When abusers pretend you actually control their actions during the abuse it's almost laughable, you're doing this because of something I did? Really? I control you? I decide what you do? In that case get down on your knees apologize for what you did to me. Cry and beg for forgiveness and spend next 10 years repenting for your crimes. No? You won't? Then maybe I don't control what you do. If I did I know what I would be making you do.
No victim ever controlled what their abuser did to them. If they did, they would have stopped the abuse before it even started. No abuser abuses because of something the victim did. They do it out of their own volition, nobody forces them. The victims have zero responsibility for any act of abuse towards them. No victim deserved it. No victim wanted it. No victim was in control. Abusers take control both of themselves and the victim, then blame the victims for the crimes against them. Do not buy into their lies.
religion will be like, it's because women talk to animals and eat fruit that childbirth is so painful, and the soil so hard to work! Not because we took away all of the midwives and created horrendous agriculture practices
I have Thoughts about Quinn's treatment in season 3A and the way media often portrays punk subculture
I always hate it when "dressing punk" is somehow a symbol of a character going off the rails and becoming a bad person - as if the character was once a pure, innocent lamb who lost their way and strayed to a life of immorality just because they dyed their hair. Why is the punk makeover never a sign of empowerment? A sign that a character has chosen to go against oppressive social expectations? That they are choosing themselves and their own freedom and bodily autonomy and self-confidence?
Like, most punks and goths I know are genuine, empathetic, and respectful people.
Yes, Quinn was clearly struggling with her mental health and was lost during season 3A. However, I hate the response of everyone around her being "oh my god, you died your hair pink and you're wearing black, I can't fathom anything more disappointing". After everything this girl has gone through and been told, time and time again, that she is a disappointment and "not enough", here she is doing something to give herself a sense of control and belonging and empowerment and being met with yet more puritanical bullshit.
I wish we had had more time with punk!Quinn. And, more than anything, I wish her punk era was seen as, at least in part, positive and empowering.
It may hurt for a while, but journaling and shadow work is one of the most effective ways to detach from and stop fearing the old story and to stop seeing yourself as a victim of your own life
if i neverrrrrrr have to see another dumbass post like this itll be too goddamn soon
like. fundamentally. as a person. tim cares when people die. because he cares about people. even if he didn't care that robin died for its own sake, and he does care about robin, he would care because dick and bruce cared. every stupid unfunny joke about "actually he should be glad jason died" is so blatantly just throwing every other robin than dick under the bus like come ON its 2023 can we not just get on the same page that legacies are good actually. im going to break into your kitchen and make a mess of your pots and pans.
Are you ever just chilling on twitter and see the most atrocious take ever with over 70k likes that just makes u want to delete all of social media and never engage with humans online again
Democrat Party is The Party of Collective Narcissism
Recent footage from a CNN interview provides a compelling case study for the analysis of collective narcissism within group dynamics or political entities. This clip, serving as visual evidence, encapsulates the quintessential strategies that are indicative of such collective behavior. Specifically, it illustrates tactics such as changing the subject, blame-shifting, projecting, playing the victim, gaslighting, minimization, and rationalization. These strategies are emblematic of a group’s or political body’s tendency to mirror the behavioral patterns commonly associated with individual narcissistic personalities. The application of this framework to the observed interaction within the interview offers a deeper understanding of the underlying psychological mechanisms at play in collective narcissism.
Introduction
Collective narcissism is a psychological phenomenon where a group possesses an inflated self-conception, dependent on external validation and praise. Members of a collective narcissist group often exhibit selective outrage, particularly sensitive to criticism aimed at their own group while readily pointing out faults in others. For example, in the political realm, one might observe a collective narcissist group emphasizing historical racial injustices perpetrated by whites, holding white individuals or groups to rigorous standards of accountability for past and present racism, while simultaneously dismissing or downplaying the group's own racial biases or instances of discrimination. This is and has been manifesting into a one-sided narrative that all societal issues stem from historical white mistakes, often ignoring or minimizing the group's current missteps or potential for prejudices.
Democrats as Collective Narcissists
In-Group favoritism, collective narcissists exhibit extreme partiality towards their own members. It’s called identity politics and if you don’t vote instep or “identify” as such, well you’re going to have at minimum subtle forms of social control applied to you. Out-group erogation, they disparage heterosexual white folks, largely targeting the male population, who challenge their superiority through diving and showing up at their houses with borderline aggressive protests, and some actually call for acts of violence. For example the severed Trump head, by a former famed actress a few years ago.
They act with aggression in response to threatened ego, they react defensively, sometimes aggressively, when their group's prestige is questioned. Then there is this denial of reality and facts, they frequently deny or distort facts that do not align with their self-image. They seek constant admiration and affirmation for their “social justice” activism and beliefs. They crave and actively seek affirmation of their group's perceived grandeur.
Changing The Subject
The first strategy used is changing the subject, it is a common deflection technique to avoid uncomfortable topics. Holder reimagines a scenario in the conversation where the Republican Party acts like the Democratic Party's and instead of Democrats asking AG’s to investigate Trump. In this reimagined of what is really happening to Trump. Democrats are now the victims, these actions serve entirely different, purpose. It distracts the audience from reality of what is actually happening to Trump. Avoids highlighting their policy and related issue with the Trump administration.
Blame Shifting
Holder then blame shifts, after he re-imagines a real life political scenario where Democrats are weaponizing the Justice system and doing everything they imagined in this real life scenario to Trump. Instead Trump is doing it to them. The blame shift is so subtle and clever, but serves his agenda to shift blame away from any personal or Democrat party's past misdeeds, suggesting that it is actually the other party (in this case, President Trump and his administration) that is engaging in corruption. This blame-shifting moves the spotlight from his own actions or those of his political affiliates to the opposing side.
Projection
Holder may then project, accusing the Trump administration of engaging in the very behaviors for which he or his party are being criticized. This projection serves to muddy the waters, casting aspersions on the opposition while deflecting from his or his party's actions. Holder reimagined a scenario where democrats are not only victims, and saviors of Democracy but everything is actually happening to Trump now, is now being reimagined and projected on to the oppositional party as happening to them. This evident when Holder explains the relational scenario where high ranking officials ask a “compliant” AG or DOJ to investigate people they don’t like. This is exactly what happen to Trump.
Playing Victim
Which brings me to the next strategy, playing the victim. The interview on CNN (2023) demonstrates a classic instance of collective narcissism, where the interviewed party employs tactics such as changing the subject, blame-shifting but now plays the role of the victim, reflective of the patterns observed in groups with narcissistic tendencies. To Holder, the Democratic Party is the “real victim” here. This evidenced by Holder imagining the Democratic Party positioning themselves as unfairly targeted by Trump's camp, suggesting that they are the ones suffering under false accusations or partisan attacks. Nothing of real world evidence is being suggested as happening. For example, what is happening to Trump, now, like the law-fare, the lack of evidence to support two Trump impeachments, the Russian collusion of which the FBI agents involved in those investigations were convicted of actual wrongdoing, meaning the agents themselves who were in charge with investigating Trump, were actually the ones colluding with Russian Oligarchs.
Gaslighting
With a subtle display of gaslighting, Holder manipulates viewers by casting doubt on the integrity and intentions of the Trump administration, subtly diverting attention from concrete evidence of their actions towards President Trump. Former Attorney General Eric Holder commented on the issue, "Hunter Biden charges wouldn't have been brought in normal scenario" (CNN, 2023, 00:15). Before the blame shift, projection and playing victim, there was the truth. He’s correct these are not “normal times”, everything happening Trump now, is unprecedented. No one has used law-fare, to prevent an opponent from running for office. Why wouldn’t that rising political opponent not seek accountability? He reframes the discourse, suggesting that such criticisms are nothing more than partisan tactics aimed at discrediting the Democratic Party. This strategic narrative shift paints the Democrats as casualties of an "unjust" electoral process, besieged by authoritarian figures, rather than confronting the reality of the situation. The truth, as Holder veils it, is obscured by a narrative that avoids acknowledging the Trump administration's legitimate efforts to enforce accountability. This includes the invocation of program F and the dismissal of individuals who are excessively aligned with a regime characterized by pronounced collective narcissism. In essence, Holder is redirecting the conversation, insinuating that the push for accountability is an act of political aggression rather than a response to actual mismanagement or malfeasance.
Minimization
Which brings me to my third symptom, minimization. Minimization is evidenced when holder downplays the significance of any wrongdoing that he or his party might be accused of, which leaves the audience to assume that what he and the Democratic Party do are minor issues compared to the alleged corruption, and “authoritarianism”, within the Trump administration. When confronted with the notion of President Trump's reelection and the hypothetical appointment of a corrupt Attorney General, a figure like Eric Holder deflects the criticism by attributing the very issues present in the current administration to the hypothetical future one. This deflection serves as a mirror, reflecting the accusations back onto the accuser, a common tactic seen in political discourse.
Rationalization
Holder might conclude his defense with rationalizations, portraying any controversial actions from his term as unavoidable necessities dictated by the political environment. He asserts that these actions were the lesser evil compared to what he predicts would be the far more detrimental consequences of President Trump's potential appointees. Within this justification narrative, Democrats are depicted as the unwavering defenders of democracy. Conversely, Trump is labeled a racist, an accusation Holder presents as a clear-cut example of collective narcissism, implying that such a flaw could never exist within the Democratic ranks. This is underpinned by a mythology that claims people of color cannot be racist as they lack the systemic power to enforce such racism, a belief that shifts focus from individual prejudice to systemic injustice.
In this context, rationalization takes a more extreme form: the assertion that the Democrats must "save America from its voters." This is done through legal maneuvers and any means deemed necessary, painting the party as protectors in a dire situation. Such narratives echo classic Marxist ideology, which Holder suggests is also evident in the actions of the Chinese Communist Party. Both are seen as authoritarian entities that argue their overreach is in service of protecting the working class, the proletariat, from the resurgence of the bourgeoisie's dominance. In Holder's discourse, the collective narcissism of the Democratic Party is framed not as self-interest, but as a noble struggle to uphold the greater good against prevailing class enemies.
Conclusion
By deploying these tactics, Holder would be engaging in a form of collective narcissism on behalf of his political affiliation, effectively defending the group's image by deflection rather than by direct refutation of the claims presented. In this charged exchange, a CNN posed with a question regarding the impact of President Trump's reelection and his choice of a potentially corrupt Attorney General, someone like Eric Holder, with his contentious history, might instinctively employ collective narcissistic deflection tactics. This form of deflection would involve shifting scrutiny from his own past actions to the hypothetical scenario, thus avoiding direct confrontation with any personal allegations of corruption. By mirroring the current criticism onto the future possibility, Holder could artfully navigate the conversation, effectively accusing the opposing side of the very transgressions being discussed. This method subtly shifts the focus from his own controversies to those of President Trump, implying a "they do it too" narrative.
This maneuver is designed to sidestep direct accountability and instead redirects the conversation toward a critique of Trump's potential decisions, thus maintaining a strategic defensive stance. The suggestion here is that the hypothetical corruption of a future Trump-appointed AG is not only possible but is, in fact, a reflection of the current state of affairs — a tactic that serves to normalize and diminish the gravity of Holder's own past actions by comparison. Holder could respond with a variety of strategies typical of narcissistic deflection but tailored to a collective or political narrative: blame-shifting to other political figures or entities, projecting the administration's faults onto its adversaries, gaslighting the public into questioning the veracity of any criticism aimed at them, and rationalizing any questionable actions as necessary or misinterpreted.
References:
Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074-1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016904
Golec de Zavala, A., Peker, M., Guerra, R., & Baran, T. (2016). Collective narcissism predicts hypersensitivity to in-group insult and direct and indirect retaliatory intergroup hostility. European Journal of Personality, 30 (6), 532-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2067
Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., & Kossowska, M. (2018). Addicted to praise: The role of positive feedback in collective narcissism's link with intergroup hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 374-393. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000117
CNN. (2023, December 8th). Eric Holder: Hunter Biden charges wouldn't have been brought in normal scenario [Video]. CNN Politics. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/08/hunter-biden-eric-holder-reaction-sot-lcl-vpx.cnn
Man i just saw a post that was like "when they tell you that feminicide happens because of culture is goal shifting and ignoring that men from other cultural backgrounds do it" wowzers it's almost as if the culture we're referring to is the general patriarchal culture that's so rampant in many societies where men are taught that their female partners are objects to control and dominate.....
Not Reverse Robins or Scrambled Birds but a secret third thing: A Step to the Left.
Not Dick > Jason > Tim > Steph > Damian,
but Jason > Tim > Steph > Damian > Dick*.
But not only them. Every sidekick with a legacy name gets shifted one spot. (No I’m not counting the Golden Age because I’m not combing through that ).
This means that Jason’s Titans team is him, Mia (Speedy), Jackson (Aqualad), Cassie (Wonder Girl), and Bart (Impulse but y’know he was KF II in the comics).
The NTT team including Starfire, Changeling, Raven, and Cyborg stays the same since they’re the only ones with those names. Cass gets lumped in here because Jason actually wants to do college/is becoming disillusioned about cape life and the idea of Kori learning Cass's body language is too good to pass up.
Tim gets one (1) cape friend (because Jason only got one) and it’s Zachary Zatara because it has to be a d-lister who deals with that disaster Teen Titans era.
Stephanie gets Jon (Superboy), Yara (Wonder Girl II now), and Irey (Because guess what it’s Impulse on the team and not KF which means we get Impulse II). Secret, Cissie, Anita, Slobo etc. all stay the same.
Damian doesn’t get anyone until he becomes Batgirl.
Duke literally gets Damian’s exact canon team but it’s Kon instead of Jon and probably won’t end with them committing war crimes.
If the character in that placement dies in canon then the new character in that placement also dies (i.e. Jason dies so Tim will die/ Kon dies so Jon will die).
But there will be changes because these are different characters so not all of them would react the same.
For example, Jason and Cass are the first Robin and Batgirl, but Cass becomes Nightwing while Jason becomes Oracle because I feel like Jason generally fits Barbara’s character better than Cass does (which is a fucking shame because Oracle being someone named Cassandra should be a no brainer but yeah).
Or how Barbara should be Batgirl number three, but it’s actually Damian because Cass would see their similarities between them and offer him Batgirl (which he refuses at first but after his disastrous run as Robin he sees how Batgirl would fit his strengths better).
Also I refuse to believe that Jason and Cass would let Dick out as Robin so young so he’s benched until later and his place is taken up by Duke and instead of Leviathan it’s Gnomon.
The phrase 'victim wanted it' paints a picture of the abuser as a completely spineless, obedient and moral-lacking person who only ever does things which others want. Surely they were only ready to violate, abuse and harm this person because this person asked them to, they did it out of pure altruism! In what fairy tale does this abuser live. Have you ever even seen anything like that in real life. Whenever you hear 'victim wanted it', you can be sure the abuser wanted it more, and was ready to groom the victim very hard in order to get to a place where the victim would allow it and not give resistance. Or, you know, the victim did resist, but the abuser decided to ignore it and convince the victim that was for 'their own good'.
Often the abusers who say this are way older than the victims, which put even more disbelief at the 'victim wanted it' statement. If a child asked you to throw it into a fire, is it your responsibility to know that it's wrong, or the child's? Stop believing bullshit abusers say in order to get away with abuse.
it's wild because over the years i've gone from shipping nive with some degree or other of fluff/happy endings (or at least hopeful ones; or if it does end badly, it's due to external factors) to just unabashedly wanting them to make each other Worse
“If you ever utter her name again in my presence, I will cut out your tongue.” / this could be him talking to someone about Claire or to Claire about carol either way it's SPICY
𝐀 𝐌𝐄𝐌𝐄 𝐈 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐓. @wristful :
❝ what would you have me do? ❞ the question lands heavily between them, delivered in something caught between a shout and a whisper, a stinging hiss that does not become her, she knows. her fingers have curled tightly into the fabric of her blouse, knuckles digging in against the dip of her waist on either side as she turns from him and paces in bare feet : she'd not been expecting him. more than that, she'd not been expecting him to pick this particular fight. ❝ the entire -- country, is saying her name. ❞ i should not have to remind you of this. ( they had been aligned in the first news cycle - she'd been determined to staunch the bleeding, to keep him from losing his head. now she wonders if she should have taken jane's advice. his advice. ) ❝ if i didn't know better i'd think you were being deliberately obtuse. ❞ you don't know better. you don't know anything.
❝ oh fuck off. if the press ask me a question i have to answer it. i don't know how many times you think i can say no comment, but it's less than whatever you're imagining. ❞ she turns back to face him then, her hands falling from her sides in time with the twisting of her torso. ❝ i do not have the liberty of being sensitive to your feelings on this, phillip. not anymore. you'll kill my reelection with this if i let you, and i think you know that i won't. ❞
the framing of gems-as-robots is one of my favorites. the role of biologist and engineer are the same! gems directly interface with their technology!! they glitch when hurt and have circuitry as veins!!! the are born, programmed, with a purpose!!! they call other life organics—they are not!!!!! white diamond is the equivalent of the tetris ai that paused to avoid losing at all costs, hiding herself away in her head as to never be wrong about pink-rose-steven and the nature of gemkind!!!!!!