#you can (and should) also be critical of the systems that lead to that in the first place | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

deppiet · 9 months

Text

About the yassification of GO2.

Warning: the following text is highly critical of the second season of Good Omens. If you enjoyed it, I am happy for you, and a non-negligible amount of jealous as well. Please scroll past before I inevitably rain on your fandom parade.

So, I did the thing. I binged the entire second season of what was, up to now, my favorite show ever, in one sitting. And I have a great deal of things to say, but hardly any of them is positive.

Let me start by saying that I don't mind the cliffhanger or the melancholy ending, like at all. In our era of Marvel apologists and the instant gratification culture, it is necessary for media to persevere and add nuance to romantic relationships. That said, what transpired during the six hours leading up to this sort of unearned climax hardly contains anything remotely close to nuance.

Who are these people? I don't mean the new characters, all of them written as cardboard-cut anthropomorphic personifications of stereotypes, yassified to the point of representation losing its purpose and getting in the way of, you know, actual writing. I mean the protagonists themselves, Aziraphale and Crowley, up to now my favorite characters in the entire world and -up to now- tangled in a love story so beautiful I had, for better or for worse, devoted a large part of my creative output on it, making art, songs, and metas on why what those two entities had was as close to perfect as anyone can hope to find for themselves.

These are not the characters I knew. The characters I knew spent hundreds of human lifetimes revolving around each other in a treacherous yet familiar dance- they both knew the love was there, it was comfortable like an armchair that has taken the shape of the body using it for years. They argued the way old couples do, and of course, like all fictional beings that are counterparts of one another, had differences to settle, but what stood in their way wasn't misunderstanding or miscommunication, in was their fear of Heaven and Hell, and their fundamentally different approaches on how to keep each other safe.

What is all this teen angst? This will-they-won't-they silliness that lacks any nuance, thematic coherence, or literally even trace amounts of understanding of the source material? Where is the dark humor, the quotability, the chaotic overarching plot, the self conscious camp? The season is so cynically written to cater specifically to a certain part of fandom, that I am losing respect for the original work- because if Neil Gaiman doesn't care for these fictional beings, and he evidently doesn't, why should I?

The thematic core of what made Good Omens what it was, had always been the "Love in unexpected places" trope Sir Terry Pratchett knew how to write so well. It had never been about the fantasy, because Sir Terry wrote satire wrapped up in a supernatural package, it had never been about the romance, because when the ship becomes the end instead of the means, the love rings hollow, like artificial light trying to pass as sunshine. The beating heart of GO lies in its philosophy, in the beautiful notion that the agents of two oppressive systems at war have more in common with one another than with their respective oppressors. That being a nobody, a mere cog in a larger machine, says more about said machine than it does about you, and that you can try to break free and build a life for yourself, where a happy ending looks like a dinner at the Ritz with the one you love most.

Shoehorning an underdeveloped "romance" between Beelzebub and Gabriel not only feels like bad fanfic (disclaimer: I like the ship and feel like it could have worked if developed in any capacity, and presented in a more humorous and character-appropriate way. I hate with passion how much they watered down Beelzebub in order to make them stereotypically romanceable, adding the Ineffable Bureaucracy to the ever-expanding list of characters I don't care about anymore.) but also, it muddles and grossly undermines the thematic raison d'être of Ineffable Husbands. If the ramifications for defecting and fucking off with the enemy were a slap on the wrist for the respective leaders of both sides, well surely the system can't be that oppressive after all. And if fear of the oppressive system wasn't, after all, what kept these beings apart, surely these two entities don't like each other as much as we thought. Or rather, one is reduced to a lovesick puppy and the other to a brainless husk of a character, a plot device, a means to go from place A to place B without spending much brainpower on the logistics.

And if these two new people got to kiss I care not, for they are not the same people I rooted for (props, though, to the actors, who gave, somehow, an almost Shakespearean gravitas to their love affair, underwritten and dumbed down as it was. They both love the characters, and it shows in the minuscule yet brilliant ways in which they added nuance where the script had none.)

What was that thing with the lesbians about? Though straight passing, I have always known myself to be attracted to women as well as men, and I am always highly suspicious when an "ally" writer (see: straight, no shade to straight people among which I live because they are, like, the majority) decides to make all characters queer, in the face of real-world statistics and despite NOT being queer themselves. When a person like Nate Stevenson does it they get a pass because writers self-insert and because, when done well, it can carry a message of equality. But when the ally writer does it, unless it is pitch-perfect, I am forced to examine the possibility of them being calculating about it and trying to score representation points, often because they need the rep as a fig leaf to cry homophobia behind when people start complaining about the atrocious plot.

Nina and Maggie were boring. They had no personalities, no cohesive backstories, nothing to make us understand what they are to one another and to the overarching plot ("plot" is used loosely here, for there was no plot: the series ended where it should have started, with six hours of -progressively more offensive to my intelligence- fanfic tropes in a trenchcoat serving as the, well, "plot"). I didn't care whether or not they'd end up together, because I have no idea who they are. The blandness of the dialogue had the actresses, both very talented as evidenced in the first season, grasping at straws with what little characterization they were left to work with, and the "ball" was so unbelievably bad a plot device no amount of suspension of disbelief was ever going to make it right.

The minisodes, though at parts clever and philosophical, felt out of place. This was another narrative choice I had to raise my eyebrows at, because it felt like a bunch of executives sat around a table and watched Neil Gaiman's powerpoint presentation of what made Season 1 financially successful. They were shoehorned in, largely irrelevant to the, eh, "plot", and most of them lasted far more than I personally deemed welcome, or necessary.

What else is there to say? The wink-winks and nudge-nudges to the Tumblr nation? The in-your-face Doctor Who reference? The narratively myopic choice to make Crowley a former archangel? The cheese dialogue, not one bit of which was quotable?

I am distraught. I am grieving an old friend, and a part of my fandom life I cannot, in good faith, return back to after this gross betrayal. I am happy for those who don't see it, because I wish I could love this season past its flaws. However, the writing isn't simply mediocre, it is irrevocably, immeasurably, undescribably bad, so bad I am shocked to my very core, so bad I find it offensive to Sir Terry's memory and everything his own creative output was lovingly filled with.

I am passing all five stages of grief and very much doubt I will return to this fandom. I loved the original story and the characters with all my heart- now the aforementioned heart is broken, not by the breakup or anything as pedestrian as cheap romantic tropes. But because my old friends, my family of fictional beings, are no longer the ones I loved and could relate to.

Deppie out.

#good omens #good omens season 2 #go2 #good omens 2 spoilers #gos2 spoilers #good omens s2 #aziraphale #crowley #ineffable husbands #good omens critical #good omens season 2 critical #neil gaiman #terry pratchett #good omens spoilers #michael sheen #david tennant

313 notes · View notes

howtofightwrite · 1 year

Note

What's gonna happen if someone gets shoot in the head? Will flesh and blood go all over the place, or will it be a small entry and exit, or will it be something else? Tryna write a zombie story rn and I'm not sure 😭

Usually, they die.

How much damage the head suffers will depend on what was fired. Specific cartridges result in different wound patterns, and if you have a forensic background, you may even be able to identify the bullet used based on the entrance and exit wound. Smaller handgun rounds are likely to result in less tissue disruption. Rifle rounds are more likely to cause serious structural damage, and shotgun shells (particularly buckshot) are likely to cause serious tissue disruption. But, there's another consideration, the more the decomposed the target, the more a round is likely to do. This one's honestly pretty hard to assess in generalities, because there are a lot of factors for decomposition.

This also leads into a far more difficult question, “what happens if you shoot a zombie in the head?” The answer might be, “nothing.”

So, there's two groups of zombies in popular fiction, and the answer to the above question hinges on which one you're examining. Zombies can either be infected with rabies or actual undead, and the latter are far more uncommon in modern pop culture.

A lot of popular zombies are, technically, alive, but cognitively functioning on a more animal level. In many cases, their symptoms are fairly similar to a sever rabies infection (though, the 28 Days Later series is one of the rare cases where the infection is, explicitly, a variant of rabies.) This also includes cases where the infection is from a parasite (many of the later Resident Evil games and of course The Last of Us are examples of this.) In these cases, destroying the brain stem (and, for that matter, destroying the brain) should be effective. The zombie is still propelled by using their nervous system. There's a bit of an exception in cases where the infection creates a second, parallel, nervous system in the victim, which can operate independently of the victim's original.

Living zombies became more popular in the 90s, and were extremely frequent in the mid-2000s. Most horror films that try to downplay the supernatural component, or look to play up the bio-hazardous nature of zombies, is likely to use some variant of these. (As mentioned earlier, a lot of these tend to behave like mutant strains of rabies. And, while it might sound like I'm being flippant here, rabies is a pretty terrifying virus.)

Living zombie apocalypses are, basically, impossible. There's the usual problem of asking how did the zombies actually get to critical mass? But even beyond that, eventually the infected would simply start dropping as their bodies decayed and the victims died. They'd still be a bio-hazard, but you wouldn't see waves of the undead pressing against the defenders' barricades.

If you want a much more detailed breakdown of the biology of various critters in pop culture (including a lot of zombies), Roanoke Gaming on YouTube is an excellent reference.

The other variety of zombie are far more rare in pop culture, and these are the actual revenants. Either they've been raised by some necromancer, or they're returning due to some other factor. Critically, these zombies are, truly, undead. Shooting them in the head might take it apart, but it's also quite likely that won't put them (back) down, as they're not actually using their original nervous system for anything meaningful. These kinds of zombies are far more threatening. In theory, things like extreme cold would cause further damage to these, but if the necromantic forces animating them don't care about the condition of the zombie, then having fingers or toes freeze off in cold weather, or setting them on fire, might not have the desired effects. You may need to resort to fully dismembering the corpses to get them to stop trying to kill you. (Note that these don't have to be, strictly, supernatural. The Dead Space series remains an excellent example of a non-magical zombie apocalypse of this variety, with some extremely “creative” uses of dead biomass.)

In the case of reanimated zombies, firearms are not a particularly great option for putting them down in general. The damage they inflict simply isn't relevant to destroying the undead. Firearms are designed to poke holes in people and get their body to spring a leak, but if something is already dead, that's probably not going to matter unless you're using the gun to deliver some other kind of payload.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you're already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

#how to fight write #Starke answers #writing advice #writing reference #writing tips #looking at gunshot wounds is soul destroying #zombies

398 notes · View notes

hymnism · 17 days

Note

release the list

(i feel like i should mention these are all games ive personally played so if any of these make you go "why isn't [GAME] on here it's probably cuz i haven't played it. anyway)

(obligatory mention to hades/disco elysium/omori since they're some of my favorite games but im sure everyone already knows about them. they are lovely games and you should play them 👍)

darkest dungeon ($25) - turn based roguelike where you recruit mercenaries and send them on dungeon explorations and make sure they don't die of stress or starvation alongside the regular monster attacks. notoriously difficult. imagine bloodborne but turn based

ftl: faster than light ($10)- real time roguelike where you control a small crew and pilot a spaceship on the run from a rebel fleet. manage power and weapons on your own ship while targeting critical systems on the enemy

loop hero ($15)- a roguelike where your character will automatically walk in a loop while you use cards to add terrain with different effects such as spawning monsters to give you loot or increasing your healing. very unique with a beautiful pixel artstyle and banger soundtrack

moonlighter ($20)- a roguelike rpg where you go dungeon diving and try to bring back as much loot as you can so that you can sell it in your shop

shadows of doubt ($20)- early access. a first person sandbox detective simulator where each case is procedurally generated. randomly generates a town with npcs that all have names and addresses and relationships. put together clues from a crime scene and try to catch a killer before they strike again. work odd jobs between cases to keep yourself fed and housed

ultrakill ($25) fast paced first person shooter with a style system ala devil may cry. you play as a robot fighting through the layers of hell. mankind is dead. blood is fuel. hell is full

crypt of the necrodancer ($15)- a rhythm based roguelike dungeon crawler where you and your enemies are only allowed to move on beat. banger soundtrack goes without saying

everhood ($10)- a rhythm based rpg where you play as a red doll who had their arm stolen and is trying to get it back. battles involve moving between 5 lanes to avoid enemy attacks. if you like undertale you'll like this

spiritfarer ($30)- management and adventure game where you play as a spiritfarer who needs to care for spirits on her boat before leading them into the afterlife. incredibly charming and touching game. you will cry

let's school ($20)- management sim where you build and manage a school and help students graduate by setting up different courses. addicting and has a very cute artstyle

let's build a zoo ($20)- management sim where you. well where you build a zoo. a very silly game that includes a morality system where you can choose to be eco friendly and help repopulate endangered species or you can exploit your animals for their meat and produce. also has an animal splicing mechanic. haven't you ever wanted to make a giraffe with a duck head

the wandering village ($25)- early access. a city builder with the twist that you live on the back of a giant wandering beast named onbu. you help care for onbu as he wanders though different biomes that force you to adjust your resource production as some things become unavailable (such as water in a desert)

frostpunk ($30) a survival city builder where you build around a central core and try to prevent everyone from freezing to death in progressively colder temperatures

monster sanctuary ($20)- a metroidvania style creature collector with a unique combo meter that will continue to build and increase your damage based on the number of "hits" you can perform (healing buffs and shields also count as hits) and each monster has different skill trees that you can upgrade and customize

coral island ($30)- farming life sim with a unique underwater area. you work to help restore the island after and oil spill ruined the surrounding ocean. i should mention that although this game is technically not in early access it is still unfinished and missing large chunks of gameplay/interactions/story. however there is still a healthy amount of content and is still a fun game as it is

apico ($20)- a beekeeping sim where you keep bees to make and sell honey while also breeding and releasing them to help restore their numbers in the wild

spirittea ($20)- a management and life sim where you manage a bathhouse for ghosts and help the townsfolk who think they're haunted (they're right). basically a cross between stardew valley and spirited away

cloud meadow ($20)- early access. this is a porn game ⚠️ a farming sim where instead of regular animals you have anthro characters and you can breed them either yourself or with each other and have them help in combat or on your farm. very cute artstyle and amazing animation work

#looking for a new game ask sunny if their recommendation is a roguelike or management sim i laugh and say it's a good game sir look inside #it's a roguelike #asks

48 notes · View notes

rebeccathenaturalist · 1 year

Text

California agencies working to protect critically endangered condors are on high alert after 20 recent deaths in northern Arizona, wildlife officials said last week.

A highly pathogenic avian influenza that has infected domestic and wild birds across the country has been confirmed as the cause of death for California condors in in the Arizona-Utah flock. By April 17, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported 20 condors had died. So far, tests confirmed 10 of those birds were positive for the avian flu.

The virus had not been detected in condor populations in Ventura County or other parts of California and Baja as of late this week. But agencies monitoring those flocks were preparing emergency actions in case that changes, said Ashleigh Blackford, the federal agency’s California condor coordinator.

“Our concern is definitely heightened in California,” Blackford said.

More populations, more protection

Agencies have worked for decades to help the species recover. The largest flying land bird in North America — known for its bald head and black feathers — had all but disappeared in the wild by the early 1980s.

The population dropped to just 22 birds in the wild in 1982. Five years later, all remaining wild condors were placed in a captive breeding program to save the species from extinction.

By the end of last year, 347 condors lived in the wild – 183 in California and 116 in the Arizona-Utah region.

Supporting separate populations in different areas was part of the plan to help the species overcome any single event such as a virus outbreak or wildfire. The more populations and the more birds increases the odds of survival, Blackford said.

The condors also continue to rely on captive-bred birds being released into the wild.

Virus can be fatal

The avian influenza can spread quickly and appears to be almost 100% fatal for some species. But scientists didn’t know until the recent outbreak how infected condors would fare.

“Now, we know that answer, and it is an unfortunate answer," Blackford said.

But some condors do appear to be recovering. Eight sick condors were captured in Arizona and brought to a facility for treatment. Of those, four died and four others are still receiving care and showing signs of improvement, wildlife officials said.

A setback for Arizona flock

The 20 recent deaths account for around 17% of the Arizona-Utah flock. That's four times the number of deaths in the region last year.

"That’s a substantial setback for this flock," Blackford said. "But it is not insurmountable."

In all of last year, the agency reported 20 condor deaths, most of them in California. Lead poisoning is consistently the leading the cause of death and continues to be the biggest concern for agencies working to protect the species.

The birds feed on carcasses containing bullet fragments, so trying to get folks to use other types of ammunition continues to be a priority, wildlife officials said. Lead poisoning not only can be fatal but also can suppress the immune system, increasing the condors risk from other illnesses.

"If we were not losing birds to lead, then our population would be stronger," Blackford said. "It would be more robust, and we would have healthier birds."

How to help

While the risk to the public's health is low, officials said human infections can happen and the general public should avoid handling wild birds. State and federal agencies recommended the following tips.

Report dead birds using the state's mortality reporting system to help officials monitor the outbreak at wildlife.ca.gov/Living-with-Wildlife.

If you see condors, observe from a distance. Stress can be harmful to birds exhibiting symptoms of illness.

Keep your family, including pets, a safe distance away from wildlife. Do not feed, handle or approach sick or dead animals or their droppings.

Prevent contact of domestic or captive birds with wild birds.

Find more information about the avian influenza: cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/Animal_Health/Avian_Influenza.html, aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information.

#California condors #California condor #raptors #birds of prey #birds #animals #wildlife #nature #vultures #avian flu #endangered species #extinction #animal death

294 notes · View notes

18catsreading · 5 months

Text

Ayda: we have to go to hell to rescue Fig

Adaine: no, no, no, she's fine

Ayda: yes we do

Adaine: she's from hell

Ayda: yes we do. She's not from hell, she's from Spyre

Adaine: I mean, are you sure?

Ayda: am I sure --?

Adaine: that you have to go? What information do you have?

Ayda: well we should just do whatever we can to make it happen as fast as possible because I'm going to get another kiss, whatever happens.

Adaine: what?

Ayda: what?

*bad kids losing it*

Adaine: what?!

Ayda: is it normal for friends to know if their friends have kissed people that they also know

Adaine: yes, tell me everything about it!!

Ayda: great. We went away for a hour from the party.

Adaine: an hour? You were kissing for an hour?

Ayda: you're elongating your sentences and pitching up so high that it makes me feel like I'm not supposed --

Adaine: I support this. I am happy about it. I am amazed. Oooh, she's secretive.

Ayda: it's good that you know this right?

Adaine: yes it's very good that I know this

Ayda: wonderful. Her lips are the softest things I've ever felt

Adaine: mm-mm. Mm-mm.

Ayda: that's not good?

Adaine: well no, I'm glad that you, I don't need to know the details about my friends kissing

Ayda: what's critical information?

Adaine: you're right, I did say, I did tell you to tell me everything and then you did, and I actually didn't need to know everything. Um. Wow.

Ayda: if you kiss someone -- I have some questions for you as oracle.

Adaine: yes, okay

Ayda: in how many potential futures does fig not want to kiss me and be around me anymore. And can those futures be avoided?

Adaine: unfortunately that's not really how being the Oracle works [longer explanation here] ...

Ayda: Terrible. If someone kisses you does that mean de facto that they are attracted to you, or is there a possibility that someone would kiss you for some other reason?

Adaine: I think -- from a purely academic standpoint --

Ayda: perfect. I am an academic

Adaine: fantastic. I would say that on a macro level there are probably people who would kiss you without caring about you, but I don't think that Fig would do that, because Fig cares about everybody.

Ayda: are you saying this as Oracle or because you have knowledge of Fig that would lead you to this conclusion?

Adaine: yes.

Ayda: both, excellent. If we kissed a bunch of times over the course or an hour. Does that mean we are girlfriends or wives? And what --

Adaine: I mean, I'm gonna say no on wives

Ayda: good. There's a ceremony, that's formal.

Adaine: yes.

Ayda: much easier. A better system

Adaine: girlfriends I would say -- lots of times over the course of an hour I would say potentially but I think it's reasonable to ask tj clarify.

Ayda: mhmm. Okay, and if I were to ask Fig to clarify if we were girlfriends or dating each other, will that make me on a social level look sad, weird, or not normal?

Adaine: I don't think that you should worry about -- the first answer is no. But also, if you like a person and they like you and the relationship is good, it shouldn't matter how other people feel about it. I think.

Ayda: the variables involved in the equation you've posited are so fuzzy as to be maddening

Adaine: I don't think that you're sad or weird. And I think that you're dating

Ayda: thank you

#brennan lee mulligan #dimension 20 #fantasy high: sophmore year #ep 13 hellbound #siobhan thompson #lou wilson #ally beardsley #zac oyama #emily axford #brian murphy #if i don't smell figs hair again i will incinerate #i love Ayda Aguefort so much #i resonate with her #i wanted to put their whole conversation out but its a wall of text #but they are best friends

79 notes · View notes

icedax · 1 year

Text

I think people arent understanding min’s chapter, like at all. While also widely relatable, this game is specifically about the 2nd gen asian american experience. Min’s chapter isn’t simply about the ability of racial minorities to be racist to other minorities. It’s about how the experience of being an asian american born to an immigrant leads to a specific pain, which often manifests in the kind of racism/ignorance we see in min. “I suffered in silence so they should too.”

It’s the myth of the model minority in action, one that she is shown internalizing from her dad: the model minority myth offers to asian immigrants the idea that if they don’t make trouble and aim for success within the parameters of (white-dominated, patriarchal, culturally Christian) American capitalism, they’ll be rewarded by the system - and part of that means rejecting solidarity with other minority groups, which results in the kind of antiBlackness and other forms of divisive racism found in asian communities. This issue is culturally specific to asian american immigrants - this particular attitude of “putting your head down and suffering in silence” is many older asian immigrants’ response to the adversity & racism that they faced in America. Min’s dad embodies this very clearly - he states explicitly in the game that when people discriminated against him for his accent and culture, he simply worked harder instead of causing a problem, and he tries to force Min to adopt the same mentality.

Min’s chapter is both a wider commentary on the asian community and character growth. BS outlines incredibly clearly that Min’s own aggression was in survival to her immigrant dad’s own aggression, which was in response to a hostile racist world he had to learn to survive in. Her aggression is often shown in a generally positive (or humorous) light, protecting herself and her friends, but in this ch, it’s shown how misdirected it can become. And when she decides to break that cycle by the end of the end of the ch, it’s a great show of growth for her.

As an asian american to an immigrant dad and being within these communities, min’s ch resonated deeply. Older asian people can be incredibly racist and conservative, but it’s not in the same way a white person can be racist and conservative. It’s its own brand, which developed in response to the particular forms of anti-asian racism they’ve faced, and I really applaud brianna’s willingness to tackle such an uncomfortable and often ignored subject within her game, especially with a main lead character.

I’m frustrated because i have yet to see anyone provide any specific criticism of how brianna handled the ch that isnt some flavor of “it made me uncomfortable because I like min,” and how unnecessary they felt it was. I think it’s complicated because a lot of online activism stresses the importance of centering the feelings of the victim, and min’s chapter is centered on her feelings, not ester’s. But it’s from a certain pain min experienced herself as a victim of racism that leads to her hyper-aggression in response to being called out. I think its an experience worth talking about, and it’s absolutely not excused within the text.

to paint this as brianna making her beloved character a racist for no reason is a gross misrepresentation and simplification of what literally happens within the text of the game, and potentially shutting down an important subject just on the basis of it being uncomfortable. it’s irresponsible and unproductive. she doesnt owe you a digestible and agreeable character in her game talking about her own experience as a 2nd gen asian american.

#butterfly soup 2 #butterfly soup #min seo #OKAY brianna posted her response to this criticism go read that

547 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 5 months

Text

By: Eliza Mondegreen

Published: Dec 3, 2023

A recent New York Times op-ed entitled “There is no way to live a life without regret” meditates on youth gender transition, regret and how we know who we are (I’ll save you a few thousand words: we don’t).

As far as op-eds go, it’s poorly argued and far too long. But as an example of its genre —a genre we could call ‘Desperately Throwing Spaghetti at the Wall’ — it’s unbeatable.

“[L]iberals and progressives who fret about the rapidly changing gender landscape,” according to author Lydia Polgreen, are too worked up about the possibility that children and adolescents may later regret the decision to transition. Rather than address their actual concerns, however, Polgreen gives readers a rambling tour of misdirections: gender is like race, somehow, and also like an arranged marriage. Further, life is full of “transitions” that are like “little deaths,” all leading up to the biggest “transition” of all: the big sleep.

Some teenagers get nose jobs and boob jobs, so why should gender transition surgery be viewed as any different? “Cosmetic procedures can produce regret, sometimes famously so,” the author writes. Never mind that few of youth gender transitions’ critics champion cosmetic surgery for teens. The point is, “gender-affirming” care has not been billed to regulators, consumers, and the public as cosmetic, but held up as life-saving procedures, covered under many public and private health insurance plans, and carried out in the name of medicine as a treatment for distress. The stakes matter.

But what is a life without regret? This is a talking point that started circulating relatively recently, in response to mounting evidence of regret and detransition, and concerns that social influence may be driving the explosion in gender-distressed youth — the way just about everybody acknowledges that social influence drives the recent surge in TikTok tics or multiple personalities. So what if it’s a social contagion? “What is gender if not contagious?” Polgreen asks.

Because few young people who embarked on transition as children have spoken up, the author first dismisses their experiences as rare and overhyped (“a handful of such people have appeared over and over again in news stories across the world”) before writing them off altogether a few paragraphs later (“when the media fixates on the hypothetical regret of children who do transition…”).

Besides, maybe deciding to transition as a child is like quitting the swim team: “so what are we saying, really, when we worry that a child will regret this particular decision, the decision to transition? And how is it different, really, from the decision I made to quit competitive swimming?”

Of course, a child who quits competitive swimming merely forecloses a competitive swimming career. One needn’t give up the ocean or the pool whereas children who undergo puberty suppression, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries foreclose more than one possible future. Fertility, sexual pleasure, the possibility of growing up and becoming comfortable in one’s own intact body, to name a few.

We have no idea what childish decisions like these will mean 50 years down the road. And again: Polgreen has pulled the conversation off-course to avoid the inconvenient topic of medical responsibility. The decision to quit swimming is not a medical decision, cosigned by medical authorities. Youth gender transition is.

The author goes on to make a number of bizarre analogies in this 4,500-word slog. But she never touches the real arguments that she pretends to counter: that children are not just small adults, that the medical system needs to be accountable for the power it exercises, and that children who struggle with gender distress need real support, not empty meditations on identity, autonomy, and the ubiquity of regret.

Polgreen misdirects and obfuscates in a half-dozen creative ways, then reifies her misdirections. She misses the point — on purpose — and then wonders why so many people care so much about this issue.

We're into the "...and that's a good thing" phase. Where the thing that they were denying was happening at all actually is, but it's a good thing. Teaching (using) CRT, cancel culture, ROGD, juvenile surgeries, and now detransition and regret.

This is just more gaslighting. Before it was, "nobody's doing that, you're being crazy for worrying about something that's not happening." Now it's, "well, that's completely normal, you're being crazy for worrying about something that happens all the time."

Pay attention to who was endorsing, facilitating and cheering this on. Eventually they will be trying to convince you that they never did.

#Eliza Mondegreen #gender ideology #queer theory #detrans #detransition #transition regret #medical scandal #medical malpractice #medical corruption #gaslighting #social contagion #religion is a mental illness

56 notes · View notes

david-talks-sw · 1 year

Note

Where do you sorta stand in terms of "Adhering to Lucas's" vision but also like "Well Lucas isn't making it so Star Wars is open to interpretation" Like don't get me wrong I don't like Karen Travesis's take on Star Wars for a whole host of reason and I think if anyone ever did a story and said "Well the Empire is right" then you are completely doing Star Wars wrong. But if someone legit wanted to do a story having a critical eye on the Jedi Order or IDK the Republic or even coming at Star Wars in a way that George Lucas wouldn't cover it cuz they are ideologically different, IDK, how far should that go?

I think the main thing to keep in mind is that it stays consistent with the spirit of what George Lucas was trying to say, if not the letter.

You can try alternative narratives, focus on certain characters, do it in different genres, but at the end of the day the message needs to stay the same.

And if you can't do that, at least try to be fair about your criticism of that message.

Different narrative, same conclusion

You can explore and certainly argue that the Empire brought about order and peace, and that it is better than the chaos and war present during the Republic.

You can argue that maybe, if instead of a Sith Lord who rules by fear, the Emperor was a benevolent dictator who lead by example, then the Empire wouldn't be as bad.

Legends stories have done this before.

You can even argue that the Rebels are terrorists and that the attack on the Death Star was the equivalent of 9-11 for the Imperial citizens, like this guy does.

But at the end of the day, that's a fallacy.

The previously-shown Empire storyline makes it clear that Moff Trachta is ambitious and greedy, as are his fellow conspirators. They're hypocrites who tell themselves "it's for the greater good" but really it's just so they can backstab each other to have the top job.

And the war the Empire's peace replaces was one orchestrated by the Emperor himself, so the entire regime is based on a lie, because really the only thing the Empire's system runs on is greed and fear, as shown in Andor.

Finally, while some of the Rebels' methods are hard and dark in nature... it's a war. And the narrative makes it clear that at the end of the day, the enemy they're fighting are space nazis. And 90% of the stormtroopers we're shown range from bullies to extremists. That one Imp pilot saying "millions died on the Death Star" also mocked Cara Dune for the genocide of her people, seconds prior.

The smaller narrative may take some deviations, it may question some aspects, but the larger one is consistent.

The moral of the story remains the same: the Empire is evil.

Different tone & characters, same message

When George Lucas made the six films, he had a very clear idea in mind, in terms of genre and style: imitating the Saturday matinee specials (think Flash Gordon), blend them with long standing psychological motifs derived from mythology, add dash of Buddhist philosophy: you get Star Wars, a movie for kids.

But I would fully expect a horror movie about a stormtrooper being hunted by an ice spider to go "fuck this 'we're all connected, we're all symbioms' bullshit. Die you creepy bastard!"

Same goes for Andor.

It's not rated PG-18, but it's still very dark. This isn't a movie for kids, it's a movie for teens and older. It opens with the eponymous character shooting someone in the face.

In Andor (and Rogue One) we see a side of the Rebellion we hadn't seen before. A darker one. But the genre of those productions demands a darker outlook on these concepts.

Cassian lives in a world where everything is nuances of gray.

He's the perfect kind of character to tell this story.

As is Dedra Meero. She is written as an underdog in the first half of the show. You're rooting for her. But then the series reminds you that: "hey, she's as much a nazi as the rest of them". She's willing to torture people to keep her job or get a promotion. The narrative frames her as ultimately evil.

Because at the end of the day the message is the same. The Empire is evil and it takes regular people to beat the elite 1%. Greed vs compassion, fear vs hope.

Now suppose there was a series opening on a "Gray Jedi" character, juggling between the Dark and Light Side with little to no effort or repercussion, sabering someone in the face.

That fucks with the message. Because it's okay for Cassian to do it, because Cassian doesn't need to deal with space magic, he lives in an un-mystical, cold and harsh part of the galaxy where you're either evil or less bad, rarely good.

But the 6 films make it clear that for Force sensitives, things are binary. They have to be or bad shit happens.

Gray morality works in Star Wars if we're talking about non-Force sensitives. In the case of a Force user, that's a darksider waiting to happen.

Criticizing the narrative via unreliable narrators

You mentioned Karen Traviss. For all my criticism re: her stance on the Jedi philosophy and their relation with the clones, I think her definition of Boba Fett is the best one yet (probably because she actually likes that character).

As a result of this personality, an eventual Boba Fett film would have to be Jedi-critical, because if you ask him, the Jedi took his father away from him. And you can argue using logical points all you want, his pain is emotional, not rational. Him being right or wrong is irrelevant, his pain is real.

Same goes with the recent Tales of the Jedi.

Dooku's an unreliable narrator, he is a character notorious for lying to himself and to others, he's poisonous and deceitful.

Of course three short films shown through his point of view would cast him in a noble "free thinking" light and the Jedi as infuriatingly obtuse.

The problem comes in when the author steps in and sides with the unreliable character with a subjective opinion and says that character is objectively right.

Okay, so now we have a situation where you've deviated from the established narrative.

You're having someone say the Jedi are asleep at the wheel and Dooku is the only one ahead of the curb when the movies and TCW show us the Jedi being just as aware and frustrated as Dooku is.

You're having someone say the Jedi can do more than what they're already doing, when Lucas' story shows us that there's really not much more that can be done, and Lucas himself confirms as much.

Which brings me to my final point.

Being fair with the criticism.

That's what it comes down to for me.

You can criticize the Jedi Order (I do so right here). But just be fair about it. And be informed.

For example, you can question whether the Jedi's rule of non-attachment is good or not.

But first you gotta know what attachment means, in the context of Star Wars. It does not mean "emotional attachments", aka "relationships". And it's not about repression.

So if you go into it thinking either of those things then your criticism isn't really 1) informed 2) done in good faith.

Because in Star Wars, the term "attachment" is used in the Buddhist sense. It's not about depriving yourself of bonds, it's about being able to let go and move on from who/what you love, when it's time.

Other example: you can argue the Jedi "accepted" the use of a clone army bred for combat because "we don't see it in the movies"... but you'd be disingenuous.

Because Attack of the Clones takes place over a bunch of days. You're not gonna be shown every second of those days. That'd be like arguing that "we never see Mace Windu eat in athemovie, so Mace is unable to eat".

AOTC is a movie about how Anakin fell in love with Padmé and lost his mother, and how Palpatine rose to power by engineering a war, a storyline shown through his and Obi-Wan's POV. The film isn't gonna stop and touch on a point that isn't directly relevant to those two storylines.

In TCW, you see the Jedi, some Senators and some civilians are the only people to treat the clones like, y'know, people. To argue the above, you'd have to deliberately ignore the 12 Jedi we're shown caring for their troops and just focus on Pong Krell.

Also, I think we've criticized the Jedi Order enough. Don't you think?

Different artists, mediums and tales have done it so much that the very clear, very obvious message of the Prequels has been twisted into something else.

If you look up any George Lucas interview between 1999 and 2021, he'll say it's about Anakin and the Senate's greed, it's about how a good kid becomes a bad man and how a democracy becomes a dictatorship. The Prequels weren't about the Jedi.

Instead of challenging the notion that the Jedi are good, which has been done baselessly for over a decade, I think it would now be fair to explore whether the Prequel Jedi were all that bad.

Oh. We're not trying to be fair? My bad then. Let's keep misinterpreting the source material because we like it more that way then say it was how it was originally intended to be.

#QnA

180 notes · View notes

scoobydoodean · 9 months

Text

Anon I already addressed a lot of your message, but I also wanted to respond to the 2.02 part of your message more specifically. Tbh I didn't talk about this very specifically in my rewatch because I kind of feel like Sam projecting in 2.02 is a subject that has been beaten to death by fandom and I didn't really want to add to it if I'm being quite honest—especially because it quickly leads to samcrit hours for a lot of people in a way that I'm not really into believe it or not. But I wanted to respond specifically to what you wrote here:

Yes, Sam is expressing how he feels in season 2, but he isn't lashing out. He wants to express his grief to his brother, who he knows is also expressing grief. He doesn't realize his brother is expressing it in a different way than him, and interprets that as not expressing it at all. But he isn't lashing out and he isn't being malicious. Sam is trying to get Dean to talk to him, because that is how Sam needs to process his grief. He isn't displacing his aggression onto someone else. He's desperate for a connection. He's more begging than projecting at some point. And when it bubbles over, he admits how he is feeling to Dean based on an earlier conversation where Dean criticized Sam for how he was reacting to their father's death when Sam and John fought all of the time. Dean is angry because that is how Dean deals with grief, and in that conversation, he took it out on Sam. In the season 2 scene, Sam is admitting that yes, he and his dad always fought, and he feels terrible about it and is drowning in the too little too late. But he is desperate for his brother to let him in because that is the only connection he has left and Dean shutting down makes him afraid to lose that too. But he isn't lashing out or projecting. He is trying to communicate his needs but doing it less than stellarly.

First (clarification for any other readers) I've already clarified that I myself don't see Sam projecting as malicious.

Second, I think you reference a tag I used on my original post: projecting displaced aggression and scapegoating in spn. That is a tag for my tagging system. It's a blanket tag that I use when at least one of the words in the string applies to a situation, but not all have to apply.

Third, let's be clear about the sequence of events in 2.02:

Sam comes outside and asks if Dean is okay or if he needs anything.

Dean says he does not need anything, and calmly but plainly asks Sam to stop asking, because Sam has been asking Dean all week and Sam has not taken a hint.

Sam does not listen. Instead, he pushes forward, pointing out that Dean hasn't mentioned John all week.

Dean responds with a sarcastic remark that boils down to, "What the fuck do you want my grief to look like? What would you consider palatable?"

Sam explodes, yelling at Dean for patronizing him, accusing Dean of grieving wrong, and telling Dean how he should be grieving.

Dean says the anger and vengeance Sam wants from him is useless, and that the only thing he can do right now is work on the car.

As the episode continues:

Sam talks about wanting to hunt in John's memory twice after Dean wonders 1) why Sam wanted to go on a random hunt 2) Why Sam tells the carnival owner that he doesn't want normal. Dean pretends he has no thoughts about this.

Sam brings up a fond memory of John, and Dean says he remembers. 5 seconds later, Sam accuses Dean of "getting maudlin on him", and then he accuses Dean of playing the "strong and silent type"

Dean asks him firmly to leave him alone, and plainly says Sam is acting entitled to determine how Dean grieves.

Sam begins yelling at Dean again for not grieving right.

Dean shouts back at Sam that he is fine and tells Sam to stop dumping his issues on Dean.

Sam asks what Dean means.

Dean says Sam is having trouble dealing with John's death because of how things ended between the two of them and says Sam is projecting his inability to deal with John's death onto Dean.

At the end of the episode, Sam admits that Dean was right about what he was doing, but also says he knows Dean isn't actually okay.

That is the sequence of events.

He doesn't realize his brother is expressing it in a different way than him, and interprets that as not expressing it at all.

I'm not the thought police, but neither is Sam, and Sam quite literally shouts at Dean multiple times in 2.02 for not grieving in a way that Sam finds relatable. He specifically demands to know why Dean isn't angry, and why Dean doesn't want revenge, and why Dean's grieving process involves fixing his broken car instead of doing exactly what Sam has been doing—searching for leads on the demon. Sam is angry and is frustrated by a lack of leads, and he is displacing that frustration onto Dean and doing exactly what you claim Dean did to him later in the episode, except when Dean does it, it is after being harassed repeatedly and criticized for how he grieves and having his clearly stated boundaries trampled on by his brother for over a week.

Adults don't have to understand the quirks of other people's grief, but they should be expected to accept that their own feelings are not universal, and not make judgements. We don't get to dictate how other people feel and process things. I lost my grandfather this year, and if someone had come up to me at his funeral and criticized me for not appearing to grieve in a way they found relatable (which would invariably and inescapably carry an implication that I didn't care about my own grandfather) I would have put them on the ground, and they would have deserved it. It's fine that Sam doesn't understand how Dean grieves. His response to that lack of understanding, which is to deliberately and flagrantly ignore Dean's very calmly and plainly stated boundaries, and criticize how Dean deals with his feelings because Sam doesn't understand him, is not fine.

Note: Sam's behavior here is also not dissimilar from how he criticized Dean in 1.03 for not searching hard enough for John (in Sam's opinion—a guy who had found exactly 0 leads for them up to that point) with a tacked on thinly-veiled accusation that Dean did not care, followed by denials of his obvious meaning when Dean reacted. That also was not okay, and it's part of the pattern we see.

Sam is trying to get Dean to talk to him, because that is how Sam needs to process his grief.

You say Sam just wants to express his own grief to Dean, but that is not what Sam does? Sam talks exclusively about how Dean is processing his own grief: DEAN hasn't brought up dad once. DEAN should want revenge. DEAN should be mad. DEAN needs to stop being so dysfunctional and cold and "deal with" John's death—not Sam. If Sam wanted to talk about how Sam was grieving... he could simply talk about how he is grieving. However, quite crucially, he should also be willing to have someone else act as his active listener (ex: Bobby). Dean and Sam's methods of coping clearly do not mesh, and Sam should be willing to respect that. But when Dean does ask Sam quite plainly, over and over, to stop pestering him, Sam does not listen. He wants to talk about how Dean is grieving. Whether Dean is ready is not relevant—only whether Sam is ready for Dean to be ready. Dean is expected to grieve on Sam's timeline, in a way that looks familiar and relatable. Sam fixates on getting Dean to open up, because Sam is worried about him yeah—but also because Sam thinks he needs Dean—specifically—to spill his guts in order to process his own grief and stop worrying about Dean, and that is dysfunctional, and Sam is so focused on fulfilling that dysfunctional need that he is willing to flagrantly trample all over Dean's own grieving process and his clearly defined boundaries in order to get what he wants.

Sam's methods of coping and how they effect Dean in 2.02 are maladaptive, and they make Dean responsible for "fixing" Sam in a way that is not fair, while Dean is also grieving their dead father. Sam is essentially criticizing Dean for not offering up his raw grief as an artistically arranged meal for Sam's consumption, and Sam does not even realize it until Dean, tired of having his clearly stated boundaries trampled on over and over by Sam's repeated pestering and demands and criticisms, calls Sam out on what he is doing. And Dean is right about it, and after Sam reflects on it, he admits that Dean is right and reduces his harassment and policing of Dean's feelings by about 75%.

#projecting displaced aggression and scapegoating in spn #2.02 #mail #season 2 #spn revisionisms #youre such a control freak #john #the flannel business #we probably have a lot more in common than just about anyone #i dont deserve what he put on me #bad therapist sam

87 notes · View notes

awakenedsalamander · 6 months

Text

Alright, so I’ve obviously given Mage and Vampire some attention. It’s about time I talk about Werewolf: The Apocalypse, you know, round out the “big three.”

Truth be told, I have kind of a love/hate relationship with Werewolf, though that kinda implies it’s an even split of things I enjoy and things I don’t, but that’s not quite correct.

A more accurate breakdown of my feelings would be something like:

- 60% stuff I really love and appreciate

- 20% stuff I go back and forth on

- 15% stuff I dislike but can tolerate (pretty standard for WoD)

- 5% stuff I really, truly, passionately loathe

And it’s honestly that last 5% that I struggle with most. To be clear, a lot of the WoD games have things in them I don’t just dislike, but find sincerely objectionable or harmful. (A certain Vampire sourcebook, the title of which I can’t even comfortably write out, immediately comes to mind.) But I get past those things, because 1) no work of art is morally flawless, and your tastes as a hobbyist or audience member are not your ethics as a human being and 2) a lot of that stuff is from the older editions and has largely been divorced from the game.

So what’s different about Werewolf?

Well, some of it lies in point 2— there are things in Werewolf that are bad and (barring the controversy of 5th Edition’s lore changes, which is a whole other kettle of fish that I’d rather not dive into right now) are still part of the game. Improved somewhat? Absolutely. But the ugliness of some choices still haunts the game.

The ways Werewolf: The Apocalypse talks about native peoples, from Indigenous Australians to First Nations Americans, is a big example. I don’t feel it prudent for me to go into those details, if only because I think it’s not my lane and voices from those cultures should really lead those discussions, but the game has a very weird attitude toward indigenous groups— at one recognizing their history and the atrocities they’ve come through with respect, while still finding ways to exoticize that history, and appropriate much of it. To say nothing of the ways in which it feels comfortable speaking over indigenous groups, even in matters of their rights.

That’s just one example. There’s the way Werewolf conceptualizes ethnicity and ancestry in general, which is weirdly archaic in places despite seemingly trying to criticize that view. There’s its approach to disability and bodies that differ from an assumed norm, which as many have observed can sometimes come across as genuinely eugenicist on occasion.

And of course, the game is about monsters— you’re not meant to agree with the Garou on much of their beliefs, and you’re meant to engage with those very real issues and wrestle with the right way forward.

And honestly? That last part— the reality of the issues at hand— that’s what makes the bad parts of Werewolf so hard to look past. You know, the other games in the World of Darkness deal with real world issues, but they do so in a fairly abstract way. Like, sure I can and do identity the Technocracy of Mage with destructive and cruel systems of power in the real world, but like… there isn’t actually a league of hypereconomists using secret math to influence the fate of the world. That’s just an exaggerated and metaphorical way to engage with the problems at the heart of a late-capitalist world.

But Pentex? Pentex is basically real. The Apocalypse in Werewolf: The Apocalypse is climate change. It’s happening now. When the game tells you that you need to Rage against the dying of Gaia… that’s almost as literal as it gets. And that makes its fumbles, its mistakes, and yes, its deliberate offenses, harder to swallow. The stakes are high enough that when things are wrong, it really hurts.

But… let’s also acknowledge: The reality I’m talking about it? It’s what makes that 60% stuff I like so amazing. The lows of Werewolf are hard to stomach, but the highs are just… exhilarating.

Like, Werewolf is a game that says, “You see the state of the world? You see its monstrous past? Its insidious present that only hides the horror? Do you see the doomed future its on a crash course with? Let’s take it, and let’s rip it to fucking shreds. It these tyrants and thieves want to kill the world, then we’ll kill them first, if that’s what it takes. If the Apocalypse happens, it happens on our terms, on the terms of the people being victimized and shoved to the margins. You and I? We’re gonna build a better world or die trying. All our anger might ruin us, but we have to try. The consequences of our actions are dire, but we don’t go down without making the bastards work for it. Not without a fight.”

And fuck, when the game is saying that? It’s priceless.

In fact, this has all been too down on Werewolf as a whole. I want to get my problems with the game out front, just to acknowledge them and keep space for the critique and change that they demand, but at the end of the day, I am a Werewolf: The Apocalypse fan (if one with a lot of notes). I want to do something a little unusual and show you an outline for an Apocalypse chronicle I haven’t yet had the chance to run, to show you what I love about the game.

So, stay tuned for a glimpse into that later— a glimpse into “Blood Ripples Out.”

#wod #world of darkness #werewolf the apocalypse

66 notes · View notes

piosplayhouse · 1 year

Text

Horse Isle 3: The Yandere Sim of Horse Games

(or, an extended study in how to hate your own playerbase as much as humanly possible)

(or, or, tldr there's pretty much no updated information on just how ridiculously bad this game is so here's a writeup on how I got banned and all the subsequent information I found during my time playing for documentation's sake)

Part I. The Backstory

My beloved followers will know that a few months ago I began playing Horse Isle 3, a horse-raising MMO surprisingly released in the year of our horse 2019 despite its 1997-era website and Runescape-esque graphics. Some of my play through (mostly just horse pictures) is chronicled in my tag #homophobic scum horse chronicles ¹ if you want to see how drippy my horses were before they killed me.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have endless respect for small teams of game devs that manage to create insanely impressive products-- which HI3's elaborate real-genetics breeding system, its main draw, certainly is. Coding is hard, modeling is hard, moderation is hard. Tip a coin to your local small indie teams that work hard to make incredible art.

However, HI3 is far from an admirable success story about a small dev team that triumphed over its obstacles.

The game is known for a variety of things, chief among them being the staff's rampant homophobia (which has earned it the moniker "the homophobic horse game"), hilariously uncharismatic mods (to the point where one of the main moderators, Connie, is mentioned by NAME in the majority of poor reviews of the game), the dev team's unrepentant rejection of criticism, and racism with a side of downplaying war crimes.

(Screenshots taken from Sitejabber, here)

Now, it's marketed as a game for ages 8+, which, as I've briefly talked about before, is unfortunately a rarity in today's hostile internet climate. I grew up on a variety of typical child friendly MMOs like ye olde Pixie Hollow and PetPet Park, and truly lament that so many of these have been shut down over the years. As such, I have no issue with strict rules or word filters in games, with the caveat that they are effective and genuinely intended to keep people safe. Kids are naive, and can and will say things that they shouldn't (I, for example, got kicked from a Minecraft server when I was 8 because I posted in chat that my mom told me sex wasn't a bad word. things happen). Filters are a very appropriate tool to aid manual moderation of chat features, especially in an environment where mistakes will be made.

However, HI3's, as shown below (words that are forbidden from chat are marked in red), are... questionably selective.

(Screenshot taken by Alice Ruppert, from here)

This appears to be attributed to the fact that along with having horrible moderators, HI3 also seems to have a remarkably horrible developer backend, which is a trend that you'll see pop up quite a lot in this post. Taken straight from the horse's (haha) mouth, the lead developer is the only person who seems to be able or willing to add to the filter list, and for whatever reason only wants to block the "most common inappropriate words"- because saying transgender is more of an issue than nazi and gulag I guess.

(Screenshot taken from Top R.'s Sitejabber review, here)

¹ I'm not sure how far this will reach out of my audience, and since people have already assumed weird stuff about me I thought I should probably clarify-- I'm not calling the game "homophobic scum" ghghg, my play through was focused on making horse versions of characters from a novel called "scum villain", so I took the scum and added horse (I actually have another tag for a different horse breeding game called "scum horse chronicles" so I needed to distinguish them easily but am not very good at tagging). That's it.

Part II. The Game

The game itself is, putting it simply, a mess at best and openly hostile towards newcomers at worst. The game's UI is comparable to your average petsite with 20 thousand things to click on but if you tried to navigate that while also watching the Pilgrim's Progress movie by Scott Cawthorn on 90% of your screen. This is a very good overview of what your experience first logging in will be like, with the added caveat that talking in global chat costs in game currency and that the game doesn't tell you this at ALL until you try to type in chat, and that depending when you log on it's entirely possible that you'll spawn into a completely dead town miles away from anyone who can help you, wilderness survivor-style.

To make things more complicated, information about the game is split between the game itself and the laughably horrible website/forums. Spectacularly enough, the forums, which provide vital game information and rule elaborations, cannot be searched in any way (not via Google or any hard-baked search bar) and are regularly purged by admins to erase evidence of scandals and poor moderation complaints.

Now, something you will find to be generally people's biggest issue with HI3 is their strict no "date-speak" rule, which sounds ok on paper but is worded *just* vaguely enough to give the moderators full jurisdiction over whether or not they think you're breaking the rules. Selective moderation is a major theme in the HI3 chronicle, but it is perhaps most documented with regards to this rule, because what the hell does "boyfriend/girlfriend talk" even mean?? Outside of vagueness, this rule has also been scrutinized extensively by others due to the fact that a pair of previous moderators were openly married with the igns "FrogLips" and "MrsFrogLips". I don't personally think this is super condemning, since kids usually address adults by Mr/Ms etc whether or not they know they're in a relationship, but regardless it's clear that the complete lack of elaboration on what this rule means can be easily manipulated to lodge any number of complaints against people.

(Screenshot from the Horse Isle website rules page, here)

What I will say, however, is that this rule would probably hold more water if the game wasn't literally about breeding horses.

You can pimp out your horses, you can pay others to breed your mares, you can put any number of special (real life currency-bought) amulets on your horses to make them more fertile/have twins/give birth faster. I paid $1000 to castrate Jiang Cheng. The word "stud" (which btw, is another word for a black butch lesbian) is used constantly. Perhaps most shockingly, horse inbreeding is very common and accepted among the community, to the point that it is explicitly mentioned and EXPLAINED in the game guide; the only penalization for it is that your incest product foal will have a lower intelligence stat. Call me old-fashioned, but I feel as though implementing and acknowledging that horses can breed with their own relatives is hmm perhaps more harmful than another player saying the word gay, but what do I know.

(Screenshot from the Horse Isle website game guide page, here (only accessible with an account))

Well, you might ask, after you breed and sell a horse, is there any way to put a brand on it so you know it's from your ranch? That's where the "prefix" system comes in. Prefixes are bolded titles that appear in front of a horses name in lists and in the overworld, and are described in the official game guide as follows:

(Screenshot from the same Horse Isle website game guide page as linked previously)

I think you can toggle them off if you don't want to see them, though I could be wrong. They're basically just 1-5 letter titles you can put on your own horses (nobody else's, importantly). There's no way to search prefixes, and you won't see them in game unless either a horse with a prefix is listed in auctions or you actually encounter someone in-game and see their horse.

In fact, I would learn later that not even the moderators monitor the prefixes, and apparently have no way to mass-delete them. At all.

(Image taken from an anonymous friend)

Now, it's not unusual that a game as complicated as HI3 would inevitably have a pretty taxing server-side code. Millions of multifaceted assets and features is really nothing to scoff at. However, the notion that your lead developer has to perform a manual search in the game's code to delete the equivalent of a stamp from every instance individually is hilarious. I'm not going to pretend to be a game developer, but there HAS to be a better way of coding a feature that intakes user-generated content that should probably be monitored regularly than that, right? Or, at least, there should be a robust filter system that could prevent any issues from occurring before they would need to be fixed so tediously. You might think.

On December 29th, 2022, I discovered how to register a prefix. It's very common to headcanon the characters I was naming my horses after as transgender, and I thought it would be cute to attach "TRANS" to my horses as a nod to this. However, a filter blocked the word. I was disappointed, but not surprised², and then tried to think of another word that was under 5 letters. To my complete and gay surprise, "GAY" was not filtered out, and henceforth, this worked as my prefix.

As you can see on the popup here, there are scant guidelines for what the requirements for a prefix should be. And, in this moment of apparently utter foolishness, I was under the impression that since "GAY" was NOT filtered out despite there clearly being a filter on this function, it was ok to register. Possibly it's not filtered because it's a synonym for "happy", I thought, which is also cute because I do like when horses are happy. Perhaps the staff had learned from their past criticism and had loosened the restrictions slightly because they felt restructuring was appropriate now that gay marriage is legal in the US, I imagined.

(My original post)³

What I could not imagine, however, was that the only reason the word wasn't filtered out, despite being possibly the most common sexuality-related word, was just because the lead dev couldn't be assed to add it to the filter list. And that apparently I was supposed to know this because it would lead to a permanent ban on my second offense with no warning.

² Hence typing "eat shit lol". Admittedly childish of me, but I didn't put a lot of thought into the post because it was just part of a casual silly live blog I was doing to blow off steam. The "if I get banned" tag surprisingly was not referencing "GAY", as I genuinely thought I was in the clear for that for reasons stated above, but because I tried to register "TRANS" and then posted about it online. You don't have to believe me, but I feel the need to defend myself since some people have wildly extrapolated that my actions were malicious instead of just a split second decision I made because I was bored one morning.

³ Despite the pop-up box saying that prefixes cannot be removed, they actually can at any time, given only that the person that owns the prefix unregisters the horse from it. The unregistering mechanic is for whatever reason not told to the player upon registering the prefix, but is mentioned in the official game guide linked above.

Part III. The Ban, The Report

I will preface this section by saying that I played the game normally. I do like being outrageous sometimes for my followers' entertainment, but I really don't like dragging random people into my antics if they aren't interested. Because of this, I really didn't interact with other players unless we were mutuals on some other platform. I rarely used the chat feature except to participate in server-wide events that required team participation, and I typically just explored on my own for fun. In general I think I was a pretty ok player, objectively, which lines up with my user trust score.

You see, the way moderators of HI3 allegedly keep track of rule breaking is through a "user trust score" with points added if you use features in the game, help people, etc, and points deducted if you violate rules. Anecdotally I've heard that around the -10 total points mark is when moderators put you on a sort of list to be monitored for suspension or punishment, which is pretty reasonable.

By the time I was banned, I had a score of +31. The -10 offset was a part of this debacle. The only thing I had ever done in the game which warranted any kind of violation was, as you will soon see, literally just naming about 30 of my own horses "GAY", a sin egregious enough to apparently offset about 200 hours worth of playtime with no issues.

Because of this, I was a little bit confused on multiple levels. For one, I had never even seen a moderator in game, nor been informed of discipline at any time before. On top of that, their permanent ban notification is extremely strange and vague. The text pop up when you try to log in just reads "Account currently banned -1 minutes ().", which is probably just copied straight from the server-side code for things and just wasn't translated into user-side comprehensibility. You'll also notice there is a "()" section in the notification, which I would assume is where they put the reason for bans, except for the fact that mine was completely blank.

The website which allegedly would hold more info just repeated a near identical code: "BANNED! -1min. Reason:".

So, with nothing else to go off of, I messaged support on the jankiest help center submissions I've ever seen on a website with this:

"Insisting" and "total disregard" are very strong words to use for a situation in which I just typed a word into a textbox because the game let me, I'd think, which is why I tried to reason with her. The prefixes mentioned in my message are well-known amongst the userbase and are much older and wider-spread than mine, so I would think that there would be at least some sort of precedent for this. The "geldings and yearlings" reasoning was mostly a joke, but also intended to express that the nature of an acronym (as the majority of prefixes seemed to be) is that it can be interpreted in many ways. Intent was thrown around a lot when I was discussing the issues of prefixes with other users, and it seemed to have been used to excuse previous behavior in situations where mods liked the users in question better.

I also cannot emphasize enough how much they did not warn me about my prefix being removed. When I logged in and saw my horses' names did not include it, I was suspicious that the moderators removed it just because of the history of their behavior. However, I had no hard evidence because they did not inform me at ALL. Not through in-game mail systems, not through server messages, not through the website. Complete radio silence except for the addition of an unexplained "-10" to my user score. I did complain to some people that I thought it was removed, but a combination of things suggested that it wasn't a huge deal, so I mostly let it lie. For one, I had over 100 hours of playtime and was mildly worried that one of my chat messages had been flagged without my knowledge. For another, my profile text had also mysteriously disappeared, probably because of a glitch, so who knows what could happen in this game. Lastly, I went to the prefix registry again just to check and hilariously enough, they didn't actually block "GAY" from the database. Yeah, they apparently individually deleted it from all of my horses, but couldn't be assed to add such an "inappropriate" word to their filter system.

So I just registered it again and publicly told people that I would do it again if the mods didn't actually tell me to stop. I didn't really care about the prefix because to me, the feature was purely cosmetic. All I wanted was transparency from the staff.

Well, anyway, I assume Connie couldn't think of a comeback, so she just closed my report. I was annoyed because quite literally none of my questions were answered and she didn't even refer to anything in specifics. It would take less than 1 second to type the number of the rule I violated, but I guess that was too much work for her.

I tried to give them as many outs as possible to just apologize about poor communication, but they didn't even take the bare minimum. I would also like to mention that this support ticket process is the ONLY way to directly communicate with any staff. There's no ability to upload files or images on this system, and no email listed that you could contact. So essentially, there's no way to give actual evidence for anything you say even if you want to.

Kat, who is known as the slightly-more-reasonable-but-still-pretty-bad mod then picked up the case. Her response actually provided specific information, which made it leagues above Connie's, but still included some very strange elements for sure.

The notion that this game is intended for a worldwide audience is especially funny to me because you would really think if they cared about other countries they wouldn't violate their own rule one by using a slur for Europe's largest ethnic minority, but ok. It's a weird hill to die on considering how USA-dominated the staff's opinions towards rules are (Connie justifies the usage of a slur for Rromani people based off the opinion of a single roommate she had who reclaimed it, Joe defends a store in-game being called "The Gulag" because Americans don't think gulags are that bad (discussed and cited in the conclusions section)). But then again, picking and choosing what parts of other countries' customs you want to respect is very American, which is why I think they should add an extra star rating for its patrioticness on the website.

As I mentioned before, the prefixes I included in my response are definitely older and more commonly-used than mine, so I'm not sure how they wouldn't have seen them before. This comment also ties back to the suggestion that the moderators have very little control or insight over a distinct feature of their game, which is not a great thing to admit so casually.

Kat has a strange habit of immediately contradicting herself in the same paragraph, as can be seen here. "The glitches never happen and bugs were quickly fixed, but games still have bugs". "People that break the rules usually write in to ask what was wrong, but most people usually never ask". At this point I think we can confidently say that they don't even make an attempt to proofread any of their responses, to be honest.

Her 7th paragraph has one of my favorite lines in this exchange. "If we had to notify players every time we made moderator changes to their account we would spend 24 hours a day" is giving huge Yandere Dev "stop emailing me because I have to spend 24 hours a day reading all my emails instead of coding" energy. You really have to wonder why these people that seem to hate moderating so much are moderators.

You can tell by my response, but I do not like the use of "most" and "usually" in this at all. What's your standard isn't others' standards, and this is a topic which needs to be navigated gently, especially when kids are concerned. I never played the previous Horse Isles. I had no experience with the mod team, or with violations, or with anything because no one bothered to take five seconds to send me a message. No, I did not know that you would permaban me for typing a word that's in one of the most popular traditional Christmas songs in a place were only people who interacted with me would be able to see it. Most games would not do this. To take a lackadaisical approach to your literal job of community management because you want people to moderate themselves is contradictory to your claims of keeping children safe.

I will admit I was being a bit cheeky here as a subtle hint that perhaps they should take feedback, but I also would have taken a genuine response. I try my best to be as polite as possible to tech support staff because not everyone is! But they're people too and a simple thank you is worth a lot in customer service, even virtual. But Kat... you're not really giving me anything to work with here! If anyone reading this has feedback for how I could've rephrased things, feel free to comment them honestly. I actually ran drafts of these messages through a few people before sending them to make sure I was as concise and polite as possible, even if support clearly wasn't interested in reciprocating the effort ("following out rules using the the GAY to begin with"...?).

Part IV. The Backlash

I won't go too into depth in this section because it's more personal than documentarian, so feel free to skip to the next section if you want!

After this, the girlies were not happy with me. The one saving grace of HI3 that I've heard pop up over and over again is that the community is great. And a lot of users are! Don't think I'm disparaging people who play the game because I'm not-- it's a really fun experience with the right people. I was in a Discord server with a lot of people who were extremely helpful and kind.

However, within the community, there's also a pervasive culture of silence. According to Alice Ruppert of The Mane Quest, a lot of people will refuse to go public with their complaints about the staff due to fear of retribution, which I feel is unfortunate but understandable. There's a pressure to shut up and eat your food lest you be seen as someone causing controversy for the sake of it and ruining the sanctity of the game, which is an attitude explicitly encouraged by the staff (discussed more in the next section).

I liveblogged my entire correspondence with the support team to a group of other players for the 2 days I talked to them, and did have a lot of acceptance from people who appreciated someone speaking out. After the 2020 Mane Quest article, public information had sort of just gone dark as the community was pushed further into niche seclusion, despite things not improving at all. However, towards the end of my messaging, a group of people that I had never even spoken to or seen online before accused me of a variety of things ranging from "displaying my sexuality to children" (note: all I ever did was name my horses "GAY". I never once talked about my own sexuality in-game, nor did I say the word in chat ever) to "joining the server to cause drama" to "mocking the lgbt community by throwing around the word gay" (actually I'll attach a picture of this one even though I don't want to put people on blast in this section just because its so funny).

I think most of this can be attributed to the game having gained such a notoriety that longtime players, especially those with strong nostalgic feelings, have become completely desensitized to it. And this compounds with the fact that the game is so niche it doesn't yet have a good alternative to turn to to create a toxic cocktail where people tell themselves that they have to be loyal to the staff to play this one of a kind game-- and that anyone who doesn't follow them just doesn't understand. It's really sad, honestly.

Part V. Conclusions

I don't necessarily think the devs of HI3 are legitimately consciously homophobic-- unfortunately LGBT rights are still controversial amongst the largely southern and rural population of horse enthusiasts, and I could understand if they felt it necessary to skim the line towards conservatism to maintain a userbase. It's cowardly and dumb but it's not a sin to do what you have to do to survive in a capitalistic hellscape as cutthroat as the game industry.

However, what I do think the devs are is power-hungry and hypocritical. They have failed at every turn at community management because they're unwilling to admit they make mistakes, instead choosing to issue non-apologies like "[we] regret you guys got so upset and did not realize neither our true intentions nor motivations nor the whole situation [that we said it's ok that a player has a shop called The Gulag because it's 'not direct or violent']". To respond this way to a userbase filled allegedly with young children as a fully grown adult with a wife and kids is laughably out of touch. 'Sorry your fee-fees were hurt by our adult moderator responding to a serious complaint about inappropriate user-generated content with "lol", but actually you just misunderstood us and we're going to ban anyone who brings this up again' is the sort of response you'd see from the teenage mod team of an Undertale amino, not the supposedly responsible head dev of a 'rare oasis of kid friendly content'.

Telling an audience of impressionable kids that the fact that their feelings are hurt is their fault for not intuiting the intentions of 40+ year old adults is unbelievably toxic, and it's no wonder why people are so nostalgia-bound to feverishly shut down criticism about the games. They've been guilt-tripped into believing the mod team can do no wrong and any controversy, even if valid, that springs up is just extrapolated by people that haven't been laboriously groomed to know what the mod team wants to hear.

Countless times throughout my time researching and playing the game, the number one advice I've heard has always been "suck up to the mods or they won't do anything for you". It's crystal clear that the moderators care more about the joy they get from having power over some 200 users who will kiss their ass if they say a buzzword more than they care about you, your child, or the game itself.

It's essentially a model scam Kickstarter's wet dream, a game propelled to release and popularity by its singular defining feature and left to fester on the shelf as the only game in its niche market. Because of this, I believe there's truly no better way to describe HI3, with its messy backend, refusal to improve, narcissistic moderators, broken features, poor visuals, and inefficiency than as the Yandere Simulator of horse games.

#img descriptions in alt text!#lmk if there's any way I can make this more accessible! It's my first time writing something this long on tumblr :)#long post #really long posts #long posts #really long post #essay #hi3 #horse isle 3 #horse isle #fandom drama #hobby drama #discourse #homophobic scum horse chronicles

203 notes · View notes

pattern-recognition · 1 month

Note

Good starting points for socialist reading? Detailed medium form summaries? Skeptic debate between various forms, and between other theoretical systems? Please do recommend

For introductory texts, start with the basics. That means starting with the foundation laid out by Marx and Engels themselves, not some abridged text or modern compilation that seeks to re-explain scientific socialism out of a lack of agency for the modern reader (though some of these type are good, but I digress.)

For this i’d recommend:

- Marx, Engels. The Communist Manifesto (obviously)

- Engels. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

- Marx, Engels. Wage-Labour and Capital/Value, Price, and Profit

The above three are very short, succinct, and informative. The latter two are woefully unrecognized as ideal texts for introductory socialism, and they were written for that explicit purpose.

After that, move on to more wholistic works that flesh out and elaborate upon the historical, material, circumstances that gave rise to the capitalist epoch and how and why they furnish the future conditions for a socialist system.

- Engels. Origin of the Family, State, and Private Property (Whatever copy you’ll procure will probably include his complimentary essay, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man, which isn’t hugely beneficial for most discursive purposes but interesting, nonetheless.)

- Lenin. The State and Revolution

- Bukharin. Historical Materialism - A System of Sociology

All of Engels’ work, from his introductions to Marx’s texts, his input on the former, and his original treatises, are a wealth of information.

After the structure of dialectical materialism and the capitalist system are understood, I’d recommend works on how the former can/should be implemented and the latter’s historical reign of misery, as well as works addressing the pressing contradiction of imperialism and core-periphery subjugation. (You won’t find vocabulary like core/periphery/semi periphery in texts like this though, that wouldn’t come about until Immanuel Wallerstein outlined the World Systems Theory in his eponymous book. It’s not strictly a historical materialist work, and made by a bourgeois academic (who was the sociology professor of my sociology professor, which is fun I suppose) but is formative for much of contemporary sociological discourse).

- Lenin. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

- Lenin. What is to Be Done?

- Galeano. Open Viens of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent

- Said. Orientalism

Along the way, I strongly suggest you actually read Marx’s Capital in full, at least the first volume. It’s not as monolithic and inaccessible as some would lead you to believe, quite the opposite, and cannot be understated in its utility and insight.

- Marx. Capital: A Critique of the Political Economy, Volume I

Other recommendations:

- Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme

- Marx. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

- Bevins. The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World

- Bevins. If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution

- Lenin. Critical Remarks on the National Question (1913) (Also, can be found in the recent compilation of Lenin’s work on the subject called Imperialism and the National Question)

- Debord. The Society if the Spectacle

- Benjamin. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

- Mishra. From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and the Remaking of Asia

Truth be told, I’m a grievously under-read marxist, and there are others on this site who could provide a more comprehensive syllabus. To half-assedly make up for it, here are some books i’ve been meaning to read/finish but haven’t gotten to it yet:

- Adorno, Horkheimer. Dialect of Enlightenment

- Marx. Capital, Volumes 2 and 3

- Strong. The Soviets Expected It

- Adorno, Bernstein. The Culture Industry

- Adorno. Minima Moralia

- Mao. On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People

- Mao. On Protracted War

All of the aforementioned reading can be found online, for free and readily accessible, on places like Marxists.org, or as downloads from places like Libgen. If you want to read on your phone, download the file as an epub and use your device’s proprietary Books app or similar. If you want to read on a PC, I’d recommend a PDF for easiest navigation. If you want to pursue the latter but can only procure the former, you can use a epub reading program like SumatraPDF. If you’re a person who values a physical copy highly enough to warrant a purchase, I’d recommend ThriftBooks, though do be attentive to buying the most suitable copy of whatever material. Also, I’d be happy to send my copies to you or anyone else, via a google drive or telegram, if you feel like coming off anon.

As for “skeptic debate between various forms, and between various systems,” I can’t think of a standalone work with the principle task of dissecting and contrasting various stripes of marxism, but you’ll find as such permeating throughout almost all of these texts. The thing is, the fundamental material conditions haven’t shifted substantially since these were written, wether it be in Marx’s 19th century, Lenin’s 20th, or Bevins’ 21st. The old enemies remain enemies, the old arguments remain true. Dialectical materialism, scientific socialism, is a malleable system. It is a scientific method by which one can analyze the world, understand it with rational clarity, and come to conclusions on how to react to it and make predictions as to how things may unfold. This is the task assigned to any student of marxism. It is not dogma or a ecclesiastical canon, it is a tool.

After you’ve garnered your bachelor’s degree in scientific socialism you can move on to the postgraduate courses, such as chainsmoking cigarettes, caffeine and amphetamine addiction, alcoholism, and playing Disco Elysium.

#anonymous #if anyone has further material they’d like to recommend or something they’d like to espouse upon #please feel free to add

23 notes · View notes

helianthus-tarot · 8 months

Note

Hi there, do you have any tips on how to have a better 'sense of self'? Or better self image/feeling worthy? I'd like to be more at peace with myself if that makes sense lol. How do you come to terms with other' critique of you without letting it get under ur skin? (Could be how u deal personally or just general advice you have) Also my personal fave running man was ep 37 i think? It was when kwangsoo was doing a grieved dae han min guk and it makes me laugh everytime lol, or the dancing queen episode!!!

I got this ask from an anon on my second tumblr, and sent it here.

General

Know yourself. Your traits, what you think your flaws are, beliefs, behaviors, motivation. If you don't know what you believe in or what your values are, decide. Take a paper and write them down in a list.

Don't 'lie' to yourself, because if you do, and people catch on that and use it, it will hurt.

Example: Avoid telling yourself that you are pretty when you are aware that you don't fit the beauty standard and are insecure about it. This is not addressing the root problem of that self-image issue. You can understand that beauty is highly subjective but it will still be difficult to make yourself believe your own words when there's an entire system and a huge number of people out there adamantly telling you that you are not pretty. Tell yourself it's okay not to look like those people, that each part of you deserves to be loved anyway, that your body is a proof of your own history and ancestry and should be celebrated at least by you, stereotypically 'pretty' or not, desirable or not. And show this love to yourself in the form of actions, which brings us to the next point.

Self-love and acceptance.

Remember the list. Accept everything about yourself. Accept here means acknowledging it is what it is and make peace with it; your nose is big, you are not a fast learner, you think you are not worthy of love, and so on. Admit that you don't feel good about yourself, or that you have XYZ fears and insecurities.

And love yourself the way you love someone you love. Or better yet, imagine you are talking to the child version of you. That's who you are dealing with, that 6 years old child. Show compassion to traits that are harmless and let them be, stop picking them apart in your head. Have enough self-control not to sabotage yourself. Change traits that are harmful, like bad habits, fears, insecurities, but show compassion and understanding to these things first; understand why they happened, what events in your life contributed to them, accept that it's time to change, and lead your 6 year-old self with patience.

Good self-image isn't something that happens instantly and magically the moment you decide to love yourself more. Self-love is a series of actions. It's not just a feeling. So take actions. You need to keep doing it, especially when you are feeling bad.

Example: Let yourself wear that pretty dress that you know you want to wear, because you deserve good things and deserve to feel happy, whether or not you are stereotypically pretty, even if you feel like a troll trying to look pretty in the dress. This is a better way to fight; radical acceptance of yourself and determination to shower yourself with your own love regardless of what the world has to say.

Do not depend on other people to tell you who you are.

Who you are, what's good for you, what isn't good for you, what you should want, what you shouldn't want, etc. It makes you more vulnerable to their opinions. You have access to your mind and heart, other people don't. So trust your own judgement. The topic is you, you are the authority. Remember that list again.

I'm not telling you to be stubborn and think you know best in every situation. You can consider other people's perspectives, sometimes they are right and you are wrong. But always use critical thinking and assess whether or not their opinions should be considered. This teaches mental independence, mental independence will help you feel more secure with yourself and your decisions, which can make you less affected by other people's comments.

Plus people make arbitrary decisions all the time. A lot of things can affect people's decisions and judgment; their background, their preference, their bias, etc. You can't control those things. You won't be enough for everyone, not everyone will see your worth, not everyone will understand you. That is certain. The sooner you accept this reality, the sooner you stop judging yourself based on other people's opinions or based on how they act towards you, the better your life will be.

Look deeper into your insecurities.

See what needs you are missing. Fulfil those needs, don't wait for other people to do it for you because this will make you dependent on them and upset when they don't give it to you.

Example: If you feel like you don't deserve love from other people, first tell yourself you at least deserve love from yourself, and work from there. You may not be enough for other people, fine, they have the right to decide that, it's their life. But you also have the right to decide what is valuable and good enough in your life. Be enough for yourself. Act like it. Once you have gotten used to loving yourself, you will eventually allow yourself to accept love from others. You also need to look into why you feel like you don't deserve love from other people. Is it because of your looks? This means you base your worth on superficial things like looks. Dismantle the belief that supports this behavior and replace it with a belief that's better, like the above example for 'don't lie to yourself'.

How do you come to terms with others' critique of you without letting it get under your skin?

If their critique or insult is not true, not relevant, unimportant, highly subjective:

Some things just don't make sense to the point that it doesn't make me feel anything. Like someone calling me a stupid bitch.

If their critique or insult is factually true, but immature or it's about something that is out of my control:

Things I was born with/into, or things that happened to me. These things hurt, but they will hurt less if you know, accept and love yourself. Some days they don't hurt you, some days they do. Some days they hurt more, some days they hurt less. Some days you need to put more effort to wrap yourself in your own love, you may need to do it over and over and over, but some days you don't have to do much to move on. It's normal, just go through the process. The feelings will disappear eventually.

I usually ignore comments like this, but I'll search for something to hit them back with if I'm feeling particularly generous. There are two general types of shitty people, those who get emboldened by your reaction and those who back off when they become your target. Ignore the first group most of the time, unless they get particularly nasty and you can handle it if things escalate. The second group will only back off when they get hurt.

If their critique or insult is true, and it's within my control, e.g. my actions, choices, shortcomings that I can improve:

If I agree with what they say, I'll usually admit it.

Even if it's only to myself. For example, they called me dumb when I did something dumb. I mean, yeah they are right, touché. Sure, they could have been kinder, but it's true that I need to improve. It can feel shitty of course, mistakes don't taste like a five-course meal. Sometimes I let myself feel bad about it for a few days, but I eventually get over it and focus back on my life and what I can change/improve.

If what they say is factually true, but I also understand why I do what I do.

For example, they called me selfish and uncaring for hurting someone and I actually did hurt that person, so technically they were right. But I knew I had a valid reason for hurting that person, I would just take the insults. There's nothing else to do. It is what it is.

If I disagree with what they say.

This is usually related to different opinions and perspectives. It's when people arrogantly believe they are right AND they actively disturb other people's lives (or my life). Out of all things I think this one pisses me off the most lol. Especially when they act like they are superior yet I can see their psychological projection as clear as the fucking sun.

But then again there's no good solution to this besides coming back to yourself and your initial goal and what you know is true (the list). People can disagree all they want, most of the time they are not exactly tying your limbs to a pole and preventing you from doing what you want. You can argue with people until you are blue in the face, but some people still won't change their minds, especially if it gives them a position where they can look down on other people.

Keep in mind

You can't avoid pain. You can minimize the possibility of it happening, but when something hurts you, it hurts you. Feelings are things that happen, actions are things that can be controlled.

If people scream at you or humiliate you in front of other people, of course it will hurt. Being negatively affected by it does not mean you are weak or your self-esteem is fragile. It's human. What matters is whether or not you bounce back, and how fast you do it. Admit to yourself that it hurts you, that you don't deserve to be treated like that, limit contact with those people, and face the next day like you always do. Love yourself through what you experience.

Again, I know this is cliché but your best defense is your self-love and self-acceptance. If other people cannot love you, then you have to do it. Also, avoid shitty people and shitty environment as much as you can a.k.a don't spend more time than necessary in those places. No matter how strong a plant is, if you keep pouring toxic shit on it, it will wilt.

#other topics #asks #what a long ass post

63 notes · View notes