds to miss every single cue people throw his way. Two scenes that pop into my head, in particular, are the Reflective Pajamas one and the Clam Puff one, lol.

• He frequently struggles with putting himself in other people's shoes: Alex is certainly shown to be a compassionate person. He can recognize when people are hurting and will do the right thing, but sometimes he needs some help to get there. It seems that a lot of the time, all he knows is how he feels or thinks about something, and it doesn't occur to him that another person could be experiencing it differently. Then, once Steven, Elyse, Ellen, etc, break the situation down for him and explicitly say things like, Hey, that person's feelings are hurt because... or Here is the exact reason this person is angry... Alex is finally able to connect the dots, which usually leads to him being like, I hadn't ever thought about that/ I didn't mean it. (Of course, there are also times where Alex is just purposely being a jerk, but I'm not focusing on those)

• Specific, intense interests: Politics & economics, obviously. It's made well-known that Alex has been completely fixated on these two areas since he was a toddler. He's prone to enthusiastic, overly detailed discourse on the topics and either doesn't care or can't pick up on when people are growing bored at listening to him.

• Also, can we talk about how it's established that Alex's favorite toy as a little kid was a box? Like, he carried it everywhere, played with it, slept with it, and was devastated when it fell apart. Idk, I know kids can be attached to random objects, but it's just interesting that Alex is noted as having been enamored with a box. I'm just picturing little Alex, ignoring all the toys he has in favor of just sitting and staring at a box, and his parents are like, Yeah, this is normal.

• Highly intelligent, bordering on genius/prodigy (He was doing long-division at like, 3 years old) but has difficulty connecting with peers & making friends: This is most prominently shown in "A, My Name is Alex," where we see glimpses of various events in his childhood. In the scene where Alex meets Greg, we learn that Alex spends recess inside, helping the teacher plan her lessons rather than going out to socialize with his classmates. He's bewildered at Greg's invitation to come play, meaning he likely spent the majority of his childhood on his own due to being considered an outcast by his peers and just generally relating more easily to adults. (He also mentions taking night classes at a local college at age SEVEN. So like. If the long-division story and night class thing are taken to be actual facts of Alex's childhood...we're looking at something similar to hyperlexia/hypernumeracy here. This kid must have been bored out his mind having to sit through elementary school if he was that advanced)

• Very literal at times/ misses sarcasm: Interestingly enough, APK is very fond of being sarcastic but doesn't do so well when he's on the receiving end of it. Someone will make a joke or spin the sarcasm towards him for once, and he'll either just stare blankly like ???? or smile/thank them and they're like, Yeah, that wasn't a compliment, or, I was kidding.

• Black and white/ inflexible thinking: This might be the biggest one. Alex is super concerned with rules and ensuring that everyone is following them correctly. There's right and there's wrong, with no gray areas or middle ground as far as he's concerned. My favorite instance of this is in the episode where the family goes to visit Steven's mother and Rob, Alex's uncle, is telling a story of how Steven got in trouble as a kid for refusing to put his name in the upper right corner of his test papers. Everyone around the table laughs...except for Alex, who is deeply troubled by the information.

Just...Steven's delivery. The way he pauses and stares at Alex before replying with a ridiculous punishment that obviously didn't happen, but Alex shows no signs of being aware of or amused at the joke and is just glad his father faced the consequences of his actions. It's great, and a prime example of Alex's preoccupation with "the rules."

Another good example (& one that crosses into the empathy category as well) is "Big Brother is Watching", where Alex exposes a cheating scandal at school (that involves Mallory) and then can't wrap his mind around why everyone is angry at him when he gets the students who were involved suspended. He spends half the episode saying things like, But cheating is wrong. It's wrong and I told the truth about it. I did what's right. You (Steven) told me to always tell the truth, which I did. WHY PEOPLE ANGRY???

And so Steven has to basically spell it out and be like, You got those students suspended, Alex. They are upset with you because of this. They were exposed publically, which embarrassed them, and people tend to not like being embarrassed.

And Alex is like, Oh.

• Repetitive behavior/movements: Most often seen when Alex is distressed or scared, his mannerisms definitely stand out in many scenes. He paces, taps his foot/bounces his leg, rubs his hands together or over his lap, rocks back and forth, and avoids eye contact. I made a post about this a short while back because it really is interesting (and a testament to how well the character was played). There are moments where Alex is completely confident and "calm", and you can see that reflected in the way he carries himself. But whenever he's upset or anxious, you'll start to notice a variety of the things listed above.

So. Yeah. All these things considered...I headcanon Alex as possibly being autistic?? Which is not a take I've ever seen anyone else mention (and I seriously doubt anyone working on the show had this angle in mind at all) but watching through the series, my radar just goes off when it comes to APK.

I have no idea how this will be received. (If anyone even reads it because wow, this got away from me).

Thanks for the ask. As you may be able to tell, I enjoyed being able to spew out my thoughts.

[treestargarden]

episode 4, “colorful girls” analysis

tw: child sexual abuse

this episode does not hold back. 

first of all, momo is ace and non-binary. no i won’t be elaborating. 

wonder killers’ dialogue:

next, the wonder killers absolutely say things that were important to the wonder girls’ irl trauma. this is from miwa’s wonder killer. she just had a conversation with momo where she revealed the hurtful things her mother said to her, like “why couldn’t you just take it” or “take it as a compliment, it means you’re cute.” it’s quite possible with this dialogue, that these were also things her abuser said to her quite often to make her believe simply by existing she was “asking for it.” 

wonder eggs’ inner strengths: 

its also possible that the wonder killers are... combinations of the wonder girls’ sources of trauma and not just 1 manifestation of 1 person, but rather all of the people connected to the trauma. 

in response, miwa says this:

and added on “you got married, because you love each other” in the first few minutes of meeting her, i was not expecting this. up to this point, we have met a lot of wonder girls who are tired, exhausted, sad, lonely (excluding the 2 girls that ai and rika are trying to save right now). but, given the fact that she was vocal about her abuse, i’m certain this is exactly how miwa would respond in this situation.

even more poignant, is the fact momo simply listened to miwa’s protest while they were fighting the wonder killer. they agreed with her. i find it fascinating. i’m not sure what to do with this info yet, but i already like momo (partly bc i /know/ they’re non-binary, like... that’s a genderfuck if i ever saw one). 

this next part really grabbed my attention, juxtaposed with miko and mako’s kill-assist. these girls are definitely not meant to seem helpless or meek or powerless. i really like that this show so far has been capturing the complexity of a “survivor’s” strength (again, quotes, because these girls are technically dead, but i don’t want to use the term “victim” because it implies they have no power). 

they recognize when someone else is in need of help and they easily flip the switch from saved to savior. i’m in love with these girls so far. their characterization is complex, intriguing, and realistic at this point. 

specifically with miwa, her “surrender” is not my interpretation at all. she specifically recognized that she did have some power in this situation to help momo, just as miko and mako had some power to assist ai. their approaches are entirely different, but that doesn’t make their courage, or the strength, wrong. i’m not angry at this characterization of miwa AT ALL. sometimes, the best way to avoid worse punishment is to give in, its just the fuckin reality of abuse. but it neither makes her weak, nor does it make the writers apologists. 

they /specifically/ juxtaposed the girls because they wanted to show that they had different strengths for different reasons and that neither were entirely powerless. they did the best they could in this situation. 

shit i love momo:

also, if you have read this far, this is why i think momo is non-binary: 

i have a few... thoughts about momo’s trauma specifically that may relate to momo being non-binary.

1) momo’s wonder eggs r rape “survivors.” if my theory that the wonder eggs directly relate to the irl peoples trauma, then it would be plausible that momo’s trauma is some form of sexual trauma.

2) continuing with the sexual trauma thread, and also including momo’s flashback, it’s quite possible between them and now, that momo’s trauma occurred between these 2 points in time. this is inferred by the obvious change in appearance.

3) what could have “caused” (this isn’t to blame momo’s trauma on momo, but it’s the closest word i could think of on the spot for trading out my theories) momo’s trauma?

i have a few ideas: momo has the face of a boy, but used to wear girls clothing and sometimes momos voice fluctuates from sounding like a boy to sounding like a girl. momo could have been correctively raped either for being perceived as a femboy, trans woman, or a dyke.

additionally the corrective rape could have happened /after/ momo started wearing boys clothes and someone would have taken notice that momo sounded like a girl but looked boyish.

in either case, momo confessed to an unnamed second girl that wearing boys clothes is “simpler.” even if momo doesn’t necessarily like it, it seems momo feels forced to present as a boy. at this point, it can then be inferred the boys clothing is probably a coping mechanism to deal with the trauma (and now i feel that the issue happened when momo still dressed/presented as a girl).

HOWEVER, not once does momo ever explicitly say momo is a girl, feels like a girl, wishes momo was a girl. only momo’s presentation has been discussed at this point. in the screen shots i provided above, i feel like most people would say “i /am/ a girl.” i think that momo at least identifies with girlhood, but i don’t think momo is attached to the identity of “girl.”

and momo is ace/aro because all of these relationships we see momo in are very one-sided. when miwa tells momo she loves momo, momo replies with “thank you.” and when miwa asks if they can continue cuddling “until i disappear” we get a closeup on momo who looks forlorn and thoughtful, who simply says “sure.” a lot of momo’s interactions with girls giving momo sexual/romantic attraction feel empty.

on the other hand, we see momo’s interactions with the other 3 main characters at the end of this chapter as very emotional, light. it’s probably the /most/ lighthearted we have seen momo. momo is not getting unwanted attention—they’re all just gossiping and laughing.

when we see momo’s flashbacks with haruka, we notice that haruka hugs momo but momo does not reciprocate the touching.

again, these are just threads that im seeing and excitedly pull apart, some of my theories are half baked until i have more information. but for me it’s plainly obvious that momo is an ace non-binary person. i know the fandom has been... having heated discourse about “what is momo /really/.” and for some reason this is controversial? really weird to me.

it’s a complex issue because gender is complex. for those of you that are binary, remember that you feel very knowledgeable about your own gender, but being non-binary is an absolutely different experience all together. we aren’t some “third gender” bullshit. and i’m quite enjoying seeing binary folks be confused about momo because that’s what being non-binary feels like. i wake up every day wondering what today’s gender will be. welcome to my fuckin life.

neiru:

i find it fascinating her personality has taken a complete 180 turn regarding ai. if we remember, in the beginning of their relationship, neiru was specific that ai could only contact her if she wished to change who buys eggs when. but once neiru was admitted to the hospital, ai started texting and visiting her throughout her healing period.

initially i thought this was more of a “keep your friends closer, your enemies closer” scenario, but then i went back to the episode 2 ending: 

at first, neiru forbade ai from texting her other than to make egg-buying arrangements. but neiru texted ai back with a thumbs up emoji. she isn’t being incredibly open, but given the development of her character so far, i think this is definitely her way of showing ai she trusts her and that neiru is opening up to her. 

settings:

so at this point, its pretty obvious that the location of the main characters’ worlds are always the same and they are specifically tied to their links’ places of death. 

neiru: unknown

ai: school

rika: gardens

momo: subway

from the other information we have gathered, its probably likely all of the links have died by suicide. 

neiru: unknown. however, we do know that neiru claims she could have stopped it. 

ai: a story of child sexual abuse/bullying. i’m not sure if koiko committed suicide because she was being molested or because of the bullying, but it could also be a combination of the 2

rika: rejection/fatphobia/eating disorder. chiemi committed suicide because of rika’s rejection based on fatphobia. chieme probably developed an eating disorder, evidenced by rika re-telling ai the day she visited chiemi’s funeral “she was skin and bones”. 

momo: rejection/unknown. haruka expressed attraction to momo. it seems momo may have rejected that love and haruka felt suicide was the best way to resolve her inner conflict. 

faults:

hmm at the same time, there are some hang-ups i have about this episode. a lot of these girls are so... love-starved, that even when a character shows the slightest bit of tenderness for them, they are quick to say “i love you!” miwa told momo she loved him, “even if i’ve only known you for a day” and this was juxtaposed by miko and mako telling rika and ai they loved them, too. there is something to be said about the attachment issues some of the wonder girls may have to people who help them resolve their trauma/healing. 

extra:

[spilledreality]

Sporting vs Herding

i.

I wanna talk about two blogposts, Seph's "War Over Being Nice” and Alastair's "Of Triggering & the Triggered." Each lays out the same erisological idea: that there are two distinct modes or cultures of running discourse these days, and understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the content of conversation as much as its form. Let's go.

One style, Alastair writes, is indebted to the Greco-Roman rhetorical and 19th C British sporting traditions. A debate takes place in a "heterotopic" arena which is governed by an ethos of adversarial collaboration and sportsmanship. It is waged in a detached and impersonal manner, e.g. in American debate club, which inherits from these older traditions, you are assigned a side to argue; your position is not some "authentic" expression of self. Alastair:

This form of discourse typically involves a degree of ‘heterotopy’, occurring in a ‘space’ distinct from that of personal interactions.

This heterotopic space is characterized by a sort of playfulness, ritual combativeness, and histrionics. This ‘space’ is akin to that of the playing field, upon which opposing teams give their rivals no quarter, but which is held distinct to some degree from relations between the parties that exist off the field. The handshake between competitors as they leave the field is a typical sign of this demarcation.

All in all, it is a mark against one in these debates to take an argument personally, to allow arguments that happen "in the arena" to leave the arena. This mode of discourse I see exemplified in LessWrong culture, and is, I think, one of the primary attractors to the site.In the second mode of discourse, inoffensiveness, agreement, and inclusivity are emphasized, and positions are seen as closely associated with their proponents.  Alastair speculates it originates in an educational setting which values cooperation, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, affirmation, and subordination; this may be true, but I feel less confident in it than I am the larger claim about discursive modes. Provocatively, the two modes are dubbed "sporting" and "herding," with all the implications of, on the one hand, individual agents engaged in ritualized, healthy simulations of combat, and on the other, of quasi-non-agents shepherded in a coordinated, bounded, highly constrained and circumscribed epistemic landscape. Recall, if you are tempted to blame this all on the postmodernists, that this is exactly the opposite of their emphasis toward the "adult" realities of relativism, nebulosity, flux. Queer Theory has long advocated for the dissolution of gendered and racial identity, not the reification of identitarian handles we see now, which is QT's bastardization. We might believe these positions were taken too far, but they are ultimately about complicating the world and removing the structuralist comforts of certainty and dichotomy. (Structureless worlds are inherently hostile to rear children in, and also for most human life; see also the Kegan stages for a similar idea.)  

In the erisological vein, Alastair provides a portrait of the collision between the sporting and herding modes. Arguments that fly in one discursive style (taking offence, emotional injury, legitimation-by-feeling) absolutely do not fly in the other:

When these two forms of discourse collide they are frequently unable to understand each other and tend to bring out the worst in each other. The first [new, sensitive] form of discourse seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge to the second; the second [old, sporting] can appear cruel and devoid of sensitivity to the first. To those accustomed to the second mode of discourse, the cries of protest at supposedly offensive statements may appear to be little more than a dirty and underhand ploy intentionally adopted to derail the discussion by those whose ideological position can’t sustain critical challenge.

ii.

Seph stumbles upon a similar division, though it is less about discursive and argumentative modes, and more about social norms for emotional regulation and responsibility. He calls them Culture A and Culture B, mirroring sporting and herding styles, respectively.

In culture A, everyone is responsible for their own feelings. People say mean stuff all the time—teasing and jostling each other for fun and to get a rise. Occasionally someone gets upset. When that happens, there's usually no repercussions for the perpetrator. If someone gets consistently upset when the same topic is brought up, they will either eventually stop getting upset or the people around them will learn to avoid that topic. Verbally expressing anger at someone is tolerated. It is better to be honest than polite.

In such a culture, respect and status typically comes from performance; Seph quotes the maxim "If you can't sell shit, you are shit." We can see a commonality with sporting in that there is some shared goal which is attained specifically through adversarial play, such that some degree of interpersonal hostility is tolerated or even sought. Conflict is settled openly and explicitly.

In culture B, everyone is responsible for the feelings of others. At social gatherings everyone should feel safe and comfortable. After all, part of the point of having a community is to collectively care for the emotional wellbeing of the community's members. For this reason its seen as an act of violence against the community for your actions or speech to result in someone becoming upset, or if you make people feel uncomfortable or anxious. This comes with strong repercussions—the perpetrator is expected to make things right. An apology isn't necessarily good enough here—to heal the wound, the perpetrator needs to make group participants once again feel nurtured and safe in the group. If they don't do that, they are a toxic element to the group's cohesion and may no longer be welcome in the group. It is better to be polite than honest. As the saying goes, if you can't say something nice, it is better to say nothing at all.

In such a culture, status and respect come from your contribution to group cohesion and safety; Seph cites the maxim "Be someone your coworkers enjoy working with." But Seph's argument pushes back, fruitfully, on descriptions of Culture B as collaborative (which involve high self-assertion); rather, he writes, they are accommodating in the Thomas-Kilmann modes of conflict sense:

iii.

Seph and Alastair both gesture toward the way these modes feel gendered, with Culture A more "masculinized" and Culture B more "feminized."[1] While this seems important to note, given that a massive, historically unprecedented labor shift toward coed co-working has recently occured in the Western world, I don't see much point in hashing out a nature vs. nurture, gender essentialism debate here, so you can pick your side and project it. This is also perhaps interesting from the frame of American feminist history: early waves of feminism were very much about escaping the domestic sphere and entering the public sphere; there is an argument to be made that contemporary feminisms, now that they have successfully entered it, are dedicated to domesticating the public sphere into a more comfortable zone. Culture B, for instance, might well be wholly appropriate to the social setting of a living room, among acquaintances who don't know each other well; indeed, it feels much like the kind of aristocratic parlor culture of the same 19th C Britain that the sporting mode also thrived in, side-by-side. And to some extent, Culture A is often what gets called toxic masculinity; see Mad Men for a depiction.

(On the topic of domestication of the workplace: We've seen an increased blurring of the work-life separation; the mantra "lean-in" has been outcompeted by "decrease office hostility"; business attire has slid into informality, etiquette has been subsumed into ethics, dogs are allowed in the workplace. Obviously these changes are not driven by women's entrance into the workplace alone; the tech sector has had an enormous role in killing both business attire and the home-office divide, despite being almost entirely male in composition. And equally obvious, there is an enormous amount of inter- and intra-business competition in tech, which is both consistently cited by exiting employees as a hostile work environment, and has also managed to drive an outsized portion of global innovation the past few decades—thus cultural domestication is not at all perfectly correlated with a switch from Culture A to B. Draw from these speculations what you will.)

There are other origins for the kind of distinctions Seph and Alastair draw; one worthwhile comparison might be Nietzsche's master and slave moralities. The former mode emphasizes power and achievement, the other empathy, cooperation, and compassion. (Capitalism and communitarianism fall under some of the same, higher-level ideological patterns.) There are differences of course: the master moralist is "beyond" good and evil, or suffering and flourishing, whereas Culture A and B might both see themselves as dealing with questions of suffering but in very different ways. But the "slave revolt in morality" overwrote an aristocratic detachment or "aboveness" that we today might see as deeply immoral or inhuman; it is neither surprising nor damning that a revolting proletariat—the class which suffered most of the evils of the world—would speak from a place of one-to-one, attached self-advocacy. One can switch "sides" or "baskets" of the arena each half or quarter because they are impersonal targets in a public commons; one cannot so easily hold the same attitude toward defending one's home. This alone may indicate we should be more sympathetic to the communitarian mode than we might be inclined to be; certainly, those who advocate and embody this mode make plausible claims to being a similar, embattled and embittered class. A friend who I discussed these texts with argued that one failure mode of the rationalist community is an "unmooring" from the real concerns of human beings, slipping into an idealized, logical world modeled on self-similarity (i.e. highly Culture A, thinking over feeling in the Big 5 vocabulary), in a way that is blind to the realities of the larger population.

But there are also grave problems for such a discursive mode, especially when it becomes dominant. Because while on the surface, discursive battles in the sporting mode can appear to be battles between people, they are in reality battles between ideas.

iv.

As Mill argued in On Liberty, free discourse is crucial because it acts as a social steering mechanism: should we make a mistake in our course, freedom of discourse is the instrument for correcting it. But the mistake of losing free discourse is very hard to come back from; it must be fought for again, before other ideals can be pursued. 

Moreover, freedom of discourse is the means of rigorizing ideas before they are implemented, such as to avoid catastrophe. Anyone familiar with James Scott's Seeing Like A State, or Hayek's arguments for decentralized market intelligence, or a million other arguments against overhaulism, knows how difficult it is to engineer a social intervention that works as intended: the unforeseen, second-order effects; our inability to model complex systems and human psychology. Good intent is not remotely enough, and the herding approach cannot help but lower the standard of thinking and discourse emerging from such communities, which become more demographically powerful even as their ideas become worse (the two are tied up inextricably).

The fear of conflict and the inability to deal with disagreement lies at the heart of sensitivity-driven discourses. However, ideological conflict is the crucible of the sharpest thought. Ideological conflict forces our arguments to undergo a rigorous and ruthless process through which bad arguments are broken down, good arguments are honed and developed, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of different positions emerge. The best thinking emerges from contexts where interlocutors mercilessly probe and attack our arguments’ weaknesses and our own weaknesses as their defenders. They expose the blindspots in our vision, the cracks in our theories, the inconsistencies in our logic, the inaptness of our framing, the problems in our rhetoric. We are constantly forced to return to the drawing board, to produce better arguments.

And on the strength of sporting approaches in rigorizing discourse:

The truth is not located in the single voice, but emerges from the conversation as a whole. Within this form of heterotopic discourse, one can play devil’s advocate, have one’s tongue in one’s cheek, purposefully overstate one’s case, or attack positions that one agrees with. The point of the discourse is to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions through rigorous challenge, not to provide a balanced position in a single monologue

Thus those who wish us to accept their conceptual carvings or political advocacies without question or challenge are avoiding short-term emotional discomfort at the price of their own long-term flourishing, at the cost of finding working and stable social solutions to problems. Standpoint epistemology correctly holds that individuals possess privileged knowledge as to what it's like (in the Nagel sense) to hold their social identities. But it is often wrongly extended, in the popular game of informational corruption called "Telephone" or "Chinese Whispers," as arguing that such individuals also possess unassailable and unchallengeable insight into the proper societal solutions to their grievances. We can imagine a patient walking into the doctor's office; the doctor cannot plausibly tell him there is no pain in his leg, if he claims there is, but the same doctor can recommend treatment, or provide evidence as to whether the pain is physical or psychosomatic.A lack of discursive rigour would not be a problem, Alastair writes, "were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing."

v.

As for myself, it was not too long ago I graduated from a university in which a conflict between these modes is ongoing. We had a required course called

Contemporary Civilization

, founded in the wake of World War I, which focused on the last 2,000 years of philosophy, seminar-style: a little bit of introductory lecture, but most of the 2 x 2-hour sessions each week were filled by students arguing with one other. In other words, its founding ethos was of sporting and adversarial collaboration.We also had a number of breakdowns where several students simply could not handle this mode: they would begin crying, or say they couldn't deal with the [insert atmosphere adjective] in the room, and would either transfer out or speak to the professor. While they were not largely representative, they required catering to, and no one wished to upset these students. I have heard we were a fortunate class insofar as we had a small handful of students willing to engage sporting-style, or skeptical a priori of the dominant political ideology at the school. When, in one session, a socialist son of a Saudi billionaire, wearing a $10,000 watch and a camel-hair cashmere sweater, pontificated about "burning the money, reverting to a barter system, and killing the bosses," folks in class would mention that true barter systems were virtually unprecedented in post-agricultural societies, and basically unworkable at scale. In other classes, though, when arguments like these were made—which, taken literally, are logically irrational, but instead justify themselves through sentiment, a legitimation of driving emotion rather than explicit content, in the Culture B sense—other students apparently nodded sagely from the back of the room, "yes, and-ing" one another til their noses ran. Well, I wanted to lay out the styles with some neutrality, but I suppose it's clear now where my sympathies stand.

[1] It should go without saying, but to cover my bases, these modes feeling "feminized" or "masculinized" does not imply that all women, or women inherently, engage in one mode while all men inherently engage in another. Seph cites Camille Paglia as an archetypal example of a Culture A woman, and while she may fall to the extreme side of the Culture A mode, I'd argue most female intellectuals of the 20th C (at least those operated outside the sphere of feminist discourse) were strongly sporting-types: Sontag, for instance, was vociferous and unrelenting. 

[oneweekoneband]

I’m slightly nauseous already with knowing I’m going to say this, but what does “self-awareness”  even mean? In modern parlance, as a descriptive phrase, as a comment on art? I’m asking in earnest, like, I’ve been Googling lately, which for me is basically on par with doctoral study in terms of academic rigor. The self is king, anyway, tyrant, so where is the line of distinction between material that intentionally is nodding at some truth about the artist’s life and what’s just, like, all the rest of the regular navel-gazing bullshit. I mean, I’m all self, I am guilty here. I can’t get it out of my poems or even make it more quiet. This is the tenth time I’ve invoked “I” in the space of six sentences. Processing art has always necessitated a certain amount of grappling with the creator, but the busywork of it lately grows more and more tedious. Joy drains out of my body parsing marks left behind not just in stylistic tendencies and themes, but in literal, intentional tags like graffiti on a water tower. This feels an age old and moth-holed complaint, dull, and I am no historian, or really a serious thinker of any kind. I’ve now complained at some length about self-referential art, but didn’t I love how Martin Scorsese nodded to the famous Goodfellas Copacabana tracking shot with the opening frames of last year’s The Irishman? Didn’t I find that terribly fun and sort of sweet? So there’s distinctions. I’m only saying I don’t know with certainty what they even are. I’m unreliable, and someone smarter than me has likely already solved my quandary about why self-knowledge often transforms into overly precious self-reflexivity in such a way that the knowledge is diminished and obscured, leaving only cutesy Easter eggs behind. Postmodernism has birthed a moralizing culture where art exists to be termed either “self-aware Good” or “self-aware Bad”.  Self-referentiality in media is so commonplace, so much the standard, that what was once credited as metatextual inventiveness often feels lazy now. In 1996, Scream was revitalizing a genre. Today, two thirds of all horror movies spend half their running time making sure that you know that they know they’re a horror movie, which is fine, I guess, except sometimes you just wanna watch someone get butchered with an axe in peace. 

This is all to say that in 2020 Taylor Swift looked long and hard upon her image in the reflecting pool of her heart and has written yet another song about Gone Girl.

“mirrorball” is a very good piece of Gone Girl —feels insane to tell anyone reading a post on a blog what Gone Girl is but, you know, the extremely popular 2012 novel about a woman who pretends to have been murdered and frames her husband for it, and subsequently the 2014 film adaption where you kinda see Ben Affleck’s dick for a second—fanfiction. It would be a fine song, a good song, really, even if it weren’t that, if it were just something normal and not unhinged written by a chill person who behaves in a regular way, but we need to acknowledge the facts for what they are. When Taylor Swift watched Rosamund Pike toss her freshly self-bobbed hair out of her face and hiss, “You think you’d be happy with some nice Midwestern girl? No way, baby. I’m it!” her brain lit up like a Christmas tree, and she’s never been the same. If you Google “taylor swift gone girl” there waiting for you will be a medium sized lake’s worth of articles speculating about how Gone Girl influenced and is referenced in past Swift singles “Blank Space” and “Look What You Made Me Do”. This is not new behavior, and if anything it’s getting a bit troubling to think that it’s been this long since Taylor’s read another book. Still, while the prior offerings were a fair attempt at this particular feat of depravity, “mirrorball” has brought Taylor’s Amy Elliott Dunne deification to stunning new heights. And most importantly, Taylor has done a service to every person alive with more than six brain cells and a Internet connection by putting an end to the “Cool Girl” discourse once and for all. By the power invested in “mirrorball”, it is hereby decreed that the Cool Girl speech from Gone Girl is neither feminist or antifeminist, not ironic nor aspirational. No. It’s something much better than all that. It’s a threat. I ! Can ! Change ! Everything ! About ! Me ! To ! Fit ! In !

Gone Girl (2012) by Gillian Flynn

“mirrorball” (2020) by Taylor Swift

When the twinkly musical stylings of Jack Antonoff, a man I distinctly distrust, but for no one specific reason, whirl to life at the beginning of this song I feel instantly entranced, blurry-brained and pleasure-pickled like an infant beneath a light-up crib mobile or, I guess, myself in the old times, the outside times, three tequila sodas deep under the disco lights at The Short Stop. Under a mirrorball in my head. I know very little about music, as a craft, and I really don’t care to know more. I’m happy in a world of pure, dumb sensation. I’m not even sure what kind of instruments are making these jangly little sounds. I just like it. I am vibing. We may not ever be able to behave badly in a club again, but I can sway to my stupid Taylor Swift-and-the-brother-of-the-lady-who-makes-like-those-sweatshirts-with-little-sayings-or-like-vulvas-which-famous-white-women-wear-on-instagram-you-know-what-I-mean song, pressing up onto my tiptoes on the linoleum tile of our kitchen floor and can feel for a second or two something approaching bliss. “mirrorball” is a lush sound bath that I like a lot and then also it’s about being all things to all people, chameleoning at a second’s notice, doing Oscar worthy work on every Zoom call, performing the you who is good, performing the you who is funny, performing the you who draws a liter of your own blood and throws it around the kitchen then cleans it up badly all to get your husband sent to jail for sleeping with a college student... Too much talk about making and unmaking of the self is way too, like, 2012 Tumblr for me now, and I start hearing the word “praxis” ring threateningly in my head, but I’m not yet so evolved that I don’t feel a pull. Musings on the disorganized self—on how we are new all the time, and not just because of all the fresh skin coming up under the dead, personhood in the end so frighteningly flexible—are always going to compel me, I’m afraid, but that goes double for musings on the disorganized self which posit that Taylor Swift still thinks Amy Dunne made some points.

Because on “mirrorball” Taylor is for once not hamfistedly addressing some “hater”, in the quiet and the lack of embarrassing martyrdom it actually offers an interesting answer to the complaint that Taylor is insufficiently self-aware. This criticism emerges often in tandem with claiming to have discovered some crack in the chassis of Swift’s public self, revealing the sweetness to be insincere. My instinct is to dismiss this more or less out of hand as just a mutation of the school of thought that presumes all work by women must be autobiography. And, regardless, it is made altogether laughable by the fact that anyone actually paying attention has known since at least Speak Now, a delightful record populated by the most appalling, horrible characters imaginable, and all of them written by a twenty year old Taylor Swift, that this woman is a pure weirdo. To accuse Taylor Swift of lacking in self-awareness is a reductive misunderstanding, I think, of artifice. Being a fake bitch takes work. Which is to say, if we agree that her public self is a calculated performance—eliding the fact that all public selves are a performance to avoid getting too in the weeds yadda yadda— why, then, should it be presumed that performance is rooted in ignorance? Would it not make more sense that, in fact, someone able to contort themselves so ably into various shapes for public consumption would have a certain understanding of the basic materials they’re working with and concealing? Taylor Swift, in a decade and a half of fame, has presented herself from inside a number of distinct packages. The gangly teenager draped in long curls like climbing wisteria who wrote lyrics down her arms in glitter paint gave way to red lipstick, a Diet Coke campaign, and bad dancing at awards shows. There was the period where she was surrounded constantly by a gaggle of models, then suddenly wasn’t anymore, and that rough interlude with the bleached hair. The whole Polaroid thing. Last year she boldly revealed she’s a democrat. Now it’s the end of the world and she’s got frizzy bangs and flannels and muted little piano songs. Perhaps this endless shape-shifting contradicts or undermines, for some, the pose of tender authenticity which has remained static through each phase, but that doesn’t mean she hasn’t been doing it all on purpose the entire time. I’ve never been a natural, all I do is try, try, try...

In the Disney+ documentary—which, in order to watch, I had to grudgingly give the vile mouse seven dollars, because the login information that I’d begged off of my little sister didn’t work and I was too embarrassed to bring it up a second time—Taylor referred to “mirrorball” as the first time on the album where she explicitly addressed the pandemic, referring to the lyrics that start, “And they called off the circus, Burned the disco down,” and end with “I’m still on that tightrope, I’m still trying everything to get you laughing at me,” which actually did made me laugh, feeling sort of warmly foolish and a little fond, because it never would have occurred to me that she was trying to be literal there. I suppose we really do all contain multitudes. Hate that.