#I can recognize that other people’s actions and words stem from their own self doubts and traumas | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tennessoui · 3 years

Note

18 obikin!! Amnesia fics are super fun 🍆

18. One of them wakes up with amnesia (Option A because two people sent in this prompt number and I liked both ideas I saw for it enough to not want to pick) this involves an Obi-Wan that got deaged as well as lost his memories so he's Phantom Menace Obi-Wan. no i will not be explaining. hand wavey drabble fic writing.

The man has not stopped staring, but something in his intense gaze makes Obi-Wan feel safe. Almost. Well. On edge, yes, but. Protected. He has the strange feeling that he’d rather be under this man’s stare than anywhere else in the entire galaxy.

But he knows he’s never seen this man before in his life, the same way that he knows he’s twenty-five and that Qui-Gon Jinn is his Master, that he’s a Jedi knight-in-training, that he hates teas with mint leaves in them, that he’ll never say no to a drink with Quinlan, that--well.

He supposes none of that stuff could be true anymore. Vokra Che, who’s a grown and certified healer master now, had told him what had happened. An older version of himself had touched something he wasn’t supposed to. The closest translation they could find to the runes on the object was that it would transform the user back to their most balanced state. Obi-Wan’s had, apparently, been at the age of twenty-five. He hadn’t recognized the name Anakin Skywalker. He had never been to Naboo.

He throws the rest of his drink back and waves to the bartender to pour him another. He’d gone straight here from the Halls of Healing. He’d had a shadow the entire way, but the man has yet to try to talk to him at all. It’s infuriating.

His Padawan braid swings into his field of vision for a second. He tosses it over his shoulder. He’d been told. Qui-Gon had died. Obi-Wan wants to not think about it at all.

There’s a brush of a Force presence that’s both familiar and completely foreign next to him. The man has finally moved to his side. Obi-Wan’s jaw ticks at his continued reticence, the way he’s observing him but not talking to him. It just simply won’t do, but Obi-Wan isn’t feeling his kindest. He doesn’t want whatever this man is offering him with his silent, dour stares and his suffocating Force signature that keeps trying to tangle itself with Obi-Wan’s own. It’s rude is what it is.

He waves down the bartender and orders a drink for the man. “If you got mint, put it in,” he tells the woman who raises an eyebrow but shrugs, one pair of her arms busy with the drink. When she gives it to him he slides it to the man next to him without even looking at him.

“What--” the man asks. “I don’t--”

“You do tonight,” Obi-Wan says bracingly, throwing back half of his own drink. “We’ve both just lost our Masters, haven’t we?”

The man beside him flinches as if Obi-Wan had skewered him with his lightsaber.

“You are him, aren’t you?” Obi-Wan lolls his head to the side to look at the man threw half-closed eyes. “My padawan.”

“Anakin,” the man says so quietly it’s almost lost to the noise of the bar. “I’m Anakin Skywalker, yeah.”

Obi-Wan takes a drink reflexively, humming in disbelief. “You don’t look like it,” he says consideringly. At Anakin’s confused look, he elaborates. “You don’t look like you could have ever been a Padawan.”

The man pulls himself up, face darkening at the perceived slight. It’s almost too easy to rile him up, but now that he has, Obi-Wan finds he has no interest in fighting this man. Quite the opposite, really. That’s...something. He can’t tell if that emotion comes from him now or the older version of him.

Either way, Obi-Wan has no desire to stand in the way of whatever storm this Anakin is building up in his head, so he turns to face him completely and pushes both hands into his blond hair, raking down the scalp gently before collecting the strands into a poor imitation of the Padawan ponytail. “That’s better, I suppose. The hair threw me off.” He lets go slowly, making sure to tug at one of the strands at the last second.

Anakin has a very strange look on his face, but he’s definitely not angry anymore. He’s even shielding much more tightly now. Obi-Wan smirks into his glass as he takes a sip. He definitely remembers that trick.

“Do you know who cut it?” he asks, catching sight of the end of his braid again. The drinks are going to his head much more quickly than he had intended. Must be all the trauma his body has gone through in the past few days. “My braid.”

“I.” Anakin stutters, caught off guard. “You did.”

Obi-Wan feels like laughing but also a bit like crying. There’s a terrifying emotion rearing its head in his chest. It threatens to swallow him whole. “Well, I suppose I never liked to stand on ceremony.”

“You cut your braid in the fresher and then called me in and braided mine,” Anakin says distantly, as if caught up in the memory. “You wouldn’t let me hold it. I thought you were so mean. But I understood at my Knighting Ceremony. It was a part of me in my hand, a...starmap of all the places I’d been and the things I’d learned during my training. And there was only one person I wanted to give it to in the whole galaxy.”

“Did you?” He asks, taking a sip to hide how important the question is, how devastating the answer could be.

“Well. Yeah. But I guess I don’t know if you kept it,” Anakin cuts his eyes away from Obi-Wan’s and runs his fingers up the long stem of his drink.

Obi-Wan chokes on a laugh. “He definitely did.”

The other man’s face settles into a frown. “You don’t know that. You’re not him.”

“I’m enough of him. I’ve got--some feelings. In my head. Impressions.”

“Of me?”

“Of how he felt about you.”

Anakin’s eyes widen and then narrow with a sudden intensity that makes Obi-Wan want to shiver. It’s like being in the eye of a storm. His hold on the delicate glass in his hand becomes dangerously tight as he leans forward into Obi-Wan’s space, as if he can’t get close enough to him.

“What do you feel when you look at me?” he asks almost breathlessly. Obi-Wan blinks, trying to figure out if he’s being seduced or not. It’s sort of working. It’s all that focus, directly on him. Obi-Wan wouldn’t mind if that’s how the night ended. But sleeping with his former padawan who he can’t remember right now doesn’t seem like the best decision he could make.

But Anakin had liked it when Obi-Wan tugged at his hair. He’d arched closer to him. And now, the distance between them has been eaten away until they’re almost pressed chest to shoulder.

“Safe,” he decides to say, even though the word feels too small. “Sad,” which is mostly true but also an oversimplification. It’s a sort of nostalgia mixed with sadness, mixed with acceptance and resignation. “Warm,” because even after being denied entry to Obi-Wan’s mind, Anakin’s force presence has curled around Obi-Wan’s like some sort of krayt dragon, content to wait and guard and treasure. He leans forward, just until his mouth brushes against the skin of Anakin’s ear. “Coveted.”

Anakin definitely shifts at that, and when Obi-Wan pulls back enough to see his face, his pupils are blown wide.

Swallowing a grin, Obi-Wan swallows the rest of his drink in one go. “Drink up,” he tells Anakin in his most demanding tone, reaching into his pockets to pull out his older self’s credits to settle the tab. “I want to go.”

Anakin obeys immediately, making a face at the taste.

They’re out in the street within a few minutes, Anakin smacking his lips as if still trying to rid himself of the flavor. “I just don’t know why you had to order me that,” he complains, falling into step on Obi-Wan’s right.

Obi-Wan pauses and leans against the very unsanitary wall of the building, spreading his legs wide enough so that Anakin can come in between them. The man doesn’t seem to notice anything different, just steps a bit closer as a crowd of loud party-goers makes their way past them.

“I wanted to see if I liked mint,” Obi-Wan shrugs, raising his hand to rest on the skin of Anakin’s neck. He can feel the way his pulse is beating incredibly fast.

“Why would my drink help you with--”

Obi-Wan rolls his eyes. He commends his older self for being able to teach this idiot anything, even though he seems to have skipped over important lessons like Recognizing When You’re Being Flirted With.

Before Anakin can finish the thought, Obi-Wan twists his other hand in Anakin’s robes and pulls him forward until their lips are a hair’s breadth apart. “May I kiss you?” he asks because it’s only polite to.

Anakin’s eyes widen and then fall shut as he gives a little nod, finally stepping forward until their bodies are pressed completely together.

At least someone, although he doubts it was the older Obi-Wan, taught Anakin how to kiss. Obi-Wan’s toes curl in his boots as Anakin takes control of the action, moving his hands so one’s pressing against the wall behind them and one’s running up his scalp. Obi-Wan takes his time licking into Anakin’s mouth, allowing Anakin to explore him in return. One of them moans, which seems like as good a time as any to break the kiss.

“Well?” Anakin pants, diving in to place a short kiss onto Obi-Wan’s lips. “What do you think?”

The short answer is that Obi-Wan isn’t. He noses back towards Anakin’s mouth hopefully, sliding his hand down from his neck to rest on his hip.

“About mint,” Anakin elaborates when Obi-Wan doesn’t respond immediately.

“Inconclusive. Need more data,” Obi-Wan tries to kiss him but Anakin’s smiling too hard.

“Then next time you can get the awful drink, and you can get me the Alderaan Sunset,” Anakin is complaining, but he’s laughing too and that’s nice. Obi-Wan thinks that making Anakin Skywalker laugh is one of the best feelings in the galaxy, and he thinks his older self would agree, if the warmth sparking up in his very soul means anything at all.

#asks #my fics #writing #tarantasina #i'm sure eventually they get obi-wan back to normal and he's just sooooo embarrassed that he got drunk and decided to seduce anakin #but like it worked out #anakin makes fun of him too until obi-wan remembers that he kissed back #prompt fill

175 notes · View notes

iamanartichoke · 3 years

Text

I wrote a Thing. It’s extremely long. I’d prefer it not be reblogged; I wrote this for my own catharsis and would prefer it not be circulated, bc of Reasons.

I changed my mind, okay to reblog. <3

Under a cut for (extreme, did I mention?) length.

So I got about 12 minutes of sleep last night, as you do, and around 3am or so I found myself - out of sheer curiosity - going down a meta hole of Ragnarok discourse, trying to figure out where this "satisfying redemption arc" for Loki happened. (I mean, there's a lot of things I would like to figure out, but I started there.) Because I could.

Basically I was looking for meta that went into detail about how Loki was redeemed in a satisfactory way. The ‘satisfactory’ is an important word here bc there is a redemption arc in the film, in that Loki starts off the film as an antagonist (kinda) to Thor and he ends the film as an ally to Thor, standing at Thor's side. In that sense, yes, there's a redemption arc. I didn't find much (and I had no idea how much people just despise Ragnarok "antis" [I really dislike that word] but that's another topic [that I don't particularly want to get into, tbh]) but I did find some. I read what I could find, and I read it open-mindedly, and overall I came away feeling like, okay, there are some valid points being made here and I can kinda see where they're coming from.

But it was a bit (a lot) like -- flat. Idk. The best comparison I can think of is that it’s like if a literature class read, I don't know, The Yellow Wallpaper for an assignment, and some of the students came away from it feeling like it was a creepy story about a woman slowly driving herself insane, and the other students came away from it incensed at the oppression and infantilization of women in the late 19th century -

- and neither side is wrong, but the former is a very surface-level reading and the latter isn't (bc it stems from looking at why she drives herself insane, why she was prescribed 'rest' in the first place, the context of what women could and couldn't do back then, etc; basically, a bit more work has to go into it).

[Note: I am not disparaging the quality of The Yellow Wallpaper. At all. It’s just the first relatively well-known story that popped into my head.]

In this sense, I can see the argument for Loki's redemption arc, but I don't think it's a very good argument. Not invalid, but not great.

I mean, for example, I think the most consistent argument I found variations of re: Loki's redemption is that Ragnarok shows Loki finally taking responsibility for his bad behaviour and misdeeds. This includes recognizing that his actions were fueled from a place of self-hatred and a desire to self-destruct in addition to bringing destruction on others. That he probably feels awkward and regretful of these things and doesn't know how to act around Thor, but he figures it out by the end, and decides that returning to Asgard is the best way to show that he's ready to make amends. His act of bringing the Statesman to Asgard is an apology. He allies himself with Thor and ends up in a better place, both narratively (united with Thor once again) and mentally (having taken responsibility and made amends for his past).

And setting aside that he had already made amends by sacrificing his life in TDW (and also setting aside that the argument is made that Loki redeems himself in IW by sacrificing himself to Thanos but if that's the case, wouldn't that imply that he hadn't achieved redemption in Ragnarok or else there would be no need to achieve it again in IW? Or, if you think he did achieve redemption in Ragnarok, then what the fuck did he give his life in IW for? What was his motivation there, and why did the narrative not make it clearer? I digress.)

- setting aside those two factors, I think this is a very fair argument. Loki is fueled by self-hatred, and he does want to self-destruct, and he does want to inflict that pain on others as well (particularly Thor). No lies detected here.

However, I also need to know where that self-hatred and desire for destruction (toward himself and others) comes from and for that, we need to go back to Thor 1.

Thor 1.

Loki starts Thor 1 out as "a clenched fist with hair," to borrow a quote from the Haunting of Hill House (that I tucked away in my mental box of Lovely Things bc it says so much so very simply). He's very used to bottling everything up, pushing it down; he slinks around behind the scenes, pulling the strings to this plot or that. He's "always been one for mischief," but the narrative implies that the coronation incident is the first time Loki's done anything truly terrible. And it all immediately pretty much goes to shit, so Loki spends the rest of the movie frantically juggling all these moving pieces while trying to seem as if he's got it all under control, every step of the way. That's how I view his actions.

But I always come back to that quote where Kenneth Branaugh tells Tom, of the scene in the vault, "This is where the thin steel rod that's been holding your mind together snaps." In other words this is where Loki discovering he's Jotun is just one thing too many. He can't take it. But though the rod snaps, his descent isn't a nosedive. It's a tumble. As the story progresses, the clenched fist starts to loosen, the muscles are flexed in unfamiliar ways (that feel kinda good, after being stiff for so long), and it culminates with the hand opening completely and shaking itself out. All of that repression, that self-hatred, that rage and jealousy just explodes so that, by the time the bifrost scene happens, Loki's already hit bottom. It's not just about proving his worthiness to Odin. He wants to hurt Thor, too; he, essentially, throws a tantrum. (That's right, I said tantrum.)

(Note: The word 'tantrum’ has negative connotations bc we normally equate it with a toddler stamping their feet and screaming in the aisle when their parent won't buy them the toy they want. But in itself, the word tantrum isn't infantalizing. It's an "emotional outburst, an uncontrolled explosion of anger and frustration" [paraphrasing from dictionary.com]. That's exactly what happens here [and why Tom called Loki's actions a massive tantrum, but people took that to mean Tom agreed it was childish whereas I doubt Tom meant it that way]).

He's been pushed past his limit, and he does bad things. He does really shitty things. He hurts Thor, he hurts his family. I'm pretty sure he knows this all along so this isn't, like, some revelation further down the line that "hey, those things I did were probably kinda bad." He got the memo already.

Ragnarok

Fast forward to Ragnarok, and we're introduced to a version of Loki who's had 4ish years to sit with everything that's happened. To sit with it and not do much else. The rawness of it has faded, and now it seems as though it's just become a thing, like when you move through life aware of your childhood traumas and have more or less just accepted them (and you probably share a lot of really funny depression memes on Facebook, which is kinda the equivalent of Loki's play, but that's probably just me).

Loki has, more or less, chilled out. He seems more bored than anything else; he's been masquerading as Odin for longer than he ever planned or intended to, so he's more or less ended up hanging out, letting Asgard mind its own business, and entertaining himself with silly plays. This is the version that starts out the movie as an antagonist to Thor - a version that is, arguably, in a much different place [and is a much milder threat] than the version who originally did those Bad Things.

And of course Thor is still mad at him, and of course they're going to butt heads, because that's what they do (and Thor's grievances are genuine, I’ll add, bc it's not really his fault he assumed Loki faked his death, nor can he be blamed for being pissed about Odin).

One argument framed this version of Loki as being a person who is facing the awkwardness of coming out of a dark place, which is fair. If we're going to frame his actions in Thor 1 as a tantrum, then Ragnarok would be the part where the toddler has been taken home, possibly has had some lunch and a juice box, and is now watching cartoons. They're over the tantrum, and would probably feel pretty silly about it if they weren't, yknow, toddlers. They probably can't remember why they even wanted that toy so badly. If they're a little older and self-aware, they might even be embarrassed for having melted down.

Like the word tantrum, this feeling isn't a thing limited to toddlers. I know I've had a few epic meltdowns as a grown ass adult, and I know I always feel deeply embarrassed afterwards - like, want to crawl into a hole and die. I've said things I can't take back. Adolescents and teenagers throw tantrums, mentally ill people throw tantrums, adults throw tantrums (I mean, my god, look at all the videos of Karens having screaming meltdowns - screaming! - over having to wear masks in order to shop at stores). Humans throw tantrums. And usually, after the feelings have been let out and the tantrum has passed, humans feel pretty regretful and awkward and embarrassed about whatever they did and said in the midst of their meltdown.

I get all of that and agree it's valid and that Loki probably feels it. By the time Ragnarok happens, Loki's had some time to reflect and think hmm, yeah, probably could've handled that one a lot better. The argument further goes that in order to navigate this awkward period, Loki must come to terms with what he's done, acknowledge that some things can't be unsaid or undone, and begin to make amends. Supposedly, some people feel that Loki becomes a better person because he does "own" everything he did wrong and, even though he feels like a jackass (paraphrasing), he sets that aside to become a become a better person by choosing to help Thor and Asgard at the end.

Thus, the overall arc goes like this. Loki, Thor's jealous little brother,

throws a tantrum of epic proportions bc Reasons

continues to act badly and make things even worse (Avengers)

has to face consequences for his actions (prison sentence)

ends up with a stretch of time in which he's free to contemplate and chill out

feels embarrassed and awkward about how he's behaved

sees an opportunity to make up for it and decides to take it

helps Thor, saves the day, and ends the film a better person.

Redemption achieved.

None of this is wrong. The film supports it. It's a fair interpretation. But it leaves. out. so. much.

To circle all the way back around Loki being "a clenched fist with hair," and his actions stemming from his self-hatred, you have to ask - how did he get that way? He didn't end up with all this self-hatred on accident. Generally, one isn't born despising themselves, it's a learned behavior. (I realize chemical imbalances are a thing, obviously, as I have Mental Shit myself, but for argument's sake I'm assuming that's not the case with Loki [at this point in time]).

Where did Loki learn it? From his family, from his surroundings, from his culture. We see examples of these microaggressions in the first, like, twenty minutes of the movie - a guard openly laughs at Loki's magic after Thor makes a joke about it (the tone of the conversation implies that Thor "jokes" like this often) and though Loki does the snake thing, the guard faces no real consequences. Thor doesn't acknowledge that anything went amiss. Not much later, on their way to Jotunheim, Loki's barely gotten two words out to Heimdall before Thor cuts him off, steps in front of him, and takes charge. Loki doesn't look annoyed at this; he looks resigned.

Then, for absolutely no reason at all, Volstagg decides to make a jab at Loki ("silver tongue turned to lead?") just because he can. The ease with which he makes this comment and the way that no one else blinks an eye at it implies that this isn't out of the norm. And Loki doesn't react, not really. In the deleted version, he delivers a particularly nasty comeback but he delivers it under his breath, without intending Volstagg to hear it. In the final version, he simply says nothing, though his expression can be read as hurt or stung. Either way, the audience sees an example of Loki being walked all over by Thor and his friends and bottling up his reactions instead of standing up for himself.

Microaggressions matter. They are mentally and emotionally damaging. They hurt. The implication that this is not unusual treatment for Loki means that Loki's probably gone through this for most of his life. It's like the equivalent of being, I don't know, twenty two and you're the friend who has to walk behind the others when the sidewalk isn't wide enough, and it's been that way since the first day of kindergarten. At this point, you're used to it, but that doesn't make it hurt any less when the jabs come seemingly out of nowhere, for no reason other than to make you feel bad.

(I personally identify a lot with this bc I experienced passive bullying in social settings for years. I was the 'doesn't fit on the sidewalk' friend; I hung around with people who'd pretend to be my friend and would be more or less nice to my face, but would laugh at me and make fun of me behind my back for whatever reasons. And often there'd be the random jabs at me, things that would come out of nowhere to smack me in the face, followed by the fake laugh and “just kidding!" so that I couldn't even get upset without being made to feel like I was overreacting and couldn't take a joke. I'd deal with this socially, particularly in middle school when girls are their most vicious, and then I'd go home and, because I was the only girl with a lot of brothers and because boys are mean and because I am who I am, the dynamic was that my brothers would just endlessly roast me to my face and sometimes it was a "just kidding!" thing, where I was the only one not laughing. But that’s beside the point; my point is that microaggressions, passive bullying, and consistent invalidation are harmful and that shit stays with you into adulthood.)

So, yes, Loki needs to be held responsible for his misdeeds, and it's valid to say that he recognizes those misdeeds and wants to make amends. I have never disagreed with that. But the problem with this interpretation is that it lets every single other character who contributed to Loki's self-hatred and mental breakdown (let's just call a spade a spade here, that's what it was; he was broken psychologically) get off scot-free.

First of all,

Odin is not held accountable for instilling in the princes a mentality of Asgard first, everyone is beneath us but Jotuns are benath us the most, they are literal monsters. He is not held accountable for pitting his sons against one another (even if it was unintentional, he still did it) with "you were both born to be kings but only one of you can rule" being the general tone of their upbringing. He's not held accountable for his favoritism toward Thor.

Frigga is not held accountable for deferring to Odin both in supporting the above things and in keeping the truth of Loki's origins a secret while doing nothing to discourage the "monsters" narrative.

Thor is not held accountable for his own tendency of taking Loki for granted (he assumes Loki will come to Jotunheim, he oversteps Loki constantly, “know your place,” etc.. He grants his implicit permission for Loki to be treated as the sidewalk friend in their “group,” a group which is loyal to and takes their cues from Thor as Thor continues to do nothing in his brother's defense).

[Note: Wanting Thor to be held accountable for things he's done wrong isn't vilifying him. Acknowledging that Thor benefited from Odin's favoritism and his own place as Crown Prince doesn't negate Thor also being raised in an abusive environment. I don't think anyone's saying that or, if they have, it's not something I agree with.]

Furthermore,

Odin is not held accountable for his cruelty in disowning Loki (”your birthright was to die” is never going to be forgotten, speaking of people saying things that can't be unsaid or taken back) and in sentencing Loki to a severe prison sentence (life! only bc Frigga wouldn't let him execute Loki) for crimes that are no worse than what Odin himself has committed (around which the entire plot of Ragnarok revolves! Colonialism (and subjugation) is wrong is, like, a major theme [that people rush to praise, even] here).

Thor is also never held accountable for not trying harder to understand what made Loki snap (fair enough, he didn't have a ton of time after returning from Earth, but certainly he had lots of time to sit around reflecting while Loki was being tortured by Thanos for a year). He knows Loki is "not himself" and "beyond reason" and accepts it at face value; he questions it once and then lets it go. He's fine with assuming Loki's just lost his mind, and isn't that a shame. (I realize I'm simplifying Thor's emotions but my point is that Thor could've tried harder to figure out that Loki was being influenced and/or not acting completely autonomously.)

Thor is also never held accountable for - if not facing consequences for his own slaughter of Jotuns - then at least addressing why Loki can't kill an entire race even though Thor tried to do that, like, two days ago. (Granted, it’s difficult to understand how Thor got from Point A ("let's finish them together, Father!") to Point B (this is wrong!), but that failing belongs to Thor 1 (which is not, by the way, a perfect movie).

The interpretation that Loki is fully redeemed because he took responsibility for his actions, returned to Asgard, and allied himself with Thor to save their people is all well and good - but, why is Loki the only one here who has to take responsibility for their actions?

What about all the loose threads in his story?

For example, how did he get from:

Point A (believing himself a literal monster, having a complete mental breakdown, getting tortured and further traumatized after that, etc)

Point B (Hey, yknow what would be fun? I'm going to write and direct a play about how I heroically died to save Thor and Jane, and I'll go ahead and have Odin say he accepts me and has always loved me. I'm going to do these things because Odin never said this in real life and instead of acknowledging my sacrifice, Thor left my body in the dirt, so someone has to validate what I've done right and that someone might as well be me. And hey, while I'm at it, I'm going to control the narrative on revealing myself as Jotun to Asgard, instead of living in fear of it being found out, and I'm going to do it in a way that they have to sympathize with me and revere me in death, bc they never bothered to do so when I was alive. And Matt Damon should play me, also.)

Point C (Yeah, I guess I feel kinda awkward about that whole tantrum thing, also I should help Thor and support him being king.)

The answers to these questions are handwaved and the audience takes that to mean they don't matter. Furthermore, framing Loki's redemption around an act of service (more or less) to Thor makes Loki's redemption about Thor. Does Loki make this decision for the sake of Thor and of Asgard, or does he make it for himself? It's not super clear to me, and I think arguments can be made for both. Which, again, is fine, but - whatever.

If we're going to collectively agree, as a fandom, that Loki is complex, that he's morally gray, that he's worthy of redemption and therefore arguably a good person who's done bad things, then why is it asking too much to have it acknowledged that Thor (also a good person who's done bad things) played a part in Loki's downfall and has shit to apologize for, too? Bc one can only assume the reason is that you're taking a very gray concept and making it black and white by saying Loki has to apologize and make amends because he is the villain, and Thor doesn't because he is the hero (and it's his movie). And it's lazy.

This is where the crux of the issue lands. There's more than one valid interpretation, yes. And no two people (or groups of people, or whatever) are going to consume and therefore interpret or analyze the source material in the same way. I think I saw a post recently about how studies have been done on this, in fact. But, there is a lot going on under the surface that tends to get overlooked when exploring Loki's redemption arc in Ragnarok, as far as I can see, and that’s why I don’t consider it satisfactory.

[I did read similar arguments regarding other issues that are often debated ('debated'), like Loki's magic and/or being underpowered, whether or not Loki's betrayal of Thor was the natural outcome of the situation on Sakaar or not, whether Thor actually gets closure with Odin [if he does, how does he reconcile the father he's idolized with the imperialistic conqueror he's discovered? Why doesn't he hold Odin responsible for covering up Hela's existence and the threat of her return, especially as he knew he was nearing the end of his life? Is Thor's "I'm not as strong as you" meant to imply that he acknowledges those shortcomings of Odin's and that he's okay with them, or that he's just overlooking them, or is he not okay with them but didn't have the chance to get into it bc he was in the middle of battle? T'Challa confronted his father on his wrongdoings in Black Panther; could Thor not have had at least one line that was confrontational enough to establish where he stands as opposed to this gray middle? Can someone explain to me how any of this equates to Thor gaining closure? Please?) but obviously I'm not going to go into all of them (well, I tried not to), bc this mammoth post has gone on long enough (I may not even post this tbh)]

- but my overall point to this entire thing is that when I say I'm critical of Ragnarok bc it's flawed, that Loki's arc was neither complete nor satisfactory, that many things went unaddressed and, due to all of these things, I do not think Ragnarok is a very good movie nor a very cohesive movie, this is where I'm coming from. I have not seen anything to change my mind to the contrary.

But I am not saying that anyone satisfied with it is wrong, or shouldn't have the interpretation that they do. I'm not vilifying Thor in order to lift Loki up, just acknowledging that Thor is arguably just as flawed as Loki without the stigma of being Designated Villain. I think a lot of these arguments get overlooked or dismissed, and that's fine, but it doesn't make the people who do engage with them hateful, or bitter, or trying to excuse Loki's crimes, or feeling like redemption means that Loki's crimes should be erased rather than reconciled.

And sure, yes, perhaps we are expecting too much and exploring all of these themes (or wanting them explored) means that somehow we think it should be Loki's movie (we don't). Loki is a supporting character, but he's still a character. And the movie itself doesn't have to delve into all these things - no one's saying that. (At least, I'm not.) We just want acknowledgement, from the narrative, that this stuff was an Issue.

This could have been accomplished with -

Some dialogue closer to the novelization (and original script), like Thor and Loki both acknowledging the harm they've done one another and their kingdom due to their Feels.

A single line of Thor confronting Odin, or even asking "Why?"

A narrative acknowledgement that Odin did both Thor and Loki dirty (”I love you, my sons” isn't an apology, because it doesn't acknowledge either that there's been wrong-doing or express regret for having done the wrong in the first place).

A little bit more nuance in the way Loki treats his own past (ie, instead of flippantly telling the story of his suicide attempt, maybe - if it must be flippant - talk about getting blasted in the face with Hawkeye's arrow or sailing through to Svartalfheim [And in that moment, I sang ta-daaaa!]) or whatever.

I recognize that wanting full, in-depth exploration on all of these issues regarding a supporting character is probably too much to ask or expect - but, I also feel like, if you're going to be professionally writing a narrative (or rewriting/improvising, as it were), it's not too much to ask that a little more care be taken in regards to all of the layers that have contributed to said supporting character's downfall and subsequent redemption arc. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to want.

And maybe if there had been more nuance and continuity in how these things were portrayed on screen (ie, if TW had actually done as good a job as his stans think he did), the fandom wouldn't have divided and conquered itself over which "version" of the same character is more valid and whether or not the film did its best to close out a trilogy (not start a new one), to the point where everyone in this fandom space makes navigating it feel like walking through a minefield.

But, I mean

(Again, please don’t reblog if possible.)

Edit: Okay to reblog. <3

96 notes · View notes

jaegereism · 3 years

Text

𝙆𝘼𝙏𝙎𝙐𝙆𝙄 𝘽𝘼𝙆𝙐𝙂𝙊 𝙋𝙀𝙍𝙎𝙊𝙉𝘼𝙇𝙄𝙏𝙔 𝘼𝙉𝘼𝙇𝙔𝙎𝙄𝙎

MBTI type: ESTP

Dominant-Se

Katsuki has quick reflexes and is in tune with his immediate environment. He often relies on physical force to achieve his ends, such as physically threatening Midoriya to tell him the truth about his secret quirk and planning to beat up the “boss” child when required to babysit some difficult children. He is able to think on the move, like he did when fighting Tokoyami in the sports festival. He attacked him over and over again to discover his weakness and used it to his own advantage. He has a rather adaptable approach when fighting against different opponents. He changes his fighting style according to his opponents when needed, such as successfully avoiding getting touched by Uraraka when fighting against her in the sports festival. He is also skilled in observing while taking action and does not easily get startled when his opponents are unpredictable. Katsuki does not backs up from physical challenges and seem to actually enjoy them. He challenged Todoroki to use all his powers against him despite the possibility of losing against him because of that. He enjoys earning victory with his blood and sweat.

Katsuki prefers to establish his statements with his actions. He is not easily effected by words. He does not believes in bark with no bite, and is quick to challenge those individuals to prove their statements by their actions. “Show us with your actions, not your mouth.” He told Shishikura when he was trying to degrade the Yuuei students and allude that students from Shiketsu High are somewhat better than those from Yueei. Katsuki is seen acting very impatient when he wants something. He uses his physicality in order to prove a point, whether by fighting, yelling or aggressive body language.

Auxiliary-Ti

Katsuki has an internal framework about how the world works. He conceptualizes the world around him in fixed categories. Such as, you should not even attempt to be a hero if you do not have a quirk. He expressed annoyance in season 1 when Midoriya did not went by his personal framework and attempted to get accepted in Yuuei without a quirk. It took him a while to accept that Midoriya had a quirk despite him showing obvious signs of having it. He said to Iida that Midoriya will have to leave Yuuei soon because he is “a quirkless loser”, to which Iida replied “He has a quirk. Did you not heard what he did in the entrance exam?” Katsuki is unable to accept the obvious because he does not believe in quirks popping up out of the blue. Once he even accepts that Midoriya has a quirk, he ends up assuming that he had always had it and kept it hidden from him. Katsuki does not appreciate having truth kept from him and keeps on investigating until he finds an explanation that makes sense.

Once he discovered that quirks can be stolen when he was kidnapped by the League of Villains, it made sense to him that quirks can be borrowed too. It made him believe that Midoriya actually had his quirk borrowed from someone else. Once he had gathered all the data he believed he needed, he was very confident in his theory about Midoriya having his quirk from All Might and pressured Midoriya to admit it to him. Katsuki analyzes the way people’s quirks effect their body rather accurately. An example is him assuming Todoroki to be a video game character in order to get an insight of the way his quirk effects his body.

Tertiary-Fe

Katsuki’s tertiary function is not very healthy, especially at the beginning of the show. He picks up on others’ insecurities and knows how to make them feel better or worse. He bullied- and shamed Midoriya publicly by saying that he is not good enough to be a hero. He does not concern himself with forming relationships with people. Anyone who fails to catch his attention is treated as an “extra” and all his friendships are initiated from the other party. He finds little importance in sensitive topics, such as bluntly stating that he does not care about Todoroki’s family issues. All the shortcomings in his hero-performance are because of his lack of tact. In later seasons, he is seen using his tertiary function in healthier ways. He did not shamed- or ignored Kirishima’s feelings when he expressed his insecurity about not being strong like his classmates. Katsuki actually took the time to listen to him- and tell him that he is strong enough because of his courage.

Katsuki was also very upset by the idea of Midoriya tricking him into believing that he was quirkless. He even accused Midoriya of laughing behind his back when he bullied him. Katsuki is rather expressive with his emotions, but he mostly expresses all his emotions as the two he is most familiar with, anger and pride. His outburst at the end of the season 3 was a demonstration of Fe-Se loop. “All Might knows it was my fault but hasn’t said anything. Everyone has to know, though! I can’t get it out of my head. It’s like it’s constantly playing on loop! So what the hell am I supposed to do?!” He suddenly became extremely sensitive to how others perceive him and accused everyone of blaming him, when no one actually was. He saw his own guilt in the eyes of others. He also felt the need to vent his emotions by using violence because of his dominant-Se.

Inferior-Ni

Katsuki lacks restraints and often forgets to pay attention to the way his actions are adding up for the long run. He treated civilians tactlessly in the hero license exam, which ultimately led to his failure. He often looses himself in the moment. He was so caught up in beating up Midoriya to show his superiority in their first battle together, that he ended up losing because of not considering other important factors. Katsuki has had one goal since childhood and he is devoted to it. He is guided by the vision to become the “number 1 hero” and expresses frustration towards any obstacles that come in his way. He is confident about his gut-instincts about people’s intentions and motivations. “What you’re saying does not match the look in your eyes.” He bluntly stated without any doubt. He recognized the other Yuuei classes’ “demonstration of war” regarding the sports festival against Class 1A quicker than his classmates. He is able to pick up on hidden meanings and symbols, like when All Might said “It’s your turn” while pointing towards the camera, and Katsuki understood that he was referring to Midoriya.

Katsuki was not inclined to look at the big picture in the beginning of the series, but he slowly learned it. “If all you do is look down on people, you won’t be able to recognize your own weaknesses.” He gave that advice when babysitting a child.

Enneagram: 8w7

Tritype: 837 The Mover Shaker

Katsuki wants to be self-reliant and prove his strength to the world like a typical 8. He takes pride in not easily being afraid, and refuses to show vulnerability even in the situations he finds himself to be startled. His 7-wing makes him constantly search for the next challenge to win. He loves challenges to the point that he is willing to gamble on his victory for its sake, such as asking Todoroki to use his fire on him during their battle in the sports festival. Katsuki does not only want to win, he wants his opponents to know that they are weaker than him. Unfortunately, Katsuki was not the healthiest 8 in the beginning of the show. He was extremely swaggering and ego-centric, wanting everyone to be behind him and not considering anyone his equal. Katsuki was the “boss kid” in middle school and imposed his visions about quirkless people on Midoriya.

Katsuki denies vulnerability in favor of maintaining his independence. He does not like appearing weak, to the point that he was deeply infuriated when Midoriya expressed concern for him as a child. He hates feeling like a fool, which he certainly did when he assumed that Midoriya had a quirk all along but kept it hidden from him. It seems like Katsuki’s obsessive competition with Midoriya stems from a desire of reestablishing his power over him. Katsuki is competitive with all his peers, but his competition with Midoriya is on a deeper level. His strong 3-fix makes him addicted to victory, perfectionistic, hard-working, and hard on himself when facing failure. However, he refuses to shape himself into something that fits society’s standards of a desirable hero in order to be successful. He speaks his mind freely without any fear of judgment. His 7-fix + 7 wing makes him impulsive, expressive, and always ready to jump into action.

#bnha #boku no hero academia #katsuki bakugo #character analysis #psychology #bakugo katsuki #my hero academia #mbti #estp #8w7 #837 tritype #tritype #typology #anime characters #anime #myers briggs

56 notes · View notes

woman-loving · 5 years

Text

Are You Suffering From the BLA'S? New Disease Discovered in Bi Populations: The Bisexual Label Avoidance Syndrome

By Lucy Friedland

Ever notice how so many bisexuals refuse to call themselves bisexual? Many people who lead bisexual lives would rather call themselves nothing at all before calling themselves bi. Now some people are simply anti-label. You ask them why they don't call themselves bisexual, and they tell you that labels are too limiting. That they don't want to exclude themselves from any groups of people. Other people aren't anti-label per se, they just don't like the "b" word. They say they can't relate to it, that they don't even know what it means. You even come across certain "extreme" types, who definitely aren't squeamish about labels given that they adopt other stigmatized labels like sado-masochist, anarchist, pagan or punk, but even THEY wouldn't call themselves bisexual.

I recently co-led a workshop on bisexuality at an anarchist conference in San Francisco. About 45 people showed up. I thought, "Wow, what a great chance to get some discussion going on bi politics." I figured these people were "radicals," they must have some juicy stories of bisexual derring-do, not just between the sheets but protests, visibility actions, guerilla theatre and the like. Well, no such experiences surfaced in the workshop. These people wanted to talk about other things--their relationships, monogamy vs. nonmonogamy, the nature of desire. But mainly, what I heard was a long litany of reasons why people didn't want to call themselves bisexual. A number of self-defined "pansexuals" were sitting there, but out of the 45 people, very few felt comfortable with a bisexual label, and many felt they had nothing in common with people they know who call themselves bisexual. I was pretty floored considering this was billed as a workshop on bisexuality.

I don't think these negative feelings about the word "bisexual" are confined to anarchists. In fact the BLA'S, the Bisexual Label Avoidance Syndrome, seems to effect a large segment of the bi population. Now, I believe that everyone has the right to label or not to label themselves. We don't need a bunch of politicos becoming the Label Police. But the consequences of the BLA's--invisibility, discrimination, biphobia--are truly damaging. Until more of us start taking on the bisexual label, the growth of the bi community and bi political movement(s) will be stymied. A catch-22 is operative. Many people aren't taking on the label because of the lack of a visible and diverse bisexual community and culture. So our numbers stay small. I sense that the root cause of the BLA'S lies in issues of self-definition and coming out, so we'd better start there.

Published in Bi Women: The Newsletter of the Boston Bisexual Women's Network, Vol 7. No 5., Oct-Nov 1989. (Found on Page 1, Page 3, and Page 7.)

I don't think that people who feel desire toward people of various genders owe allegiance to the banner of "bisexuality" or are obligated to identify themselves in any particular way (or at all). But I found this 1989 article revealing in that it shows how these tensions around the word--and between those who do and don't adopt it--were manifesting in a similar way throughout the last several decades. I'm sure ambivalence over the word "bisexual" goes back further than that, and I suspect it will be an ongoing phenomenon. While this ambivalence might stem for misconceptions about bisexuals, it can also reflect a desire for greater precision in describing diverse and internally-complex sexualities, or frustration with the term's historical development and etymology (a legacy which I doubt will be fully exorcised any time soon, even as we reconstruct the word for our own purposes). These tensions themselves prompt creativity in conceptualizing our sexualities, within and beyond the term "bisexual."

I think bisexual outreach should include supporting the potential for and expression of desire across genders even in people who may choose not to use the "bisexual" label; I hope we can have the flexibility to recognize in each other similar goals and desires, even when the words we use may be different. Stigmatizing and limiting definitions of bisexuality can be challenged without ambivalence itself being pathologized.

#bisexuality #bi tumblr #pan discourse #biunite

78 notes · View notes

nezumiismissing · 4 years

Text

Missing Character Analysis Pt.3

So we come to part 3 of this series, finally. For the uninitiated, this is where I talk about the characters that were included in the novels/manga but left out of the anime for any multitude of reasons, and how their omission affects the story as a whole (Part 1+Part 2). I won’t say it’s the last one, because there are a few more characters I want to talk about, but this will probably be the last long one, as the characters remaining are fairly minor and there isn’t quite as much to analyze. That being said, this monstrosity is over 3000 words, so if you do decide to read it, make sure you have the time. It’s kind of wild, things get a little conceptual/abstract, but it’s at least marginally coherent, and that’s all that really matters, right?

So this time around we’re actually going to be talking about two characters, Fennec and lab coat man, not because they are too minor to deserve their own posts, but because they are too interconnected to focus on one without talking about the other. As the leaders of No.6 they hold a huge amount of power, and yet their dialogue occurs almost entirely between themselves. And while individually they are completely different people, what makes them strong characters is much more about the role they play as a single force within the city. Each one of them will get a section of their own, and then at the end we’ll move into the discussion of them as a “unit” and how their absence affects certain aspects of the anime. I'm going to start with lab coat man because, for me at least, Fennec is the far more interesting of the two, so I wanted to save him for last, as well as the fact that chronologically, he also makes the last appearance out of the two of them. Also I’m just going to call him Labcoat because he doesn’t have a name and that’s basically his only identifying feature.

Let’s actually start with that. The fact that he doesn’t have a name (even less so than the mayor) but still appears in the story is extremely odd. I’ve mentioned in the past that something I really like about the anime is the lack of any characters guiding No.6’s actions, which make it seem like a full character with a will of its own (I will touch on this later). But there’s something almost as creepy about knowing who the antagonist of the story is, having an in-depth understanding of his ideology (even if it’s bullshit), seeing him have full on one-on-one conversations with other important characters, and yet having no way to really identify who they are or how they ended up in this position. His character is overly vague and simplified, but to an extent that ends up being nearly as terrifying as him not existing at all. He’s the one that’s actually running No.6, making every major decision about what direction the city should move in up until the very end of the story, and yet his death happens without us seeing it, and without the intervention of any of the main characters. This functions not only as a way to show how insane he was or to what extent he isolated himself in order to do his work, but also reveals the fact that he is completely unnecessary. Not to the story of course, he’s very important to our understanding of No.6, but to No.6 itself, his existence was meaningless. No one outside of Fennec and Safu (the two people he is shown interacting with) ever make reference to his existence, and even after he dies, and the main characters find his body in the mayor’s office, he is only mentioned for a moment to explain what had happened to him. He seems perfectly happy with this arrangement, but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. How did he become the most powerful man in No.6? Why did he do it? Was complete power always his intention, or was he an idealist in the beginning like everyone else? We’ll never know the answer to these questions, but at the same time, it doesn’t really matter why he did it. Labcoat is a character that is so integral to the story and its events that his motives and existence outside of his ideology become completely meaningless. Which almost seems contradictory, but is also maybe the point of his character. Rather than an actual character with a concrete purpose and role in the story, he is a stand-in for the ideology that drives No.6, similar to the way that Rashi acts as a personification of the sociopolitical status of the city (please read my obscenely long post about Rashi).

At the root of this ideology, and Labcoat’s character, is the overwhelming fear of failure and losing control. Scenes including him are centered on his progress updates, which immediately are recognizable as nothing but reassurances, that “it was only a small obstacle”, that “it should be under control now”. At no point are we under the illusion that he actually knows what he is doing, and with no information regarding what is actually going on until near the end of the story, we are left to watch him desperately struggle with something that is either impossible, or doesn’t exist at all, much like the concept of utopia itself. We already know that his ideology and rational thought process will not allow him to accept impossibilities or non-understandings however, and so it is at this moment that we fully become an active part of the story ourselves, not as simple observers or analysts, but instead as a driving force in the plot, here in the form of the source of Labcoat's paranoia. Within the story, there is no doubt in his mind that anything and everything can fall under his control, and to a point, he is right. Elyurias is ultimately able to defeat him and No.6, but only after severe damage has already been done and some control had been taken from her temporarily. By existing outside of the story, we exist fully outside of his realm of control, and in recognizing our existence, he must come face to face with the reality that certain things exist that cannot be rationalized (more thoughts on this concept another time). Again similar to Rashi, this realization causes the collapse of his ideology, and by extension, No.6. Because that ideology is the entirety of his character, there is no reason for him to remain a part of the story, and so he is killed, quite literally, by irrationality.

Fennec is one of those characters that from the outset is obviously more complex than is let on. He's the undisputed mayor of No.6, wielding unprecedented power over every single character we meet in the story. But he doesn't really want any of it. And as I mentioned above, he doesn’t really have it either. Now whether he realizes that he is being used by Labcoat or not is unclear (up to a certain point), but it is obvious that he knows that he is not fully in control of the city. His only real job is to serve as the face of No.6 and its perceived ideals, keeping the general population from ever suspecting that anything may be wrong. However, even in this job he is unable to succeed, and ultimately only exacerbates the process by which citizens become suspicious of the city’s leadership. He is arguably the most ideologically pure character in the entire series, other than perhaps Karan, whose ideology is not fully developed over the course of the story, and Safu, whose purpose in the story does not even necessitate any kind of socio-political stance on her part. Despite what he has ended up doing and taking part in, I don’t think that he ever really moved away from dreaming of an ideal world, and while much of his uncertainty about his position certainly stems from being unsure of whether or not they are moving the city in the right direction, I believe that much of it is also part of working towards one of the questions that frames the entire series: “Is it even possible to create an ideal world?”. Without an answer to this question, he is unable to overcome his uncertainty about his own position in the city or move forward ideologically, and thus is easily used as a tool by others such as Labcoat to further their own agendas and ideological positions, rather than develop his own ideas and work towards his own goals of utopia.

While some of the other characters such as Labcoat, and to a certain extent Rashi, are very much a personified version of the city in its idealized authoritarian form, Fennec exists very much on the opposite side of the spectrum, and instead paints a picture of the political and ideological structure of No.6 as it actually is, and likely always has been. While Fennec, like everyone else in the Rebirth Project, went into the creation of No.6 with utopian ideals, he is also probably the first, if not only, one of them to realize that what they were attempting was likely impossible, at least in the way they were attempting to do it. With the information about him we are given, it seems safe to assume that he may have been suspicious from the start, and perhaps was pushed into the leadership position not only as a way for Labcoat to become the de facto ruler of the city, but also in order to convince him that the city was indeed possible, and that it could only happen with Fennec's help. This of course was never a good idea, and likely led to a good portion of the instability that allowed the story to happen in the first place, but by portraying a leader that is so uncertain not only of the concept of the city itself, but also in his ability to lead such a city, we are able to see just how unstable the situation has been from the very beginning. This makes Karan’s comments about Fennec much more interesting as well, as at face value these are obviously comments about the distrust of leadership in the city, and thus distrust in the city itself, but in seeing Fennec’s own insecurity, we are able to place these comments also within the context of a distrust of the self, and a recognition that the entire situation is really out of everyone’s control, making the stability that marks No.6 as the “Holy City” subject to collapse at any time and for basically any reason, which of course it ultimately does.

Basically every death in this story has immense impact, often resulting in significant character development or otherwise important shifts in the story, and Fennec’s death is no exception to this. Like Labcoat, his death occurs without being seen and without intervention, although this time the main characters are at least aware that it is happening, but nonetheless it shifts the tone of the moment. In my experiences reading this scene, it’s always been there to create a quiet, grounding moment for both us and the characters to come back to reality and start processing everything that has happened over the past 9 books. The entire last half of the series is incredibly dense with action scenes, sensory overload, and things that are so far separated from reality that it’s difficult to figure out exactly what their purpose is, and even before entering the Correctional Facility, peaceful scenes are few and far between. So in this brief moment at the end of the series, when we know for a fact that No.6 has finally fallen and the nightmare is (mostly) over, we are finally able to enjoy a single moment of certainty amidst what is otherwise complete chaos. In these moments we are able to see Fennec realize not that he had necessarily lost against Nezumi, Shion, and the protesters, as his actions were almost entirely a result of Labcoat’s manipulation, but that he had been manipulated in the first place, and that his own life had been taken over by the “idea” of No.6, rather than the reality of it. The death of Labcoat and the realization of what had truly transpired within the city results in a return of control to Fennec over his own life, as well as over the city. With his knowledge of the city’s truth, and newfound power over it, he must now make the choice of whether or not to justify everything that has happened up to this point. Manipulated or not, he recognizes his position as the symbol of the city, and therefore his role in its actions, and so in keeping with his utopian ideology, he does the only thing he feels is appropriate in order to avoid going against his ideals and once again relinquishing his self determination to a yet-undecided power. I can’t say whether or not that choice was the right one, and opinions are probably going to differ a lot between people, but it is at least an action that, unlike so much of the rest of the series, is not unexpected and can be rationalized outside of an authoritative framework.

I’ve already done some of this, but this last section is going to go into how these two function as the single unit running No.6, and thus how their lack of presence affects the structure of the anime. On their own of course neither one of them would be able to take on the position of leading the entire city, and although neither one really seems interested in being deeply involved with the other, they have become dependent on each other in order to remain individually stable, with Labcoat needing reassurance that he is indeed in charge, and Fennec needing reassurance that an ideal society can exist, despite neither of those things being entirely true. As a unit, they represent two sides of No.6 in reverse relation to their own positon within the city. That is, Labcoat represents the idealism and scientific superiority that characterizes the world’s perception of the city while remaining a highly secretive figure, while Fennec represents the frailty of the city that is kept hidden from the citizens, despite acting as the city’s public persona (I will be referring to them as a unit from now own because their function is collective rather than individual here). This unit itself is a highly isolated structure (relationship), interacting with only a few other characters within the story during important moments, but otherwise interacting only within itself. This is what allows this setup to work at all, as their isolation enables them to freely trade information and plans between themselves without involving others or worrying about the information finding its way out of the structure. While it is clearly highly manipulative on the part of Labcoat, this is unclear to Fennec as well as the citizens who watch the mayor speak, and so the unit is able to stay intact as it is without being questioned by those who may seek to oppose it. This does not free them from criticism, obviously, but instead makes it impossible to criticize only one or the other from the perspective of a citizen, because as far as they are concerned, they are the same person. The unit, in having two distinctly different personalities functionally taking the place of one, is able to efficiently complete tasks semi-publically that would otherwise be seen as unacceptable by publicly presenting itself, and in fact believing itself to be, an idealized system of leadership which works in the citizen’s favor. Labcoats’s mistakes are able to be rationalized as small obstacles through the lens of Fennec’s nonunderstanding, and Fennec’s paranoia of this nonunderstanding mitigated through Labcoat’s complete trust in scientific inquiry and methods.

Despite the omission of these characters and the unit entirely from the anime, the story is still able to work because the city itself is able to take the place of the unit as the primary actor in the events of the story. With no leadership being portrayed throughout the anime, we are left with the impression that the events are unfolding independently of any kind of governmental system, or at least the government that does exist is vague and devoid of ideology outside of “militant authoritarianism”. Instead these events are framed almost as a type of natural occurrence that likely could not be avoided without the formation of some kind of mediation system such as a government, and without such a system, the responsibility falls somewhere else: society as a whole (or more specifically No.6). With no visible government in the form of the Fennec/Labcoat unit to control and mediate the situation, the unit expands to include everyone, as they become collectively responsible for governing themselves and thus understanding and accepting to a certain extent what is happening throughout the story. It would be a significant understatement to say that the sociological implications of this are immense, and someday I will write that essay. But today is not that day, so we’re going to stay surface level.

I would like to point out that yes, obviously this is not actually how No.6 functions. It’s not an autonomous collective governed by the people. It’s not even kind of a democracy. My point isn’t so much to say that No.6 is or even approaches being either of those things, but rather that the structure of the story, by excluding certain details and characters, gives us a conceptualization of No.6 that is far different from the one portrayed in the novels, and thus may in certain instances be seen as ideologically distinct. In this instance, the omission of Fennec and Labcoat, both independently of each other and as a unit, serve to create the feeling of the situation in No.6 as being entirely out of control, not as a planned series of events or experiments, but rather as a spontaneous occurrence fed by unexplained impulses felt by certain members of society, here taking the form of those recognizable as government officials or soldiers. While the government is certainly mentioned in the anime, and clearly exists in some form that is able to exert that level of control over the citizens, it exists mainly because the way we live requires a government, and so any story that does not explicitly state otherwise is simply assumed to have one that functions in a way we can recognize and relate to.

In the novels, although they are not the only ones in the government, Fennec and Labcoat occupy the highest position, and are able to confirm the existence of a structured government, and give insight into the background and current issues facing that government. Through them, the events taking place are to a certain extent demystified, and while not explained entirely, we are able to more accurately identify those events as being somewhat purposeful and directly related to the overarching story. Their absence in the anime, while useful in its own way for adapting the themes of the story and creating a sense of mystery in a visual medium, also result in a (perhaps unintended) ideological shift in the overall message of the story, leaving it unclear as to what exactly happened, or could happen in the future. Also, like most things that got left out of the anime, this seems to be at least partially a result of the time crunch of fitting 9 books into only 11 episodes, so while I may have (a lot of) issues with the overall result of this particular change, there also isn’t really much that could have been done about it outside of just making the show longer (which they should have done but I know that wasn’t really an option). Ultimately though, through Fennec and Labcoat, and their existence as a unit in the series, we are able to better contextualize the events of No.6’s story, understand how those events came to take place, and get a better sense of how No.6 as a city and a society really functions. With their omission, we not only lose those understandings, but the ideology portrayed and supported by the story also change, and while that change may not be important to the overall enjoyment of the story, the implications end up being quite significant, and not necessarily in the way you would want.

#no.6 #no. 6 #no.6 analysis #long post #this is disgustingly long i cannot believe #i dont think ive ever had such mixed feelings about something ive written before #its kind of a mess #please feel free to completely rip into it #thats what its for #plus im curious to see what yall think about some of these topics *eyes emoji*#also if you make it all the way to the end of this you are my hero #big shoutout to this being the longest single essay ive written for anything ever #original

21 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 4 years

Link

The New York Times is literally a propaganda outlet and Timothy Egan is a deceitful chode. His every word drips with the anxious desperation of the Democrats who know their goose is cooked.

Watching “Succession,” the HBO show about the most despicable plutocrats to seize the public imagination since the Trumps were forced on us, made me want to tax the ultrarich into a homeless shelter. And it almost made a Bernie Bro of me.

That’s the thing about class loathing: It feels good, a moral high with its own endorphins, but is ultimately self-defeating. A Bernie Sanders rally is a hit from the same pipe: Screw those greedy billionaire bastards!

Sanders has passion going for him. He has authenticity. He certainly has consistency: His bumper-sticker sloganeering hasn’t changed for half a century. He was, “even as a young man, an old man,” as Time magazine said.

But he cannot beat Donald Trump, for the same reason people do not translate their hatred of the odious rich into pitchfork brigades against walled estates.

Because powerful oligarchs that own their government murder them with impunity when they do.

>March 7 was a bitterly cold day in Detroit, and a crowd estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 gathered near the Dearborn city limits, about a mile from the Ford plant. The Detroit Times called it "one of the coldest days of the winter, with a frigid gale whooping out of the northwest". Marchers carried banners reading "Give Us Work, "We Want Bread Not Crumbs", and "Tax the Rich and Feed the Poor". Albert Goetz gave a speech, asking that the marchers avoid violence. The march proceeded peacefully along the streets of Detroit until it reached the Dearborn city limits.

>There, the Dearborn police attempted to stop the march by firing tear gas into the crowd and began hitting marchers with clubs. One officer fired a gun at the marchers. The unarmed crowd scattered into a field covered with stones, picked them up, and began throwing stones at the police. The angry marchers regrouped and advanced nearly a mile toward the plant. There, two fire engines began spraying cold water onto the marchers from an overpass. The police were joined by Ford security guards and began shooting into the crowd. Marchers Joe York, Coleman Leny and Joe DeBlasio were killed, and at least 22 others were wounded by gunfire.

>The leaders decided to call off the march at that point and began an orderly retreat. Harry Bennett, head of Ford security, drove up in a car, opened a window, and fired a pistol into the crowd. Immediately, the car was pelted with rocks, and Bennett was injured. He got out of the car and continued firing at the retreating marchers. Dearborn police and Ford security men opened fire with machine guns on the retreating marchers. Joe Bussell, 16 years old, was killed, and dozens more men were wounded. Bennett was hospitalized for his injury.

> All of the seriously wounded marchers were arrested, and the police chained many to their hospital beds after they were admitted for treatment. A nationwide search was conducted for William Z. Foster, but he was not arrested. No law enforcement or Ford security officer was arrested, although all reliable reports showed that they had engaged in all the gunfire, resulting in deaths, injuries and property damage. The New York Times reported that "Dearborn streets were stained with blood, streets were littered with broken glass and the wreckage of bullet-riddled automobiles, and nearly every window in the Ford plant's employment building had been broken".

The United States has never been a socialist country, even when it most likely should have been one, during the robber baron tyranny of the Gilded Age or the desperation of the Great Depression, and it never will be. Which isn’t to say that American capitalism is working; it needs Teddy Roosevelt-style trustbusting and restructuring. We’re coming for you, Facebook.

Yeah, just look how well that’s worked out, you fucking idiot.

The next month presents the last chance for serious scrutiny of Sanders, who is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire. After that, Republicans will rip the bark off him. When they’re done, you will not recognize the aging, mouth-frothing, business-destroying commie from Ben and Jerry’s dystopian dairy. Demagogy is what Republicans do best. And Sanders is ripe for caricature.

The same Republicans that got their breakfast ate by the dottering windbag cheetoman? The same Republicans that are unpopular with over half the fucking country? The same Republicans which have shown majority support for Sanders’s policies in the past? Those are the Republicans you’re talking about, right, Timothy, you fucking asshole?

I’m not worried about the Russian stuff — Bernie’s self-described “very strange honeymoon” to the totalitarian hell of the Soviet Union in 1988, and his kind words for similar regimes. Compared with a president who is a willing stooge for the Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, a little vodka-induced dancing with the red bear is peanuts.

Nor am I worried about the legitimate questions concerning the candidate’s wife, Jane Sanders, who ran a Vermont college into the ground. Again, Trump’s family of grifters — from Ivanka securing her patents from China while Daddy made other promises to Beijing, to Don Jr.’s using the White House to leverage the family brand — give Democrats more than enough ammunition to return the fire.

This is fun. Due to a complete lack of incriminating conduct, little Timmy has to invent wrongdoing to libel Jane Sanders. I suppose he’s relying on his readers being too stupid to read the article that he himself links, another NYT hitpiece that desperately tries to paint Ms Sanders as a shady character without anything in the way of tangible proof.

>Federal prosecutors have not spoken publicly about their investigation, though late last year, Ms. Sanders’s lead lawyer said he had been told it had been closed. And while doubts remain about the contribution pledges claimed by the college, the lawyer has said that neither Ms. Sanders nor her husband was even questioned by investigators, indicating a lack of significant evidence of a crime.

>After Ms. Sanders’s ouster, the college’s troubles worsened. It abandoned a promising effort she had undertaken to sell some of its new land to improve its finances, interviews show. A few years later, when it did begin selling, it was to a consortium that secretly included at least one member of its board, raising conflict-of-interest questions.

>There is little question that the college’s 2016 demise can be traced to Ms. Sanders’s decision to champion an aggressive — critics say reckless — plan to buy the land. But with potential students put off by the lack of a campus, and with many such colleges struggling at the time, her move was the academic equivalent of a Hail Mary. Her allies said she never had a chance to fulfill her vision.

>“Jane made an audacious gambit to save the college,” said Genevieve Jacobs, a former faculty member. “It seemed to be a moment of ‘change or die.’”

>In interviews and emails, Ms. Sanders expressed frustration at her dismissal and the college’s failure to continue her rescue plan.

>“They went a completely different direction in every way than what we had proposed and decided upon as a board — with the bank, with the diocese, the bonding agency,” she said. “They didn’t carry out any of the plan. It was very confusing and upsetting at the time.”

The TL;DR seems to be: Jane Sanders tried to save a struggling school with an audacious but risky plan that ended up being aborted when she was let go by by a board, some of the members of which may have had a stake in seeing it fail. At the very least, a much more complex situation than the aspersion of “running it into the ground.”

Trump bragged about sexual assault, paid off a porn star and ran a fraudulent university. He sucks up to dictators and tells a half-dozen lies before he puts his socks on in the morning. A weird column about a rape fantasy from 1972 is not going to sink Bernie when Trump has debased all public discourse.

No, what will get the Trump demagogue factory working at full throttle is the central message of the Sanders campaign: that the United States needs a political revolution. It may very well need one. But most people don’t think so, as Barack Obama has argued. And getting two million new progressive votes in the usual area codes is not going to change that.

“Ah jeez, ah fuck, he has no sexual indiscretions that I can dredge up and his Feminist polemic against pornography and the rape culture that it engenders is old news, and if I actually reported on it honestly people might actually read it and support his ideas. Oh, well, you see, despite the incredible groundswell of support for just such a thing, Barack Obama, the man that gave the banks trillions of dollars and then allowed the state apparatus to function as their gestapo-cum-storm troopers, says we don’t need one!”

Timothy Egan wants to dismiss “two million new progressive votes” after doing a little gaslighting. His Democrat masters don’t want people to remember that it was Obama’s promises of Hope and Change after 8 years of Republican tyranny that generated a record breaking voter turnout. They would also like you to forget that 2016 was a 20-year low in voter turnout. Do you think those things are related, Mr Egan? Do you think that there might be some connection between Obama taking advantage of the desperation of millions of people, betraying them, and then those people not fucking showing up next time, causing your party to lose to the dimwit that they themselves boosted to the position?

Give Sanders credit for moving public opinion along on a living wage, higher taxes on the rich and the need for immediate action to stem the immolation of the planet. Most great ideas start on the fringe and move to the middle.

But some of his other ideas are stillborn, or never get beyond the fringe. Socialism, despite its flavor-of-the-month appeal to young people, is not popular with the general public. Just 39 percent of Americans view socialism positively, a bare uptick from 2010, compared with 87 percent who have a positive view of free enterprise, Gallup found last fall.

“Just” 39 percent of Americans, up 4% from 2016. This is ignoring for the moment that due to Americans’ piss-poor education system they have no idea what “Socialism” means aside from “more government.” Looking at the breakdown of results, it seems as though they just asked people off the top of their head what they thought about X, no definition or elaboration given. Unsurprisingly, when you look at the actual numbers on specific issues, you can see exactly why Egan has to play this deceptive bullshit: of respondents 18-34, 52% have a favorable view of “Socialism,” as opposed to 47% supporting “Capitalism.” This is in sharp contrast to the 35-54 and 55+ cohorts. 65% of Democrats have a favorable view of “Socialism.” Those with a “Liberal” ideology are even more in favor at 74%, Timothy Egan, you massive shithead.

What’s more, American confidence in the economy is now at the highest level in nearly two decades. That’s hardly the best condition for overthrowing the system.

"The highest level in nearly two decades.” That’s faint fucking praise right there.

You can see the tremendous fucking crater caused by the crash in 2007/8, a reversal of a whopping -81 points from the previous year. With many economists forecasting recession beginning either this year or the next, we’ll see how long the confidence lasts.

So-called Medicare for all, once people understand that it involves eliminating all private insurance, polls at barely above 40 percent in some surveys, versus the 70 percent who favor the option of Medicare for all who want it. Other polls show majority support. But cost is a huge concern. And even Sanders cannot give a price tag for nationalizing more than one-sixth of the economy.

A ban on fracking is a poison pill in a must-win state like Pennsylvania, which Democrats lost by just over 44,000 votes in 2016. Eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another Sanders plan, is hugely unpopular with the general public.

“Medicare for all is really unpopular, except when it isn’t.”

Hmm, you know? Hmmm.

As for fracking, from his own link:

>A November poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Cook Political Report found that only 39 percent of Pennsylvania swing voters saw a fracking ban as a good idea, even as nearly 7 in 10 of those same voters said they supported the idea of a “Green New Deal” for the environment.

Democrats are whinging on the jobs “lost” to a fracking ban as though it exists in isolation. 39% might support a fracking ban, but 70% support the GND, which could potentially offset the “job loss” with industry that has the potential not to leave their state as a fucking environmentally ruined horror show. I haven’t run the numbers on this, but not living in a cesspool of polluted air and water tends to be pretty popular, Timbo.

More shellgames from Mr Egan regarding abolishing ICE.

> Only 1 in 4 voters in the poll, 25 percent, believe the federal government should get rid of ICE. The majority, 54 percent, think the government should keep ICE. Twenty-one percent of voters are undecided.

That sounds bad. Maybe it’s not such a good ide

>But a plurality of Democratic voters do support abolishing ICE, the poll shows. Among Democrats, 43 percent say the government should get rid of ICE, while only 34 percent say it should keep ICE.

Oh.

Sanders is a rigid man, and he projects grumpy-old-man rigidity, with his policy prescriptions frozen in failed Marxist pipe dreams. He’s unlikely to change. I sort of like that about his character, in the same way I like that he didn’t cave to the politically correct bullies who went after him for accepting the support of the influential podcaster Joe Rogan.

Democrats win with broad-vision optimists who still shake up the system — Franklin Roosevelt, of course, but also Obama. The D’s flipped 40 House seats in 2018 without using any of Sanders’s stringent medicine. If they stick to that elixir they’ll oust Trump, the goal of a majority of Americans.

Democrats lose with fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists. Three times, the party nominated William Jennings Bryan, the quirky progressive with great oratorical pipes, and three times they were trounced. Look him up, kids. Your grandchildren will do a similar search for Bernie Sanders when they wonder how Donald Trump won a second term.

“Failed Marxist pipe dreams.” Aaaaay lmao. You should also have an inkling something is wrong when you have to go all the way back to FDR to find someone that supports your point. Talk about “poison pills,” Obama proved himself to be as much of a snake as the rest, and the effects of that resonated in 2016 when the Dems ran on a platform of “that’s a nice country you have there, you wouldn’t want Trump to get elected, would you?” How did that work out? You ran one of the most unpopular politicians in the country—after very blatantly rigging the primaries against Sanders to do so—against one of the most unpopular capitalists in the country, and lost, dipshit!

Ironically, I think Timbob’s closing statement will prove true, though not in the way his clown ass intends. Shills like Egan are doing everything they can to try and poison public perception against Sanders and his policies, who only proves increasingly popular as time goes on, so much so in fact that the DNC is already biting its nails and muttering to itself about ways it can try and cheat his supporters again.

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

They deny it in the article, claim that changing the rules would be “bad sportsmanship,” but one would be a fool to believe them. If anything, their ambivalence towards relying on Superdelegates would make me even more nervous at this stage. Politico wants it to seem like the DNC is bent on playing fair, but more likely than not they have no intention of changing the convention rules because they believe there’s no need. With Warren’s flagging support and the luke-warm response to Biden, I doubt they’re overcome with optimism of beating Sanders in an honest primary. With all the shenanigans from last time’s primaries in mind, it’s likely that the machinery to rig the results their way is already in place—the primary could already be over before it even begins.

8 notes · View notes

lesbiskam · 5 years

Text

A (not so) Simple Analysis of Ele and Edo’s First Date (or why I didn’t hate this clip like I normally do)

I was going to make a “in this essay I will...” thing but then I accidentally wrote the dam essay... whoops :) it’s under the cut

First, I’m going to address the overall vibe I got from Ele, which is super important. Ele seemed very defiant the entire time, which may seem bad, but stick with me. In my opinion, Noora seemed very uncomfortable as soon as she greeted William. It’s almost as if you can feel the power imbalance. Noora has been forced to go on a date with William, and she almost seems scared because of it (almost). However, Ele really seems to hold her own. True, she doesn’t really want to be there, but she doesn’t seem intimidated, she just seems straight up pissed (which is completely understandable). It’s very clear from the start that Edo really has no power over Ele, and every thing she does is her own choice and not because she feels like she has to. (If you don’t see what I’m feeling, then I’m sorry, because I really don’t know how to explain the vibe.)

Now, some people might sit there and think “but why is this little detail so important?” Good news, I can explain that too :) Ele might have said that this wasn’t a real “date” and she might be right, but it that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. This is the first time that Ele and Edo really start to get to know each other. This “fake date” sets up their dynamic for the entire season. In the case of William and Noora, William seems to have far too much power over Noora. Noora also loses her confidence and becomes weak throughout the season. Both of these things start on the very first date. The power dynamic stems from the vibes on the first date, regardless of if it’s fake or real. By making Ele angry instead of (kinda) intimidated, it gives Edo no power over her. Without this power, Ele will not be able to be manipulated as easily. (Edo won’t manipulate her anyway, but that’s besides this point.) This change in the power dynamic lets Ele make her own decisions far more easily, without manipulation, which is crucial to a healthy relationship.

(Also, I don’t know if this was purposeful or just how it ended up. It could just be a coincidence, but it makes a big difference in my eyes.)

But now onto the actual content itself:

Like all the Williams, Edo starts by sharing his memories with Ele. Ele sees this as a tactic to try to win her over and not genuine, but this isn’t necessarily true. Yes, he is doing it to get into Ele’s favor; yes, he probably rehearsed it. But I don’t think these things are particularly bad in this situation. He doesn’t have malicious intent to manipulate or confuse Ele’s feelings, he just wants Ele to understand/like him.

Okay when Edo tries to say he didn’t force Ele? A lie. And we all know this. he blackmailed her into going on the date, and then twists things into his favor, as Ele said. But, thankfully, Ele doesn’t back down on her stance. She does not let Edo’s shitty behavior change her thinking. (I will also say that Edo is not a complete shit because he eventually does agree that he shouldn’t have texted Silvia because she would have seen it as flirting.) (Although, I’ve always thought it was really shitty how “William” thought it was okay to force “Noora” to go on a date, even if it was just honoring a deal.) Anyway, Ele was good about not giving in to Edo’s shitty-ness, which is pretty important imo. By Ele saying that she did it out of love for Silvia instead of liking Edo (and not giving a counter argument to this point), it shows that Ele is the correct one in the situation, which was not the vibe from the OG.

Ele is very sassy and amazing when saying why, exactly, Edo is a shit. And most of these are true. But when she calls him sexist, I disagree. Edo was a major fuck boy in the past, and many people would say this makes him sexist. (Personally, I would classify this behavior as sexist, but as asshole-ish, but that’s irrelevant.) However, I disagree that Edo is sexist. He head-butted a dude for calling a girl a slut. (Ele, however, still sees these actions as wrong, which will inevitably be addressed later in the season.) From a writing standpoint, I don’t think slipping that into the conversation was a coincidence. They (as in the writers) did it on purpose to show that Edo isn’t actually “sexist”, despite displaying sexist/dick-ish behavior in the past.

Now, normally, I hate when “William” compares how he insulted “Vilde” as to when “Noora” insults him, but in Edo’s situation, I understand more of where he’s coming from. The Edo/Ele insult match felt more equal to me. Ele seemed a little bit harsher/ruder and Edo seemed a little less harsh, so this comparison is understandable. I still disagree with Edo, but I understand where he’s coming from and I don’t think he’s being manipulative like William was.

And of course, the dreaded rhetoric about how one comment can’t destroy a person’s self-esteem. There are multiple things I want to address about this whole thing, but the first is that I disagree with the statement, like many people. The right well-placed words can absolutely plant seeds of doubt that spiral into annihilation of one’s confidence. Second, I think it’s important to state how Edo said it was “really difficult” to destroy someone’s confidence with one comment, not impossible. This seems pretty small and trivial, but to me it really shows how Edo is not trying to prove something. He’s not saying “this is how it is, I’m right, and you’re naïve”, he more of saying “this is just how it seems to me”. Third, I need to address how Edo thought about it before he said it. Really thought about it. He was open to discussion. He wasn’t shooting Ele down, he was talking with her. He was just trying to explain himself. Fourth (this is the biggie), I think it’s really important to recognize the context of the situation. Edo did not say anything that should have destroyed Silvia’s confidence, and it didn’t destroy her confidence. (As a refresher, Edo never said Silvia wasn’t good enough, but just asked why she was behind the boy’s bathroom.) The comment was made to make Silvia embarrassed (which is really shitty), and it worked. But it was a short-term embarrassment, not a long-term blow to her self-esteem. So, in Edo’s mind, it would make sense to say that a comment like that shouldn’t destroy someone.

Then, Edo admits it was wrong what he did. He admits that he what he did wasn’t fair to Silvia. Yeah, it was pretty half-assed, but it’s a start. He isn’t perfect, and admitting that he was wrong is a big thing. AND, he didn’t seem to say it just to make Ele like him, he actually seems to recognize that what he did was wrong (god, what a low bar…).

Again, another dreaded rhetoric. He asks Ele to look at the situation from his perspective. Cue eye roll. However I have to say that the way he said it seemed a little better. It felt less like “I’m right and you’re wrong blah blah blah” and more of “I’m not as big of an ass as you think I am”. He only wants Ele to understand where he’s coming from. He just desperately wants Ele to like him. He’s not being manipulative or anything like that. And… I understand his sentiment.

Okay, now let’s just take a long second to appreciate how he didn’t let Ele compliment him when he didn’t deserve it. You know what that is? Growth. As much as he wants Ele’s compliments and praise, he doesn’t want it if he doesn’t deserve it. Ele tries to compliment him on apologizing to Silvia, and but he calls out his behavior anyway. If he just wanted Ele to like him, he wouldn’t bring this up, but now we can see that he actually cares about being a decent person. He doesn’t want to manipulate Ele into thinking he’s a good person, he actually wants to be a better person for Ele (cue the “awwwwww”). He wants Ele to genuinely like him. He wants to actually earn her approval.

And that little “you’re right” “I know” exchange? 10/10. 1) She’s right and he should say it. 2) Gotta acknowledge his growth for admitting that he’s wrong and she’s right. 3) That was really cute (I’ve actually dreamt up this scenario before, so when it actually happened? I lost my shit, guys).

When Edo gets the call, you can see how bad he doesn’t want the date to end. He hangs up once, then apologizes for having to answer. He really just loves being around Ele, even if she’s roasting him. And obviously Ele doesn’t want the date to end either. She runs after him, being all cute and asking what’s wrong.

But then she breaks his Ele-shaped heart by asking if her debt is payed. His little “you don’t owe me anything” is just so painful. He’s just so sad that Ele doesn’t want anything to do with him, and that she only ever saw the little date as something she owed. He wants so badly to mean something to Ele. Remember, he really wants to earn her approval. He tried so hard to show her that he was a better person than he was a year ago. And this probably feels like a stab to the gut to him. After all this, Ele still doesn’t like him. The approval he wants so bad is denied. As a person who constantly seeks other people’s approval, can I just say big oof?

(TL;DR: this date seemed better imo even though the changes were actually minuscule)

((Also, I’m very sorry to those who actually read through all of this, you’re braver than any US marines. This was ridicouly long, repetitive, and unnecessary. And in the longest paragraphs possible. This was ruch a rant...oops.))

(((AND a big thanks to @skamitaliasubs for providing translations <3)))

#skam italia #skamit #skam it #skam #incantava #long ass post beware #i had to repost because the first post was reeeaallly fucked up for some reason

187 notes · View notes

nathalia417-blog · 5 years

Text

Essay #1:

Many say that life is not like in movies, but movies are based on life or at least on what we would like life to be like. The main difference is that movie producers tend add a bit, or a bit too much, imagination to their tales. Although, if I’m honest, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Truth be told, there are many films that I would like to turn into my reality. Regardless, I can’t be too greedy so I would just bring the attractive actors to my life. Bradley Cooper if you're reading this, take a hint * wink wink *.

In short, although life often resembles a film, things don’t always work out as extraordinarily as they do on the big screen. Still, even though we all know that, I believe without a doubt that films can help mold the perspective you bring to the world as an individual. In my case, I always enjoyed watching talk shows where people presented their problems and the television host would offer an opinion that more often than not, was accompanied by a recommendation to help solve the situation at hand. I also reveled in watching unsolved crime shows. Somewhere along the way, I identified as a person who wanted to help solve what for most may seem impossible or too hard.

As a result, I’ve dedicated four years to receiving education in the art of social work and have developed a bit of a complex; a superhero complex. Said complex has shaped my perspective on the world, and how others, especially my family members regard me. This is mainly because, like a superhero, I believe that I can save the world from their doom, even if they have not even asked for help. Of course, I don’t mean it quite literally considering the whole macro level, I’m only one person of course. Yet, I can help save the life of many individuals that need support while battling their demons. I really don’t know a better way to cure or save the world.

I’m only 21 years old, so I’m still not sure of many things in life. There are things I believe in and some things I don’t, but I’ve always been convinced that everything happens for a reason and if it does not happen, there’s also a reason behind it. I’m consistent with this perspective in life because I’ve confirmed it. In my darkest times, I have been able to learn the greatest lessons; it was all just a matter of giving myself time to understand. Thanks to that, nowadays, as I’m sure others with a superhero complex have experienced, I have been both witness and protagonist of that mission where I think: "What can I do when a person is in difficult situation?", "What do I do if that person has not matured enough to take action alongside me?", "What do I do if a person needs to take some decisions, but doesn’t understand it?"

These existential questions have conjured experiences and/or personal characteristics that have guided my existence and interaction with the world around me. They’ve been some big things I have been forced to contemplate and battle with. I eventually came to the conclusion that in cases like those, we superhero complexed individuals have two options; help regardless or take a step back. We may even try a third like I used to; to whack person in the head with the solution. Nevertheless, even with that if a person doesn’t want to see the answer, they’ll fight you tooth and nail to not see it so you can’t force it.

This new mindset has been kind of controversial throughout my life journey because others have often characterized or regarded me as more than I see myself. In other words, they’ve idolized me. If to me, I am a superhero, to them I am a Goddess. As a result, they don’t really accept or agree when I walk away from certain situations or people. It used to bother me but with time I’ve learned to live with it. I have accepted many things in life and the first is that everything is a process and more than that, each process is different. With this I mean that many times (if not all the time) we drain ourselves for trying to save a person from a moment in their life in which he or she should save himself. This thought doesn’t stem from selfishness, it just has to be that way. I mean, have you ever thought that maybe that person won’t be able to learn with you helping up close, but will with you on the sidelines. Still, we must be mindful of not getting in the way of other’s experiences and processes. Even good intentions are sometimes unnecessary or way too much.

Though hard to believe, at times withdrawing ourselves from a situation can save us all. This is about loving and respecting a person enough to recognize the perfect moment in which you have to collect all your good intentions and take them home. My superhero complex is not something I critique, it’s something I control. I use my powers for good, but not at the expense of doing more harm than good to me or to others. To provide yourself and others the space to self-manage when needed is the most beautiful gift that can be given. Think about it, sometimes it is better to take off our capes, fold it and rest for a while. We may even have to save our own lives with the help of someone else even if we are superheroes in other’s eyes, then the life saving can begin again.

1 note · View note

relentlessministries · 4 years

Text

Day Zero

I would venture to say you have no idea how your actions and words have infiltrated and impacted my life . How your hatred continues to deliver slight yet direct blows with an attempt to utterly destroy me. How your infectious plague has trickled down to sabotage every aspect of who I am, who I am yet to be and those lives which are directly and indirectly trussed to mine.

You- homophobia are a disease. You infiltrate the minds of individuals and symptomatically cloud their view so their eyes can’t see humans as they are despite all other attributes but solely on the grounds of who they love. You take the lives of hundreds of thousands of people every year. Congratulations - You are an epidemic. You destroy families. You create homelessness and increase desperation leading to suicide after suicide after suicide and oh homicide. The greatest symptom of your debilitating affect is hate which grows unrestrained to convince one to murder another of our own kind merely for the minute factor that they love differently than you.

Like the most aggressive form of cancer you are the cells that multiply out of control in the minds of so many. Although I don’t know that there will ever be a cure for you, I know that my speaking out brings light into your terrifying darkness and a sword that will pierce hearts and open minds. The reality is my speaking is all but a mere effort to save my own life because It's time, I’ve had enough.

I've been lead to believe you've stolen my dignity and self respect. My integrity and professionalism, tenacity and ability to share with the world something good are tainted and greatly discolored by your rampant blows. It has all been shattered by your darkness. You have crippled me and pushed me in to hiding. I've become a person who's disability forces them to not leave the safety of my 4 bedroom walls. My anxiety and depression and post traumatic stress disorder, created by the assault you’ve had on my life holds me hostage in my car in moments when I’m supposed to be serving my patients and families. It holds me in the aisle at the grocery store because I know there’s someone infected with you on the other side who previously audibly accosted me in public.

My joy has been diminished, my reflection in the mirror resembles a weak and weary soul who is desperate for freedom of oppression. Perhaps it’s because you have taken from me literally everything and anything that I possess of any worth. Through it all I am forced to realize what I have left. Most of which is forever unrecoverable. The patient experiences, the longevity necessary to build my career, the relentless attempts to leap forward and build again a life with hopes of building a meaningful legacy.

It's 2020, times have changed and our society is vastly attempting to eradicate you. Yes I am aware, "we have come so far!," and I have heard countless comments about, "marriage is legal, you have your rights, what more do you need?," etc. I'm not convinced, I continue to survive your attacks and others need to abolish the blinders from their eyes and then encourage others to do the same so as to understand and trust that just as sexism, ageism, and racism to name a few are still globally viral, you homophobia and your horrific affects thereof continue to kill and destroy many. How you might ask?

Lets start with the time that you violently through the judge and our legal system took my children away from me for three months because you were convinced that my being gay must be a mental illness or life crisis. The moment when I learned they were told I abandoned them and didn’t want them anymore because my sin was more important and my desire was to sleep with a woman. When you diminished Who I am as a person, a mother down to only my sexual orientation.

That time that you walked into the trauma bay and recognized me from church and your loved one was barren on the table and I actively performing CPR on them. I was literally the heart beating for him, I alone was circulating life through his lifeless body. You refused to see me at all, only my sexual orientation. Although I, one of the most trained trauma nurses in that room you began to scream in front of my peers for me to be removed from him and told me to step away and surrender my position and life saving efforts to a nurse who graduated just weeks prior with no experience.

How about the time you took me in to your office and with cowardliness hid behind vague words and use of irrelevant rationales to inform me that my being a lesbian did not fit the culture of your practice, your values and beliefs system and therefore I was no longer welcomed to work next to you. Interesting though the day prior, before you heard the news that I was married to a woman, you told me that I was one of the best nurses you'd hired with the most beautiful bedside manner you'd witnessed in years.

Or the latest attempted terminal blow when you suddenly ripped me from the bedside of the the most frail of patients, the dying. Tragically eradicating and severing ties between myself as a hospice nurse from several patients and their grieving weary loved ones without an opportunity for closure. You severed a bond and forced me to abandon my patients. THEY WERE DYING and suddenly all the times I've cried with them, prayed with them, sang to and with them, bathed them and dressed them, listened to their greatest joys, deepest desires and fears have become tainted by your dark hostility. Your a coward and quietly ashamed of your bias and You've covered yourself with deception claiming my nursing skills or abilities or boundaries were lacking or flawed thus directly deepening your diseased affects on my self view. It became apparent that at any moment anything can be taken from me NOT because of my sexual orientation but due to your hate.

Time and time again I've experienced this but now it has spread through me and into the lives of others. You've raped me and have USED ME to spread your vile disease resulting in heightened doubt and fear. I have questioned to my very core who I am and who I once was down to my professional being. I've become desperately symptomatic of fear and one surviving your hold and retreat deeper into my self because I CANNOT allow myself to continue the vulnerability. I refrain to connecting with anyone because I must prevent bringing additional pain and suffering, undue harm especially to my patients who have invited me in to journey with them through one of the most intimate times of their lives, dying. I've come to believe your lies that I had no business being there or being a part of this ministry, this profession any more.

I will admit you have crippled me in so many ways. I am coming to understand why I suffer immensely at times with depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation. Why I'm living with post Traumatic stress disorder. I've bought in. I now see what others see when they look at me. I believed your projection of who I am is in fact who I am. I have allowed you’re sick and disgusting view of me to shape me into this disabled body because I'm unable to get outside of my mind and the fear of facing another human who embodies you restrains me inside my own living hell. I am shattered and broken but make no mistake, I am still alive.

Let me explain something to you. At the end of the day you can’t change my DNA. I'm not sure you heard or understood what I said, your efforts have failed because YOU CANNOT change my DNA. You see my DNA and who I am is not in anyway just that I am a woman, an Italian, a lesbian. Its not merely that I have green eyes and sun-kissed skin tones. My very DNA structured my dignity. It carries my tenacity, my vulnerability, my personality which in case you missed the memo can outshine even the darkest of nights. My life experiences have groomed me into a survivor, a fierce survivor. I will take every single integral microscopic cell that embodies who I am and with all that I am that is woven into my very DNA And I will defeat you. I will grow stronger and brighter and I will be in this world what I am called to be because no matter how much you hate me and no matter how much you think you can destroy my life you can’t have it because it doesn’t belong to you!

You see I’m educated. I know how this works and I’ve seen life and death. I have experienced life and death. I am one of the best nurses you will ever meet and when given the chance I will show you a love and compassion that you quite possibly have never experienced before. What’s more is that I’ve held the hand of more than one individual who’s attempted to take or did take their life because the darkness was too heavy and the light although you could not completely diminish it was no longer enough. I refuse to fall victim to this.

Homophobia - like cancer when all other treatments have been exhausted and they are no longer responding appropriately we take the frail human body down to the cellular level to the brink of death. You’ve already done this for me. At that point stem cells are planted and those particles of DNA that are woven in us from the moment of conception take hold of them and start to grow something new. Cells that were already created and a part of my DNA and you have no control or power over. Today is my stem cell transplant, it’s Day ZERO, and I will make every single effort to allow every particle of me to become who I am first and foremost above and around you regardless of your desire to put me in the grave.

So I want it back. I am taking my life back. Not the life that I am surviving right now but the one I was created to thrive in. The one where I am out in the community and serving and loving and showing Christ - like compassion and forgiveness and so much more. Yes you heard me right I am a lesbian who loves Jesus and I know that you homophobia would like the world to believe that this is a counter diction but it’s not. And you no longer have a place in my life and how I move forward living it. I will walk with my head high and no longer feel like I am a disgusting person or somehow a disgrace on this earth because of who I chose to marry and love.

Homophobia like one of the most infectious diseases known on earth is rampant and it’s time that we start exterminating it for the sake of all especially those who we love. I’m going to promise you this no one was born with a genetic condition of hatred. Its time we start vaccinating against it and raising up our children to love and embrace our fellow human beings despite their differences, despite their sexual orientation.

Nevertheless, it’s in my DNA to tell you that I’m going to chose to love you, to forgive you and to have a greater hope for change in your hearts, your minds and your actions. If for nothing more but because my soul deserves peace.

Today is my Day Zero.

Relentlessly Yours,

Mrs. Tennille Marie Dobbs

#ellendegeneres #taylorswift #finally211

1 note · View note

bellabooks · 7 years

Text

Other Worlds, Other Ways

I’m going to date myself here and ask if anyone remembers the Star Trek (TOS, naturally) episode “A Piece of the Action” where our intrepid crew beams down to a planet whose culture exactly duplicates the 1920s Chicago gangster era? The show had the grace to provide a rational (if far-fetched) explanation for how a different world would come to imitate a complex and precise bit of Earth’s history in that way. But how often do we read a book set in a different world from our own–whether a space-faring future, an imagined secondary world, or simply a vastly different place or time on our own planet–and find the romantic and sexual relationships are suspiciously similar to the author’s own experience? via aminoapps.com When it comes to women who love women, those of us living in the early 21st century can easily see how much influence time and place has on the shapes of our lives: just ask someone of a different generation than your own and it can seem like you’re talking to someone from a different planet. How much more should we expect to see imaginative differences in the relationships portrayed in science fiction and fantasy novels? It can be hard to see those suspicious similarities when we’re standing too close. It took me a decade or two to recognize that the Free Amazon culture in Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Darkover novels owed more to ‘70s Berkeley feminist encounter groups than to future space colonies. And there’s often a startling proportion of pulp-era style butch/femme couples in stories set centuries away or worlds apart from the specific cultural forces that gave birth to those roles. But if the Enterprise crew that landed on the gangster planet had all grown up in ‘20s Chicago, they might never have asked the question, “What the heck is going on here?” and solved that riddle. What are some of my recent science fiction or fantasy reads that root their f/f relationships in the cultural specifics of their settings? Nisi Shawl’s steampunk historical Everfair has several female couples, including the major protagonists Lisette and Daisy whose relationship begins in the “free love” culture of Fabian socialism. Yes, the supposedly strait-laced Victorian era begot social movements that embraced polyamory and same-sex love. When the characters of Everfair encounter problems in their relationship, they stem more from racial tensions than self-doubts about sexual orientation. via marbeax.tumblr The space-faring, functionally immortal Radch culture in Ann Leckie’s three-volume series beginning with Ancillary Justice presents an interesting challenge to the reader looking for relationships between women. We get a glimpse of what a truly alien (though still “human”) cultural structure could look like. The Radch do have the same biological sexes that we do, and some of the romantic and sexual relationships depicted in the stories are between persons we (readers) would consider female. But Radch culture places almost no significance on those biological differences, and uses the same words and pronouns for all people. As those words and pronouns have been rendered in feminine forms in the books, we read all interactions simultaneously as if they were always between women, while never being entirely certain that any of them are. Secondary fantasy worlds–ones that exist entirely apart from our reality–have no reason to recapitulate the historic forces that shaped our attitudes toward gender and sexuality. (In the grand scheme of things, Western Christian culture has some very peculiar attitudes in that field.) There’s a very different reimagining of sexuality in Beth Bernobich’s River of Souls series, set in a roughly medieval-equivalent culture, but where the pressures on sexuality are driven, not by arbitrary taboos, but by heirs and alliances. The titular river of souls brings its own pressure: the carry-over of souls from one lifetime to the next, inhabiting new bodies–now male, now female–and inheriting the loves and desires of previous lifetimes. And if those bonded souls are now both embodied as women in this lifetime, no other reason is needed for their love. via roleplaygateway.com Imagination will bring us to other worlds: of the past, the future, or beyond reality’s door. It would be strange indeed of all those doors opened into a Chicago speakeasy. Give me SFF stories full of women whose encounters are shaped by the worlds they inhabit, not the one I do. *Feature image by Steve Maleny http://dlvr.it/NPbysm

#advice #Books #FANTASY

3 notes · View notes

thebewisepodcast · 7 years

Text

Adapt Young Man, Adapt: A Speech To All Black Men

Without a doubt within the fires of my mind, to this date and seemingly until the end of time, the black male has had and always will have the most unique experience in the history of these United States and beyond. A bold claim that I have no problems at all placing a stake in.

Before any form of opposition arises in the mind, that particular statement is not intended to lessen or cheapen the experiences of any different section of people within this country, but without question if the black male experience is not the MOST unique, it can be argued to be atop the list in some capacity. This here idea was not born to argue the individual harshnesses of each particular struggle. This here is not an argument about which section of people has had it the worst, or is the most oppressed as these United States seem to have a fond history of inflicting oppression upon her people. It can't be ignored though, you will all make the conscious choice to either allow these words to enter your spirit or deny them wholeheartedly. And no matter the path your mind takes, I accept it. So, if I may say to you all, adapt.

I would be remiss if I dared to talk about adaptation and did not even attempt to mention European scientist: Charles Darwin. Western civilization swarmed around Darwin's theories almost immediately as they took fire in the heart and minds of intellectuals all over the globe. Charles Darwin heralded the groundbreaking text, "On the Origin of Species". Published in 1859, Darwin puts forth his theory of biological evolution. For those who know or those who don't know, Darwin laid down the foundation for adaptation, natural selection as well as common descent of species from a common ancestry. What needs to be understood foremost is that these scientific processes have existed from before the dawn of time and did not originate in 1859. Darwin just placed the terminology to the processes. That is key. But in relation to the black male, what do these come to mean? It means that the black man within the confines of the United States prism, is separate from ALL three of these fundamental keys to evolution as it is equated to functionality and expression of self as opposed to evolutionary biology.

In vain of those three elements of Darwin's theory, the uniqueness of the black experience stems directly from the lack of the opportunity to healthily adapt, being products of an environment (United States) which relentlessly prompts all citizens to survive by any means, and being denied access to recognizing and constructing a community attachment by way of a recognized common ancestry. The original source of where those strifes comes from is not directly the fault of the black male, but is the result of tumultuous relationship of abuse that the black male has had with the United States. This relationship of the abuser and abused has transmigrated from the original source of the strife and now onto others who look like the abused, then turning the abused into the subdued. On two fronts, the black male has been subdued. The conversation has to happen now as to how it can be undone. Accidentally on purpose, by way of the psychological dismantling of the supposed unity through intensifying the African American man's self doubt, the black male does not allow other black males to partake in any part of societal adaptation that deviates from what we have been taught it means to be us. Weaponized in the most strictest sense, the black male has become an agent of restriction. A restriction that comes not in the form of physical shackles but in the form of idealogical ones. Adaptation in the sense of functionality and expression of the self begins with the mind; being allowed to have very different ideas than what is the norm within the community. Like a Mexican standoff in a small dusty town, the black male, when met with ideas, concepts, and forms of expression which we have yet to understand, immediately labels it and the perpetrator as strange. 'Different' within the psyche of the black male is regarded as 'bizarre', especially and with near exclusivity when it derives from someone who looks like us. Like many, there is an inherent resistance to that which the black male does not know. The black male is not allowed to be ourselves or express our interests without being on the fringe of the community. Not saying that they don't exist already, but I imagine with a deep sense of sadness, the bevy of black males who could be talented novelists, filmmakers, speakers, philosophers, politicians, photographers and artists of all kinds if their environments permitted various forms of expression of self without crucifixion.

When speaking about Natural Selection and the environment, which naturally selects for the fitness of its hosts, it cannot be said lightly that the destructive potential of capitalism is felt most there more than anywhere else. Period. Competition to survive is the black male experience. It is of the upmost importance to realize that when Darwin wrote about fitness though, he wasn't speaking about it in the ways of the body, but in the ways of reproductive success but it is in the combination of in both the ways of the body and reproductive success where we can find the place where the black male hovers. The need to survive by any means is the nature of capitalism and it is tripled when we enter the environment that the black man inhabits. The need to survive both financially and in the literal sense takes form in a multitude of ways that I need not to describe to you in detailed specifics. A simple tour of your own imagination can paint the picture of what this survival looks like in inner cities and urban regions all across these very United States. Survival is key and when the aforementioned means of adaptation does not prescribe to the norms of the environment, then you get what we see now as far as our relationship to survival and expression and the hyper-masculinity that dominates our culture. But here is where the paradigm of blackness becomes more of an aloof representation. That is when the black male adapts to things outside of his original environment and the Great White Other takes a likening to the product of the adaptation. The Great White Other uses that adapted black example as a figurehead to define the black male as something that "can't be all that bad" because it adapted to processes that are familiar to them but foreign to everyone else in environment that the black male adapted from. Do you see the uniqueness? Then, the battle, not exclusive to the black male, begins to take shape in the form of perception and image. As we adapt to find our truest self in the face of the Great White Other, we have to make sure we make our brothers and sisters proud,, not allowed to veer too far away from the norm, though we already traveled ways away from it long ago. When we adapted and survived the environment, the intensity of the microscope increases. The necessity to stay true while keeping our actions in the pocket of African American correctness amplifies. Just look at the United States relationship towards black celebrity as opposed to the celebrity of other ethnic groups. Even that is microcosm of the uniqueness of the black experience. As far as perception is concerned, there is no winning that battle.

Last to be touched on, but no less important: is the common descent from a common ancestry. Is there even any need for me to elaborate? It is self explanatory in a way, but I will still proceed to dissect the Darwinian concept using the black experience as a conduit or to be truthful, maybe its the other way around. Nonetheless, I foresee a time when we as the black male connect to one another thoroughly through the deeply profound realization that we all come from the same source, which will allow us to unite with all peoples in order to build a firm community on a equal plain. In the senses of economic, political, and in that communal sense, nearly every other ethnic group; Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, Italian, and many more, collaborate to put forth a unified coalition in those various aforementioned forms of connection in a multitude of intersectional ways. I look forward to the day where the black male looks toward their long storied lineage beyond the span of their battled history with the United States for comfort. It cannot be denied, that within the span of the confrontational relationship between the United States and the black male; from our moments of pride and triumph, from Malcolm X to Martin Luther King, from Marcus Garvey to Denmark Vesey, from Nat Turner to Lebron James, and many more in between, all instances where we hail our personal heroes, stem from a place of societal strife they arose from, coupled along with some form oppression birthed from the environmental pressures of the need to see tomorrow and the need to adapt . This is our history. For every black male being born from the womb of a black queen, the power coming from such a realization should allow all brothers of the same hue to establish a profound unity. I fervently believe, that the unity within the United States that we seek across all ethnic lines can only come when the black male realizes our own full potential. We are the linch pin to American longevity. They need us more than we need them. Adapt young man, adapt, However you see it necessary, you must adapt and allow the people that look like you the chance to be themselves fully realized. Adapt young man, adapt. Be aware of your environment and avoid the pitfalls that many people who look like you have fallen into in the past. Adapt young man, adapt. be smarter than the system that has been pitting us against one another since before even your father was born.

Adapt young man, adapt.

The most important thing about anything I have said here today is that Charles Darwin was taught by John Edmonstone; a black man and former slave.

Thank you.

1 note · View note

dahniwitchoflight · 7 years

Text

bleh im thinking about things again

just fyi talking about lapis lazuli again and my opinions about stuff probably because im hyperfocusing on/relating to her again, feel free to completely ignore if you dont wanna engage in that kinda stuff i wont judge

but anyway, ive also been wondering on why there such a clear divide in who people think did what exactly, when to me its seems perfectly clear, cuz like, ive been through this kind of thing my whole life. thats why i relate to lapis because i was isolated and trapped for my whole existence and she was for like 1000 years. At times I still feel intensely the emotion of “i have no mouth and i must scream” like she did in the mirror

but like slowly and slowly im coming to the conclusion that people who think Lapis was abusive, or that mutual abuse is a thing that exists instead of the oxymoron that word is, are either people who don’t fully get what abusive dynamics are, or people who are still in abusive situations themselves.

which is why im gonna do my best to frame my thoughts as nonjudgemental as possible, despite my clear stance that Jasper was abusive and Lapis was abused.

because fun fact about abuse dynamics, making the victim feel like they are the true abuser is abuser tactic #1 and the most hardest to recognize from both the outside and the inside. people can live their whole lives thinking they truly deserved the abuse they lived through because the people abusing them told them they were bad people, monsters, and thus had to be punished, their abuse was just “natural discipline” or “an appropriate response”

like, blame shifting by acting like the person being abused is actually the abuser is how the abuse cycle keeps proliferating

people ask all the time questions like “why didnt you see it coming, why didnt you escape, why didnt you get out” but he answer is because the abuser doesnt just abuse, they cut off all escape routes, abuse isnt abuse because someone got physically hurt, abuse is abuse because its about psychological control and dominance. thats how they keep their victims trapped. thats how victims stay trapped. because theyre worldviews and beliefs and mentality get distorted by the abuser, the abuser makes them think all of their actions towards the abused are justified, the abused deserved it because the abuser got them to doubt who’s the real person in the wrong by intentionally muddying the waters of right and wrong

the abuser tries to make it seem like they are the ones getting abused, not the people they are actually hurting.

the myth of mutual abuse is what lets abusers keeping abusing people. that is there entire modus operandi and part of why the cycle of abuse is so hard to dismantle.

and maybe thats why i have such a strong reaction to people doing the same thing, claiming it was mutually toxic or Lapis abused her back or their both to blame or etc

but i get that this tactic intentionally makes it difficult to discern reality, thats the entire tactic, thats the point, to try to hide the reality that the abuser is actually the bad person here not the victim by making it seem like the tables have turned

so to people unfamiliar with the cycle, or people currently inside the cycle themselves (like old me, so i totally get it, i do), it can seem like an impossible he said-she said match where both sides seem like they have valid points but sympathy is created or had for either side so the waters get muddy and instead of seeing the reality of abuse they see it as “both were abusers and both were victims”

like, i get that there are other victims of abuse who identify with jasper, because jasper displays some familiar behaviors to them, there are parts of her that seem sympathetic, i totally get that. i can totally see where this entire post can look like im doing the same thing with Lapis towards Jasper to people who identify with Jasper

but the problem is Jasper in canon is displaying those behaviors intentionally to manipulate people close to Lapis into believing Lapis was the terrible person in the wrong instead of Jasper. and afterwards when shes not around Lapis she shows no remorse, believes she is justifed in her actions, and uses them against other people as well.

and we know Jasper clearly understands how to use people’s weaknesses against them, that was the whole point of making her the antagonist in Amethysts arc as well. to showcase her behaviours and personality outside of her dynamic with Lapis so it becomes clearer what kind of person she is when Lapis isnt in the picture, in a place where she hasn’t intentionally muddied the waters by calling Lapis the true monster, trying to manipulate Steven into siding with her against Lapis and preemptively apologizing for Lapis’s behaviors for her saying yes you were terrible and what you did was bad but look i can be the bigger person and look past all that, see im even better and changed, we can make this work, we can both work on both of our problems that caused this situation.

like i just keep going back to this website because it explains it so well: http://www.loveisrespect.org/content/myth-of-mutual-abuse/

like when looking for the differences in Jasper’s and Lapis’s behaviours, there are key differences that need to be acknowledged

Jasper acts differently around Lapis and around other people. Painting herself as the victim to Lapis or the people around her, but clearly having no such sympathy for others who are not Lapis when’s not around her, like Amethyst. Jasper played on her insecurities, emotionally manipulating her in order to achieve the upper hand in battle. and not once does Jasper ever consider that her behaviour was genuinely a bad thing to do, no matter what her behaviour was in Alone at Sea when she was actively trying to manipulate the situation in her favor. The fact that we see her later act otherwise with Amethyst’s situation, justifying her own behaviour as the Strong should beat the Weak, is proof she doesn’t see anything inherently wrong with the behaviour itself, only that it looks bad to others, so she blame shifts to get that off of her and onto Lapis.

Lapis meanwhile acts consistent around everyone, Jasper or otherwise. She sees herself as genuinely in the wrong, no matter what people say to her. Even Steven, the one person she trusts unconditionally. Abusers don’t ever actually think they were genuinely in the wrong. If Lapis was actually displaying abusive behaviour, instead of self defensive behaviour, then she would take Steven’s words as Steven being “on her side” and immediately say “yeah you’re right, I’m not the monster here, see Jasper even Steven believes me!” and that would be a blame shifting tactic. But that’s not what she did and that’s not what happened. Then also, she is the first to try to break the cycle of attack and self defense, even if she thinks she was partially at fault or mutually abusive for self defending, even believing that to be true she still took it upon herself to end the situation, to say no, that was awful, that hurt me and it hurt you and was good for no one. Lapis said I don’t want anything to do with Jasper anymore. Jasper said I want this to keep happening.

Abusers generally don’t want their victims to “escape”. If Lapis was an abuser here, she would be wanting Jasper back in her grasp after Malachite ended and was no longer necessary to protect Steven

and I get that sometimes victims can be addicted to bad relationships and go back to their abusers, but thats a sentiment that Lapis clearly displays when she says she needed that awful situation, no matter how terrible it felt to both of them and that she missed Jasper

Jasper instead stalks Lapis across the earth in order to coerce her back into the relationship. Like, even if a victim missed a previous abusive situation because it felt familiar. I cannot imagine a victim going as far to stalk their abuser back into one. and maybe thats just me. But Lapis fled was she felt was a terrible situation and felt internally conflicted about it afterwards. Jasper genuinely believes that them fighting for control over Malachite was fine, likely stemming from her belief that Power rules All, and again, her unrelated behaviour with Amethyst, and wanted that back to the point of stalking Lapis.

there is a clear difference in motivations here.

Lapis shows internal conflict related o her actually being the terrible one and also remorse over the entire situation and avoids the other person

Jasper clearly shows no genuine internal conflict, only manipulative tactics meant to shift blame onto Lapis, does not feel remorse over those actions and actively shows further abusive behavior both towards Lapis (Stalking) and other people (Amethyst) making any previous apologizes resonate as hollow.

this is why I stand so strongly and resonate so strongly with Lapis, because I can recognize when an abuser is trying to paint themselves as a victim, and when a victim is painting themselves as the “true” abuser

the dynamics of psychological control is what abuse is all about.

#lapis lazuli #steven universe #only tagging so people can block what they dont wanna see

30 notes · View notes

allthatwehear · 5 years

Text

processing

processing: one of those things that I hate. getting feelings out into words--not as bad, I’m much better at that than aloud, but i still ardently dislike keeping a “journal”, because--I don’t know, sometimes I think it’s wasting time. and a written journal requires too much patience, when my thoughts are very detailed and drawn out and only best typed.

here is what I am feeling, right now, in this moment: I am feeling like a crazy person; actually, someone I can hardly recognize. I have shifted from a happy, little independent lovebird (who felt luke was being perhaps too clingy to me, ha), to constantly being pretty sensitive to every action he makes, thinking it has some sort of ripple affect or deep, subconscious reason for how he really feels about me. i am scared--i am insecure? my counselor nicole says i am valid--and expresses, ‘what are your needs’? you need to sit down and figure out what those are. it isn’t something you just kind of come up with. you got to really think about what you need. she sees self-improvement of course as a building block for any better relationship--but, don’t let go of those initial things you were feeling. but i hate ruminating, why can’t i let them go? and why are my fears/sensitivities only getting worse... is this what’s supposed to happen when you get deeper into a relationship?

well, right now, i’m on the verge of “i want to show him everything I am/show that I am not dependent on him for my happiness and I can be self-fulfilled and am already a strong, happy, peaceful individual”--that is not how it has been lately. but good lord give me a break! it was my sister’s anniversay for pete’s sake--I think i deserved some very tumultuous feelings and behaviors, even towards my boyfriend? yes.

i want to---feel like i did when i was single. when i got to make all my own choices, and truly nothing super significant people did affected my life at all. I was safe, inside this self-shell, and left to my own isolation and thoughts to push me towards goals that I wanted to pursue. because of my giving nature, most of that has all gone away--because i am so excited and elated to have someone to pour into. i have the time now, and somebody to love, so why can’t i? only issue is, then the person becomes my whole world, and my world instantly becomes smaller and smaller. perhaps it stems from low-self esteem issues: i don’t see my life as important. i don’t see it as worth it over another’s (or worth it over love) to make some sacrifices and do what i need. why is it some people feel that they don’t deserve to feel like they’re single all the time--when they go head-long into thoughts only about themselves. I know in a sense that sounds very conceited--but truly, i haven’t felt more self-absorbed/luke absorbed than ever since i started dating him; other people have gone on the backburner even more. single, i had more time to focus on other people because i am not this overcaring whatever it is girlfriend. why do i behave this way? what are some steps i can take to get/feel myself back, how can i reclaim some of these parts of me? i dont want to use the word detach here; that’s kind of foreboding. not detach from luke, but get parts of myself back. yes. i like this. get parts of myself back. good. good.

you can:

~be in touch with old friends, because that is always healthy, and they have always been around and will always be there to support you, no matter what you are going through. they are a constant.

~delve deep into passions, even if they are the “same” as everybody else (lookin’ at you, photography). don’t stop sharing your art, cause you freakin’ thrive off that

~spend time in solitude: remember when you were cool with literally going on self-coffee dates all the time? you would often look at photos and post them, then do homework, maybe text a few people. you had a whole routine. but you loved it. maybe this includes book reading?

~sarah you love your community and you love your friends. the harder part is that it’s a whole new community here, so a lot more vulnerable to delve into. but babe, make those trips out to marta. go roadtrip and see her. see if hannah larson and her friends will take you on some hikes, & what cool things you can do.

~um, SOLO HIKES?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? BEST TIME TO PRAY EVER?!?!?!?!!? I THINK, YES.

~be alone. wear what you want. get used to not wearing makeup. wear your hair in braids or get another tattoo. don’t forget you’re kinda artsy and spunky, but you also wear your heart on your sleeve and you CARE FOR PEOPLE. DON’T STOP CARING.

~exercise!!!!!! let’s make a routine homie!!!!!!!! you’d feel sooooo good and confident: KEEP IT CONSISTENT BABE

~THERE ARE NO CONSTANTS IN LIFE. LUKE WILL NOT ALWAYS BE THERE; HE IS ALSO ALWAYS GOING TO FALL SHORT. NOTHING CAN FILL YOU MORE THAN THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN. HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN PROVIDE WHAT YOU TRULY NEED. HE. IS. THE. ONLY. ONE. WHO. CAN. FILL. THAT. IMPOSSIBLE. VOIDLESS. DEEP. GAP. you cannot put your faith/entire happiness/all your expectations on actually really literally ANYTHING. your college? is going to make you doubt things and why you’re putting so much money into it. you’re gonna hate your job and feel unfulfilled--you’re going to hate your city and feel unfulfilled--there is NOTHING IN THIS WORLD THAT CAN SATISFY YOU THAN THE GLORY OF GOD. NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING.

- Psalm 107:9 “For he satisfies the longing soul, and the hungry soul he fills with good things.”

- Isaiah 58:11 “And the Lord will guide you continually and satisfy your desire in scorched places and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.”

- Jeremiah 31:25 “For I will satisfy the weary soul, and every languishing soul I will replenish.”

- “flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38).

0 notes

sabstronaut · 6 years

Text

If I Owned a Plantation

When I walked into my first day of English 106, I was not expecting the mind-blowing, misconception-revealing, philosophically-engaging psychological expedition I was starting. From day one, I was told not to find myself, but to make myself. By being exposed to Nietzsche’s teachings and being encouraged to educate ourselves on his life, I have begun to recognize that I can’t just listen to what I am told to do, I must constantly challenge the norm. Nietzsche thought differently than anybody else of his time. By declaring himself the Antichrist, he preached the death of God stating “We have killed Him. All of us are his murderers.” I have major respect for Nietzsche who was willing to work hard, to the point of literal collapse, in order to convey a firm belief which eventually drove him mad. His dedication to internal reflection is electrifying and motivational to me and began the entire analysis of my upbringing and influences.

In my household, growing up, I have been surrounded by the influence of my parents’ professions. Both held occupations that strived to maintain the wellbeing of others, my father being a pharmacist and my mother a director of Human Resources. While my father’s job helped on the physical side of wellbeing by actually constructing the medication to make sick people well again, my mother’s job helped with maintaining the psychological and social state of her current and future employees. Each of their jobs and ways of life strongly instilled altruistic values into my sister and I at extremely young ages. We were encouraged to volunteer and began our involvement in elementary school and from there the momentum carried us forward. Additionally, when I finished eighth grade my mom was forced to discontinue working, as she has an immune disorder and a life-threatening condition called Idiopathic Angioedema and my sister has Fibromyalgia, both regularly needing my assistance. With my dad traveling five days a week for work, I grew to be their caregiver during my high school years. This is a very noticeable lens that I have been able to see for most of my life, let’s call this one the altruistic lens. This lens shows in my college application essays, my resume, and most distinctly the occupation I aspire to have. But I know that this is not something that all children are taught at as young an age as I was. Not all of my peers walk through Wynwood, see the run-down state of living, and yearn to help those people. Not all of my peers would perform the simple courtesy of giving up your bus or train seat for an elderly or disabled individual. Not all of my peers wish to spend the rest of their life in an occupation that’s only goal is to help other people survive, recover, and thrive without any concern of the pay. The majority of actions I take, both presently and in the future, all revolve around this altruistic lens that has been inserted into my brain and is now seen with as much objectivity as gravity. Only after intense self-reflection did I realize that this was a very powerful worldview, my altruistic lens, that stems from the time I entered this world.

After reading the work of Du Bois and his ideas of “being a problem,” I began to imagine how my altruistic lens would shine through if I lived during the time of slavery as the person I am today. DuBois wrote about being free, but not really free, and described freedom as climbing a mountain because it means overcoming disrespect and ridicule. So with the altruistic lens that I have grown to have, I think that I would be a Cool plantation owner. For the sake of this essay, let’s ignore the second oppressed population who were seemingly unaware of their own oppression at the time, not sexually discriminate, and just hypothetically allow me, as a woman, to be the owner of this Plantation (disclaimer: I do NOT have any aspirations under any terms EVER to own/partake in any form of slave owning- in fact, the word ‘slave’ was not allowed in my household even as a joke [another instance of the altruistic lens]). As stated in Cool Rules: The anatomy of an attitude, “Cool is an oppositional attitude adopted by individuals or small groups to express defiance to authority.” Owning slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries was a basic symbol of social status. To own slaves was to show that you had wealth, authority, and class, therefore, no slaves means no respect. Nobody with slaves was cool. Nobody who had slaves expressed defiance to the social norms or authority. If I lived in this time-period as the individual with the altruistic lens I have I would adopt an oppositional attitude, defy authority, and let my slaves be free without a doubt. I would spend my life freeing slaves and giving them the proper life they deserve as the equals that they are in my eyes. I would risk my social status and life to give these individuals happiness. If this isn’t a realistic option than an alternative plan would be to treat the slaves I have as equals, for example: they would eat what I eat, sleep where I sleep, and I would spend my days in the field with them rather than beating and lashing them. While I’m sure many people think this way, it has come to my attention recently that not as many as I thought do. I was taught to never be racist and accept everybody for who they are by my parents and grandparents and school assemblies, another lens of mine that is second nature. Although all of that teaching may have worked for me it can be seen clearly that it did not work for a sizable proportion of our country’s population presently as racism has become an even bigger problem than previously.

While I can’t compare my position of oppression even remotely to that of the Black population, I do have a sense of the whole “I am free, but not actually,” mindset. Here I am, a 19 year old college student with dreams of becoming a doctor, a majoritively male dominated occupation, and on top of that an astronaut, ANOTHER male dominated field. A woman with aspirations as mine is not uncommon in today’s world which almost leads to an entirely inverse situation than would be expected as more medical schools are looking to take woman in order to even the ratio and expand their diversity. You could almost say I now have the upper hand! But, I will not be free for a long time. As I stated previously, freedom is synonymous to climbing a mountain: before I can live out my aspirations as an astronaut physician, I have 8-10 years of schooling standing in the way as my own mountain.

Another quote from Cool Rules: The anatomy of an attitude that spoke to me was, “Cool will change from place to place, from time to time and from generation to generation.” This speaks in my theoretical situation of being a plantation owner. Cool today defined by rebellion, narcissism, hedonism, and irony has nothing to do with setting slaves free, that was the Cool of the past. A new generation now exists, far different from that of the 18th and 19th centuries and Cool takes on a new form here and today. In Thompson’s paper, “An Aesthetic of the Cool,” he expands on the ancestors’ ability to “restore coolness.” Older generations have wisdom like no other, something I can personally explain from my own experiences. My grandparents are constantly sharing cheesy, helpful tips and words of advice such as, “never walk alone at night” or my personal favorite: “always wear sunglasses when you watch fireworks” (my grandma has weirdly said this one a few times). Although these don’t seem like the wisest words of wisdom, I do know that they have an abundance of worldly knowledge. Older people have experience in all realms and are crucial to communities such as the African ones mentioned in Thompson’s writing. These older generations help us to understand who we are and where we came from! They help us essentially bring back the past as if it never left.

As Nietzsche conveyed through his work, he believed you must know suffering to know pleasure. Not to say that my job as ‘Head of the House’ at such an early age was an even remotely true experience of suffering, but the daily stress of having to balance my own academics, sports, and social life on top of taking care of my sister, mom, and two dogs during the school week was a somewhat pathetic, yet decent concept of the not-so-average sufferings of an adolescent. I agree with Nietzsche in this sense- I did learn what pleasure was. I learned to look forward to my father’s arrival home every Friday night so that we could share the burden of the family for the weekend. I learned to greatly appreciate the days my mother is healthy enough to get out of bed and lessen my load. All of these learnings function as a vehicle of change for me. Oscar Wilde said, “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.” This quote is sufficient support for my proposal of how I would have treated the individuals on my plantation. I would have helped create progress and I would hope that my learned virtues of equality and selflessness, the altruistic lens, would serve as a safe haven for the slave population.

0 notes

nolimitsongrace · 4 years

Video

youtube

March 19: The Difference Between Repentance and Remorse

The Difference Between Repentance and RemorseMarch 19, 2020

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. — Matthew 27:3-5

In yesterday’s Sparkling Gem, I started talking about the subject repentance. Over the next few days, I’d like to continue to explore this all-important subject further with you, because so many don’t really understand what true repentance is or why it’s so foundational and necessary to the Christian walk.

I remember an experience as a young boy growing up in church that made a huge impact on my life and helped me understand the vast difference between two words: remorse and true repentance. Each year we had annual revival meetings in our church. It was at one of these revival meetings that I heard an evangelist preach about hell, and I became so convicted of my sin that I committed my life to Jesus. However, not long after I walked the aisle and received Christ, I began to seriously doubt whether I had really been saved. This doubt stemmed from watching what happened when others got saved, which was entirely different from my own personal experience. Adults often wept and wept when they bowed at the altar, but I didn’t shed a tear the day I got saved. Preying on my insecurity and fears, the devil began to torment me every day with thoughts, such as:

Why didn’t you cry when you came forward to give your heart to Christ?

Maybe you’re not really saved!

If you were really sincere, shouldn’t you have cried like all the others did when they repented and got saved?

*[If you started reading this from your email, begin reading here.]

As time passed, I began to notice a very important trend. Frequently the people who cried buckets of tears at the altar were the same people who came forward in the altar calls each year during revival meetings. Growing up in church gives a person time to watch people and learn — and I began to recognize that many of these criers were the same people each year. I noticed that after they walked out the back door of the church, many of them didn’t show their faces in church again until the next year’s revival meeting. Then once again, they ended up back on their knees at the altar — crying buckets of tears and profusely sobbing. Finally, it dawned on me what was happening!

Many of those who cried profusely never changed. Although they nearly used a whole box of tissues sobbing at the altar, it appeared that nothing much deeper occurred than the shedding of tears. I began to realize that a show of emotion isn’t always a sign of repentance; sometimes it’s only evidence of remorse.

Repentance produces change, whereas remorse merely produces sorrow, which is often confused with repentance. But there is an enormous difference between repentance and remorse. A perfect New Testament example of remorse is found in Matthew 27:3-5, where the Bible tells us about Judas Iscariot. It says, “Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.”

Notice the Bible says that Judas “repented” himself. Usually a person who repents doesn’t go out and hang himself afterward, so what really happened in this verse? The answer lies in the word “repented” that is used in this verse. This is not the word metanoeo, the word most often used meaning “repent” in the New Testament. Instead, this particular word for “repent” is the Greek word metamelomai, which portrays a person who is completely overwhelmed with emotions. This word is used five times in the New Testament, and in each instance, it expresses sorrow, mourning, or grief. The word metamelomai rarely gives the picture of someone moved to change, but rather depicts a person who is seized with remorse, guilt, or regret.

Metamelomai can depict remorse that grips a person because of an act he committed that he knows is wrong. If he were willing to repent, he could change and be forgiven. But because he has no plans to repent, stop his sinful activities, and rectify what he has done, he is therefore gripped with remorse. Consequently, this emotion produces no change in a person’s life.

Metamelomai can also express the guilt a person feels because he knows that he has done wrong, that he will continue to do wrong, and that he has no plans to change his course of action. He feels shameful about what he is doing but continues to do it anyway, which results in a state of ongoing guilt. This guilt produces no change in a person’s life or behavior. Yet genuine repentance would fix this feeling of guilt and remove it completely.

Metamelomai best denotes the regret a person feels because he was caught doing something wrong. He isn’t repentant for committing the sin; instead, he is sorrowful only because he got caught. Now he’s in trouble. Rather than being repentant, this person is regretful that he got caught and must now pay the consequences. Chances are that if he’d never been caught, he would have continued his activities. This kind of regret likewise produces no change in a person’s conduct.

Because the word metamelomai is used in Matthew 27:3, it means Judas Iscariot did not “repent” in the sense that he was sorry for what he did and wanted to make it right with God. Rather, it confirms that he was remorseful, seized with guilt, and filled with regret. Because of his actions, Judas blew his opportunity to be a high-ranking member of Jesus’ inner circle. Judas was more sorrowful for himself than he was for his participation in Jesus’ betrayal. This wasn’t a demonstration of repentance that leads to salvation, but of sorrow, guilt, and a deep-seated remorse that ultimately led to death. This is precisely what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote in Second Corinthians 7:10 about “the sorrow of the world that worketh death.”

Don’t misunderstand me — emotion and tears may accompany repentance. If we have sinned against the Holy Spirit, it is normal for us to experience godly sorrow for our actions. In Second Corinthians 7:10, Paul wrote about “godly sorrow.” Unlike the sorrow of the world that produces death, he wrote that “godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation.” But godly sorrow produces more than tears; it produces a desire to change that leads us to deliverance, freedom, and salvation. What a contrast to the sorrow of the world that produces hopelessness, defeat, and despair.

When I was a child and Satan tormented me because I didn’t cry at the altar when I got saved, I was as saved as it was possible to be saved. I had no tears to cry about my horrid sins because I was five years old when I committed my life to Christ. Even though I didn’t cry, my decision to serve Him was firm and therefore absolutely real. As a result of this experience, I learned not to confuse sobbing with repentance, for although tears and emotions may accompany this act, they’re not requirements, nor are they necessarily evidence that repentance has occurred.

Remember, the word “repent” is metanoeo — referring to a complete turn in the way one thinks, lives, or acts. For a person to repent, he must simply make up his mind to change.

So what is the difference between guilt, remorse, regret, and repentance?

Guilt is a prison that will keep you perpetually bound and unchanged.

Remorse enslaves you in sorrow that engulfs you emotionally and leaves you feeling sad, depressed, hopeless, and unchanged.

Regret is self-pity that is focused more on your own personal loss than on the pain or loss you caused to others or to the heart of God, and it leaves you unchanged.

Repentance is a quality decision to change — and when genuine repentance occurs in a person’s heart and mind, you can be sure the Holy Spirit will release His power to effect change in that person’s life and lead him to freedom!

So in light of what you have read today, are there any areas in your life in which you have felt guilty, remorseful, or regretful — but unchanged? Could it be that you’ve never really made a firm decision to change, and that’s why you’ve had no enduring victory in these areas of your life?

If you’ve confused tears with repentance, now you know that you don’t have to depend on your emotions to repent. If God is dealing with you about something that needs to change in your life, you can repent right now at this very moment, regardless of what you do or do not feel. God is waiting for you to make a decision!

MY PRAYER FOR TODAY

Heavenly Father, I thank You that You have given me the power to choose life. Today I make the decision to turn away from those actions and thought processes that are negative, detrimental, and destructive to my life. I don’t want to grieve Your heart in any way. What a joy to know I don’t have to wait for emotions to repent! I made the mistake of thinking I had to “feel” something in order to repent, but now I realize that feelings and tears are not requirements for repentance. Therefore, I am responding to the Word of God and to the voice of the Spirit who is speaking to me about making concrete changes in certain areas of my life. Right now I choose to repent of those things that I know are wrong. I make the decision to walk free of them and to stay free of them for the rest of my life. This is my point of no return.

I pray this in Jesus’ name!

MY CONFESSION FOR TODAY

I joyfully declare that I walk free of things that have long bound me. God is on my side! He sent His Son to die for my freedom and deliverance; He sent His Spirit to empower me; and I do not have to sit in a spiritual prison any longer. I proclaim that today is the day of deliverance for me! I permanently walk free of those things that have been a hindrance to me. Jesus died so I can be free, and I am free! Today is the day that I begin walking in my victory!

I declare this by faith in Jesus’ name!

QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER

Can you think of a time when you were so engulfed in sorrow and remorse about something you had done that you were unable to really repent? How did your emotions get in the way of your repentance?

When you think back on your life to times when the Holy Spirit required you to repent about some attitude, action, or habit in your life, was your repentance more effective when it was dominated by emotions or when it was purely a decision of your will to obey? It’s different for everyone, so there isn’t a right or wrong answer. Which was most effective in your life?

What are the areas of your life right now that you need to turn from and leave behind? As you read this Sparkling Gem, did the Holy Spirit speak to you about specific areas in your present life? If yes, what were those areas, and what do you intend to do about it?

0 notes