#I WANT to be mentally ill because I want validation and an excuse to carry on the way I am | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

scripttorture · 3 years

Note

My setting is like the real world but with various mythical otherworlds secretly connected to ours. One character with powers of psychic illusion was raised by an MiB-style intelligence and/or secret police force (tasked with keeping otherworldly beings from causing trouble in our world) that trained her to mentally torture people. I want to make this character somewhat sympathetic, so it is plausible for her to be indoctrinated as a torturer from childhood? Does it depend how young they start?

Anon I don’t think this is a good idea. There’s an awful lot to unpack here about why that is so I’m going to start off with a simple question that effects how you move forward: what’s most important for you about this character?

Is it that she’s sympathetic? That she’s effective at her job? That she’s highly skilled and trained? That she’s part of a productive organisation that can actually do the tasks it sets out to?

Because if she’s a torturer then realistically she would be none of those things. And making her any of them is (in my opinion) torture apologia: because it is portraying a torturer in an extremely unrealistic way that favours the torturer and excuses the abuse they carry out.

You would, literally, be repeating lies popularised by real life torturers.

Torture does not work. It is impossible to get accurate, timely information by using torture. Here’s an introduction to why. Here’s a post on what torture does to investigations. Here’s a guide to writing what torture does to interrogations. Here’s a list of investigative strategies that actually work. Here’s a post on the damage torture does to human memory. Please read these masterposts and take a look at my sources as well.

Torturers are not indoctrinated radicals. The organisations that torturers are part of actively try to screen out anything they see as radical, deviant or a product of illness. There aren’t enough studies on torturers for me to give you a break down of their politics but my impression from the anecdotes and interviews I’ve read? Their politics is ‘normal’ and mainstream for the organisation they are part of. Whatever that organisation is.

Torturers are not taught from a young age because torture is not complex. It does not take months to learn how to hit someone. Torturers learn on the job by assisting other torturers.

Torture is simple. It is functionally easy. I really can’t stress that enough. The most common tortures globally right now are: hitting people, depriving them of food and depriving them of sleep. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that six year olds could come up with that list.

Hurting people is not complicated. It requires no skill and no training.

The evidence we have suggests torturers lose skills as they turn to torture, a process Rejali calls ‘de-skilling’. The basic idea is pretty simple: if you spend all day hitting people instead of practicing what you were trained for (gathering evidence for example) you get so out of practice that you start to forget how to do those things.

And then there’s the effect that torture has on torturers. They get symptoms. They develop lasting, serious, mental health problems which directly effect their ability to do their jobs.

I have a list of the common symptoms here as well as a rough guide for how many symptoms you should be considering for torturers and torture survivors.

Separate to the symptoms is the general pattern of behaviour torturers exhibit. We don’t have a lot of high quality studies on torturers and there are a lot of questions we do not have clear answers to. However the studies and the anecdotal evidence of survivors, witnesses and torturers themselves points to some consistent behaviours.

Torturers don’t work alone. They form little sub-cultures within larger organisations. These groups are incredibly aggressive, competitive, self-important, hyper-masculine and violent. Torturers look down on everybody else. They are convinced that they are the most important people in their organisation, the only one’s doing ‘real work’. They have an arrogant, puffed up pride that combines with mental illness and seeing their colleagues as competition to create the worst asshole you’ve ever had the misfortune of working with.

They do not cooperate with other people. They use abuse as a pissing contest, competing to see who can be the most brutal in order to try and ‘impress’ fellow torturers.

They define strength and group loyalty by hurting other people.

They have a fracturing effect on organisations, because they don’t obey orders and see their colleagues as competition or useless. At the low end of the scale this means cliques, secrets from the larger organisation and a terrible working environment as they bully and belittle their colleagues. At the high end of the scale there are cases where torturers have attacked and murdered people within the same organisation.

Does any of that sound sympathetic?

I like a challenge when I write. I’ve described my writing style as ‘hold my beer’ because I tend to take ideas other people dismiss as impossible to pull off and try my best to make them work. I do this because I love exploring human complexity through fiction.

A torturer who is currently torturing is not a sympathetic person. They are a bullying, violent, arrogant brute who contributes nothing useful to the organisation they latch on to, sucking up time and resources like a tick. They see other people as garbage. And they lack insight into their own crimes. Which means they do not appreciate or acknowledge the pain and damage they cause.

Now I have written a character who is an ex-torturer who I think is sympathetic in some ways. But getting to the point where they could be sympathetic meant them having to leave the organisation they were part of on a stretcher.

Their fellow torturers turned on them. They lost a leg. They changed sides and in the middle of a messy civil war they dedicated themselves to keeping their friend’s children safe.

And I had to set the story twenty years after these events to get that character out of their own ass enough for them to be sympathetic.

Even then, I’d say they’re sympathetic in spite of having been a torturer. Because they’re still clinging to that insistence that they did something meaningful. They still can’t accept the extent of their own crimes or the effects those crimes had.

But their pride broke. And they did keep those children alive. They helped raise them. And the tie to those children is what makes them sympathetic by the time of the story.

Torturers are not sympathetic people. They are self absorbed abusers who bend over backwards to downplay the harm they did to their victims and to justify their crimes.

Is that really what you want to write?

I say that, not to be harsh, but because it sounds to me as though what you actually want to write is a genuine investigator with psychic powers.

It sounds as though you want to write a character who is good at her job. Who is skilled and dedicated and a great person to work with.

If that’s the case my advice is to ditch the torture entirely. Look at the masterpost on genuine investigation instead and write a character who is good at interviewing people.

Have her use her psychic powers to present herself as sympathetic to the criminals she’s interviewing. Because she can walk into a room and know their politics, their religious beliefs, their internal justifications for what they’ve done. And she can use that, may be even manipulatively, to seem like someone the prisoner would like, someone they’d agree with.

That gets people talking.

And if you want to show her as ruthless, as having an edge to her, that can still work.

Imagine someone sitting down across from a suspect, holding their hands, smiling, talking to them gently. Imagine them gradually, kindly, getting this suspect’s life story. Imagine them being sympathetic about the reason the suspect murdered someone, validating the murder’s feelings and may be even actions… Right up until they have the information they need.

Then they turn on a dime. The persona drops, the false-sympathy drains away. They stand up with a sneer and say they hope the murderer never sees the light of day again. And walk out.

Think about what you want from the story Anon. A character who tortures, or a character who is competent, smart and sympathetic.

Because it really is one or the other.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

#writing advice #tw torture #tw police brutality #fantasy ask #torture does not work #torture apologia #torture as interrogation #effective interrogation #effective investigation #effect of torture on torturers #writing torturers #behaviour of torturers #effect of torture on organisations #torturers are not omniscient #ways torture fails

151 notes · View notes

michaels-blackhat · 3 years

Note

thoughts on evil Forrest 😈

We are going to start out by apologizing. This is very very late. I’m sure when you sent this ask, you meant it to be in the same joking tone that I approach all of my other propaganda posts. Sadly, this is actually going to be a deep dive into a few Evil Forrest related things, including the moment I feel they changed directions, the perfect wasted build-up, and the implications of the change/how it then negatively impacted the story. As I’m sure you already know, by being on my blog at all, I don’t think the story was good to begin with, so we are going to focus on the weird hoops they made themselves jump through to make that story still work. Additionally, I am only going to mention once, right now, how much of a waste it was to not have Forrest ‘fall for his mark’ and complete one of my absolute favorite tropes. Honestly, I think “because I want it” is a completely valid reason to like Evil Forrest. But, the question was “Thoughts on Evil Forrest” and these thoughts have been developing for over a year and a half. So, I apologize in advance.

The majority of this is under a cut, with highlights in the abstract. If no one wants to read this, I understand completely. Go ahead, skip it.

Note: it pains me greatly to not actually have full sources for this essay. Just know that in my heart I am using proper APA citations, I just absolutely do not feel like digging through tweets to find sources to properly cite.

Abstract:

Previous research indicates that Roswell New Mexico has a history of repeating excuses to explain mid-season changes to plots. This essay explores how those excuses are not only loads of crap, but how they hinder the show’s ability to tell a coherent story, misuse the multiple-plot structure to enhance the themes being explored, and lead to decisions that mean the show continuously goes over budget. This also means that characters are not used to their full potential and has led to what some fans consider to be “out of character” behaviors. While these behaviors are not universally agreed on, evidence can be shown that these behaviors directly contradict emotionally important character arc/plot points in the show.

The author of this paper acknowledges that the show took some strides to mend this problem. However, once again no consensus could be found on whether Forrest was a low-level member of Deep Sky and thus just allowed to fuck off on a bus, or his job was recruitment because he did a piss poor job of making Alex not join.

The concept of Evil Forrest has been with the fandom as early as New York Comic Con (NYCC) in 2019, when it was revealed that Alex had a new “blue-haired love interest”. Speculation abounded within the fandom, with some people, including the author, going “yeah, he’s evil” while others rejoiced in the concept of Alex having a loving partner. Speculation increased as fans discussed Tyler Blackburn’s seeming disinterest in his new love interest, prompting some once again to scream “EVIL” at the top of their lungs to anyone who would listen. Very little was revealed, beyond the fact that the new character would show up somewhere around episode 3 of the second season.

Episode 2.04 aired with some commenting on how he barely interacted with Alex- prompting more evil speculation- and others excited to see the characters interact more. The character appears again in 2.06, where he invites Alex to dubious spoken word poetry (which Alex attends); 2.08, where they have a paintball date and go to The Wild Pony; 2.10, where the two are seen writing together briefly at the beginning of the episode; and 2.13, where Alex performs his song at open mic night, tells Forrest his relationship with the person in the song was long over, and they kiss. Forrest was not revealed to be evil during season 2.

Amidst the season airing, Word of God via Twitter post announced that yes, Forrest had originally been planned as a villain, though not the main villain, but it was changed as filming progressed.

The Word of God Twitter post revealed that Forrest had originally been planned as a villain, but they decided that they could not make their “blue-haired gay man” a villain. This mirrors a similar situation and excuse used the previous season, where the character of Jenna Cameron was originally planned to work with Jesse Manes against the aliens, before it was changed because they just “loved Riley [the actress] too much”. Both of these examples occurred while already filming and reflect on a larger problem with the show. Though not the topic of this essay, it is important to note that both characters are white, both in the show and by virtue of being played by white actors. The fact that they couldn’t be villains for one reason or another is not a courtesy extended to the male villains who are all the most visibly brown, and thus ‘other’, members of the cast.

This also highlights the fact that, via Twitter, it has been revealed two other times that occurrences that were reported in season 1 also occurred in season 2. During the airing of episode 1.02, it was revealed that the single best build-up of tension in the show- when Alex walks to the Airstream not saying a word to Michael after a dramatic declaration- happened because one actor was sick at the time and they had to go back and film the kisses later. At the point of airing for episode 2.08, it was revealed that one of the actors were sick and unable to film a kissing scene. Allegedly, this caused the writers to retool the entire scene and deviate from the plan to make that subplot about Coming Out. The execution of this subplot will be explored later in this essay.

The last occurrence revealed via Twitter also revealed larger issues within the show: lack of planning and poor budgeting. During the airing of season 1, Tyler Blackburn was needed for an extra episode beyond his contracted 10. A full explanation was never given, but speculation about poor planning and to fill in because Heather Hemmens had to miss one of her 10 episodes due to scheduling conflicts for another project. During the airing of season 2, yet another tweet came out saying they made a mistake and Tyler would once again be in an additional episode. No explanations beyond “a mistake” were given, though once again speculation occurred. It is the opinion of the author that this was due to changing plot points over halfway through writing, while episodes were already in production. It has been speculated by some that these changes occurred during the writing of 2.08, which was being finished/pre-production was occurring roughly around the time of NYCC 2019.

Previous Literature:

A brief look at different theories of plots and subplots

Many people have written on the subject of plotting, for novels and screen alike. The author is more familiar with film writing than tv, but a lot of the concepts carry over. Largely, the B- and C- (and D- and E-… etc) plots should reinforce the theme of the A-plot. This can be through the use of a negative example, where the antithesis of the theme is explored to reinforce the theme presented by the A plot, or through other examples of the theme, generally on a small scale.

A movie example of this would be Hidden Figures (2016), where the A-plot explores how race and gender impact the main character (Katherine Johnson) in her new job. The B-plots explore the other characters navigating the same concepts in different settings and ways- learning a new skill as to not become obsolete and breaking boundaries there (Dorothy Vaugn) and being the first black woman to complete a specific degree program and the fight it took to get there (Mary Jackson). A TV example that utilizes this concept of plot and theme is the 911 shows. Each of the rescues in a given episode will directly relate to the overall theme of the episode and the overall plot for the focus character. This example is extremely blunt. It does not use any tools to hide the connection, to the point you can often guess the outcome for that A-plot fairly quickly.

This is not the only way to explore themes within visual media. Moonlight (2016) looks at three timestamps in the life of Chiron. Each timestamp has a plot even if they feel more like individual scenes or moments rather than plots as some are more used to in films. Each time stamp deals with rejection, isolation, connection, and acceptance in different ways. So while there is no clear A-, B-, or C-Plot, each time stamp works as their own A-Plot to explore the themes in a variety of ways, particularly by starting out in a place of rejection and moving to acceptance or a place of connection to isolation.

Please note that there are many ways to write multiple plots, there are just two examples.

While there are flaws within season 1 of RNM, overall the themes stayed consistent throughout the season, mainly the theme of alienation. The theme threads through the Alien’s isolation/alienation from humanity which is particularly seen through Michael’s unwillingness to participate and Isobel’s over participation. There is Rosa’s isolation from others, how her friendship with “Isobel” ended up compounding her existing alienation from her support system due to her mental illness and coping mechanisms. We see how Max and Liz couldn’t make connections. This theme presented itself over and over in season 1. While this essay is not an exploration of the breakdown of themes in season 2, it should be noted that there were some threads that followed throughout the season. The theme of mothers/motherhood was woven throughout season 2, with some elements more effective than others. Please contact the author for additional thoughts on Helena Ortecho and revenge plots.

One of the largest problems within season 2 was the sheer number of plots jammed into the season. These plot threads often ended up hindering the effectiveness of the themes and made the coherence of the season suffer. Additionally, a lot of them were convoluted and difficult to follow.

Thesis:

Essentially, season 2 was a mess. To look at it holistically is almost an exercise in futility. Either you grow angry about the dropped plots and premises, you hand wave them off, or you fill them in for yourself. Instead, this essay proposes to look at individual elements to explain why Forrest should have stayed evil.

We first meet Forrest in 2.04 when he is introduced on the Long Family Farm, which we later learn was the location where our past alien protagonists had their final standoff. He’s introduced. He’s largely just there. The audience learns he has more of a history with Michael. In 2.06, we meet him again with his dog Buffy (note: poor Buffy has not been seen again and we miss a chunky queen). There’s mild flirting, Alex is invited to an open mic night, which he attends. For the purpose of this essay, the author’s thoughts on the poetry will not be expressed. Readers can take a guess.

It is after this point that the author speculates the Decision was made. This choice to make Forrest not evil- paired with the aforementioned ‘can’t kiss, someone’s sick’- impacted the plot. We have Alex have a scene with his father- which the author believes could have been pushed to a different episode- and then have Alex go on a date and then not kiss Forrest at the end of the night. Here, the audience sees Forrest hit Alex in the leg, allegedly not knowing he had lost his leg despite ‘looking him up’, which parallels the shot to the leg that happens to Charlie. Besides wasting this ABSOLUTELY TEXTBOOK SET UP WTF, it also takes Alex away from the main plot and then forces a new plot for him. Up to this point, Alex’s plot was discovering more about the crash and his family’s involvement. Turning Alex’s date from a setup for evil Forrest to a Coming Out story adds yet another plot thread to a packed season. It is also the author’s thought that this is where the convoluted kidnapping plot comes in. With Forrest already in 2.10 for a moment, a plot where Alex is evil has Forrest attack him for Deep Sky rather than Jesse abduct him for a piece of alien glass Alex was going to give him anyway and then for Flint to abduct Alex from Jesse. It’s messy. In a bad way. Evil Forrest would have been a cleaner set up: no taking back a piece of alien glass Alex gave to Michael in a touching moment. No double abduction. Instead, there is only Forrest, who Alex trusts, breaking that trust to take him as leverage over Michael.

Implications:

Now, Alex has two plots (Tripp & Coming Out). The Coming Out plot is largely ineffective, as they are only relevant to scenes with Forrest and have the undercurrent of there only being a certain acceptable way to be out. This could have been used for Alex to discover his comfort levels, mirroring Isobel’s self discovery, but there was not enough screen time for that. Additionally, Isobel’s coming out story was about her allowing herself the freedom to explore. Alex’s story was about the freedom to… act like this dude wanted him to. Alex’s internalized homophobia played out often in the series but it was also informed by the violence he experienced at Jesse’s hands and the literal hate crime he and his high school boyfriend experienced. With that in mind, the “kissing to piss off bigots” line comes off poorly. This is a character who experienced what a pissed off bigot could do- reluctance to kiss in public is not the same as not being out. There is more to be said on this topic, but as it is not actually the focus of the essay, it will be put on hold. To surmise: Alex’s coming out is attempted to be framed as being himself, but it is actually the conformity to someone else’s ideals. It does not work as an antithetical to Isobel’s story, as the framing indicates that the conformity/right was to be out contradicts Isobel’s theme.

Further Research:

MAKE FORREST EVIL YOU COWARDS

Author Acknowledgements:

The author of this paper acknowledges that the show took some strides to mend this problem. However, once again no consensus could be found on whether Forrest was a low-level member of Deep Sky and thus just allowed to fuck off on a bus, or his job was recruitement because he did a piss poor job of making Alex not join.

#anti forrest long #i guess #evil forrest propaganda #I asked and no one said don't post it so...#here it is #I started writing this roughly 7 months ago

23 notes · View notes

phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust · 3 years

Note

I’d disagree with the anon that Paul was “incapable” of love, but I do agree he was very distanced, and pretty cruel (to women) when he was younger. (It was unfortunate they bought into the love at first sight myth, but he was also a charmer, and dropped affection and got colder after fucking them.)

But I just can’t see romantic interest on Paul’s end. I’m sure he loved John, but a lot of the “sexual/Romantic evidence” really can just be as construed as platonic love. I feel there may be some confirmation bias looking for “clues”. (Not an attack on anyone, but some of the analysises seem to try too hard, really).

He does make references, with the whole “calling him babe during concerts”, and “in bed” but that could just mean he’s not uncomfortable with coming off “gay”. He has a quote about it somewhere I think. He’s supportive of the community at any rate.

This is kind of my own bias, but at times I think he…plays it up a little during the present day? Again, I’m positive he did love John a lot, but with how he is, a charmer, good at manipulating his image, he knows there is a benefit to building up the “magical” Lennon McCartney dynamic. John’s dead, and the old conflicts have faded, so he has no reason not to. I don’t think he’s anti-social, or a psycho or anything, but he certainly does put a lot of thought into his image, especially now, with how he wants to leave his legacy.

I’m less knowledgeable about John, and the speculation about his mental illnesses, but on his end, I can certainly see it. Maybe he’s just blind, but the looks are very much…yeah. He does seem to rely Paul a lot, and hold him in very high regard (REGARDLESS of what those old male biographers might make of him). You just know he was suffering over Paul, poor bastard.

Not sure if anything happened. I think Paul knew though, and either ignored it, or was kind, knowing John wouldn’t act on it. OR he didn’t notice! With the whole “we shared beds A LOT. you would think he’d make a pass at me, darling~”

I guess that’s how I see it. I don’t really have strong feelings on the nature of their relationship, or want them to be “confirmed”, so I try to be as objective as possible! Not a shipper, but not a male biographer. In fact, I was very put off learning the ship was a thing at first! With every fan base “having to” ship the main male leads, that’s what I thought this was. But after three years, reading actual books, primary stuff, I’ve began to change my mind on its legitimacy, and this was my conclusion. But new information can always change!

(Sorry for the long long analysis, god! I just took my adderall and I should go eat! Feel free to block me for spam/harassment.)

Yeah, this is basically my big mclennon dilemma: did Paul love John?

Of course he loved him, but I mean did he harbour any homosexual feelings towards John - and I just go back and fourth on that a lot.

In my last response to an anon I wasn’t necessarily trying to argue that Paul was romantically/sexually attached to John, because all in all, I don’t believe he did - but it probably came off that way because I didn’t particularly like the way the anon had phrased some stuff (like calling him “a master manipulator” and “incapable of love”) and so I just sort of wanted to show that the relationship was more nuanced then just “john was simping for paul”. My overall point with that response was more so that whilst I think Paul struggles in showing real affection and emotions, I don’t think he was incapable of love prior to Linda. I think he did really love John (in whichever form of love you want to take it: romantically, platonically etc.)

And so my point I guess wasnt so much that Paul was always capable of love (because I think he did at least love his family, his close-friends, probably Jane etc.), but maybe more so that he was always capable of intimacy with another person, though he struggled with it.

But yeah, he was quite cruel to a lot of the girls he slept with in the 60s, but I wouldn’t say that suggests he was incapable of love (i know thats not what you’re saying but other people might interpret it through that lens) I would just say he was young, dumb, ridiculously rich and famous and not emotionally mature enough yet to really empathise with most of those girls. Not trying to completely excuse him, but like, i dunno, i always just try to view people from the most human perspective. Everyones an twat sometimes yknow

I also really struggle to see romance on Pauls behalf towards John - the only times I think “wait but maybe he did fancy john back” is when I read some of his lyrics (like in ‘Coming Up’, ‘Yvonne’s The One’, and to some extent ‘Here Today’ - though I think interpreting Here Today as strictly platonic love is still a valid interpretation). I mentioned this in a different post though, that analysing his lyrics just isnt particularly convincing for me, because it feels more like speculation - and also as someone who does write songs, I know that a lot of lyrics just arent as deep as we wish they were. It is really difficult to be truly introspective and honest in a song, without exaggerating or hyperbolising or fictionalising any autobiographical aspects.

I do see your point with Paul possibly playing up the “Lennon/McCartney m a g i c” - im not entirely sure how much I agree, but I do agree to some extent. I think he’s always been very image conscious, and being in what is probably the all-time most famous pop band definitely wouldve heightened that. Even as a teenager I think he’s always just had this natural charm about him, and that tends to stem I guess from a need to be liked; I think you can see it in every interview he’s ever done to be honest. Its not necessarily a bad thing, (because id take a charmer over a rude knobhead any day) but I guess it sort of just shows that Paul is flawed like everybody else. Also, just read @mothernatures-sons tags and I agree with her - Paul just knows when to be a nice person! Nothing wrong with that! It isnt manipulative like the last anon suggested, its just how most people are: polite :) Ive heard a lot of anecdotes from people who have worked with or met Paul and the majority of them say he was a just a nice guy. Not saying he was never an arsehole (cause yeah he was pretty cruel to those girls in the 60s) but I think overall, hes a pretty good guy 👍

On the other hand though, you could also say that superficial journalists are looking for superficial answers - and Paul knows what the people want to hear. But occasionally ill hear an interview that does seem more intimate then most - I havent listened to it in awhile, but the interview he did with Sean I remember felt more honest to me then most. And when he said he’d like to spend the day “in bed” with John, to me that felt like a genuine and fitting response. Because, whilst it has sexual connotations, it also just feels like he’s saying he’d just like to sit around, chat, dont chat, just whatever with John for a day. Like he would just like another moment of intimacy with him.

I think we are pretty much in agreement on most of this though! At first I was also like “nah, mclennon isnt real, teenage girls just love shipping guys!” (I am a teenaged girl and I can confirm this lol) but then it just sort of became apparent to me through reading more and more about their relationship that there probably was something more on Johns behalf. If John wasnt in love with Paul, then it feels as though a lot of things he said and did just dont add up (the big one for me is him marrying Yoko so soon after Paul married Linda - like I really cannot come up with a heterosexual explanation for that!)

But when it comes to Paul, though ill have moments of doubt, I dont think he was in love with John (homosexually) and I do think a lot of the evidence on Pauls behalf seems like a stretch (but like you, im not having a go at anyone, because I understand that it is easy to carried away, plus its fun - but realistically, most of Pauls evidence just is not convincing to me). He’s comfortable with his sexuality, and I really do try to respect that and not force a gay interpretation of quotes or songs from him, unless it is genuinely making me question his sexuality and mclennon.

PS dont worry, I didn’t take this is spam at all!! And also, I would never block someone just for disagreeing with me! I enjoy discussion and I think its good to engage with people who disagree with you! To be honest, id only block someone if they were purposely being a real arsehole <3

#mclennon #discussion

24 notes · View notes

buniyaad · 3 years

Text

An Observation & Subsequent Commentary

You do not need permission from anyone in Black Clover fandom to post your creative content (provided you didn’t steal it, cuz why would you do that 💀). I’ve noticed a trend for the past couple of months with some of y’all droppin into my inbox expressing concerns that there isn’t really a place to speak out about your headcanons, meta, theories, and ship interests on the general Black Clover tags because of the rampant bullying, insular cliques, and moral purity brigade, but I want you to know - nobody owns the Black Clover tags or the fandom on tunglr dot hell. No matter how popular certain users are in some tags, they do NOT own those tags, so you CAN post your content there. Part of making Black Clover tunglr fandom a less toxic place is doing your part in being respectful, kind, and FIRM about your OWN interests, and that firmness can be carried out by blocking people, filtering tags, and curating your OWN experience so that you don’t have to engage with things you are not comfortable with WHILE respecting that someone ELSE has the right to post and consume whatever the hell they want. Tis a two-way street based on mutual RESPECT.

So post your headcanons, fanfiction, meta, fanart, theories, gifsets, AMVs REGARDLESS of your skill level, knowledge of the canon, or purity tenets spelled out by bad apples, because guess what? Fandom is not pay-for-performance. Fandom is not a job. You do not have to justify your interests by disclosing your mental health status, your personal histories, or any other PRIVATE information JUST to get the puriteens off your back. Block, filter, and ignore! Fandom is what you do on your own time to have fun, so have fun! Be respectful! Tag appropriately! Put walls of text under read-mores! Block freely! Don’t fish for validation from someone just because they’re popular because, as Aizen Sousuke once said, admiration is the furthest from understanding! Don’t join purity cults! Avoid the headcanon police! Don’t support those that make the fandom genuinely exhausting, and do NOT excuse poor decorum just because someone claims to be mentally ill because mental illness is merely an explanation for a pattern of behaviors and NOT an excuse, so you catch someone bullying and leading harassment campaigns while also sadposting to high hell??? Too bad, block, block, and block again! You are not their therapist, and unless you are a concerned friend who truly wishes to raise someone from the pits of moral puritanism, you are NOT obligated to play the bad apple’s mental health coach!

And most importantly, don’t let no rando on the internet tell you how to do your shit or live your life. Fuck those hoes; have a wonderful day, and DO post the garbage you’re sitting on because I know I will 🧕🏽✨

#black clover #an observation and some commentary cuz guys #im not a confessional booth #do not deify me just post your haute couture garbage in the tags #enjoy the ride #real talk

43 notes · View notes

bbq-hawks-wings · 3 years

Note

I can't believe I didn't think the todo/endev stuff would've been divisive. Like if you don't like it then that's it, you just personally don't want to see it, that's valid, but then you have some ppl calling ppl who do like it and even hori abuse apologists (despite some of them being survivors themselves) but THen you have ppl on the other side insulting those who can't stomach it and, why is this all a thing.

CW/ abuse mention

I'm not all that surprised it stirs up such intense reactions. Unlike saving the world or becoming a hero, the struggle of a household and each of its members healing from a horribly abusive past, complete with all its uncomfortable, different, ugly blistering wounds and scars is way too close to home for a lot of people. Even for those who may have never experienced the same "severity" (in quotes because comparing trauma to silence or talk over victims of any kind is not okay - different forms of abuse is still abuse that leaves lasting impacts and effects everyone differently) they can feel personally connected to that pain.

I'm not surprised whatsoever that Endeavor is such a controversial figure. I would argue that's a good thing. If we come to love his character after lots of growth it's because he's really changed in the ways he's needed to and continuing on that road. If we can't ever get past what he did it's still justified because he's legitimately left the lives of his entire household in shambles - a home full of people who his chief responsibility was to love, provide for, and protect - who will carry the scars (some literal) of what he's done for the rest of their lives.

What surprised me most, however, is how Dabi became to be such a chief spokesperson for the entire family despite being the most removed as far as attitudes towards Endeavor and his actions in response; and how he became the only "valid" victim for so many.

I absolutely pity what he went through. He was absolutely right to feel abandoned. He was abused as much as anyone in that household. His trauma was just as real, just as impactful, and just as valid as the rest. All of his childhood trauma was a result of his father's actions of which Endeavor does need to face and account for. Even his desire to lash out at the objects of his father's affection - his mother and siblings - as a child as a way in his mind to make the pain stop and regain what he legitimately needed in his father's attention and affection is understandable given the circumstances. He's very much damaged, and the onset of that damage is not his fault. He desperately needed help he never got.

But here's where the split happens: at a point he was removed from his family and their influence and became his own person at which point he decided to step on the gas and purposely cause collateral damage on top of the self-destruction.

To be clear, simply leaving that harmful environment and growing up does not erase the damage it caused. PTSD would not be a thing of that was the case. However, Dabi is in one of two states given his behavior: he's genuinely insane (mentally ill to point he doesn't recognize what he's doing - a justified legal defense of insanity) or he's at least lucid enough to know and purposely chose to inflict harm on others because of whatever benefit he feels he gets from it (not able to plead insanity).

Either way, he's a clear danger to himself and others and needs to be reigned in. If he's not in full control of his faculties he needs professional help and has to be taken into custody for everyone's safety. If he is all there, it's right for him to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because trauma does not excuse making more victims of any kind.

And for some reason, despite these facts well being able to coexist, the fandom doesn't seem to accept that - at least not uniformly and the disparity of opinion is night and day. We have real life examples of people who went through traumatic childhoods who became serial killers, and we don't disagree that they needed to be institutionalized or prosecuted for the safety of the public and their survivors; but Dabi gets a pass somehow?

Perhaps the main divide comes down to some can't/don't/won't make a distinction between Touya the abuse victim and Dabi the abuser. Both can and do exist in the same person, but the focus of his life's goal has shifted to be distinct enough to make that distinction as the audience. As a child, he was a victim who was doing everything he could think to do to get what he needed in a horrible situation. As an adult with ample degree of rational thought and self-awareness, he leverages his damage to justify the homicide he commits against his own victims.

And this especially is why I have pity for Touya, but not for Dabi.

I knew someone who did that - who did that to me. Someone who I considered a friend, even "family" until I set boundaries and started acting contrary to what they wanted when it was like a switch went off inside them. They had a legitimately terrible upbringing and a questionable family situation, at best; but that didn't mean I had to suffer the effects those negative influences splashed into my life.

If something I did made them upset and what they only ever knew was to verbally express, "You're lucky I have the control to hit the wall instead of you when I get this upset" that anger is valid, but I was also right to say, "If this is a problem, I'll do what I can to make it right on my end, but you do not have the right to threaten me, emotionally manipulate me, or lash out in retaliation - and especially not without consequences or pushback. You need help, and I want to help you help yourself; but that was not acceptable. I am responsible for me and what I do, not for how you take things and respond."

It boils my blood thinking back how often they tried to peddle back and make me the bad guy in my own head by trying to guilt me with their own tragic backstory so I'd stay complicit. Clearly, I'm still not completely over it, and I was unpleasantly reminded of it not long ago when nightmares with their face came back to haunt me for the first time in years after just seeing their name again in passing earlier that day. It took a complete stranger I met at a house party telling me after I spilled my guts late into the night for me to even begin to recognize that I was being manipulated and abused.

So yeah, there it is yet again - the Todofam drama is way too close to home for too many people. The worst tragedy in that, though, is that no one can apparently be validated in their opinions unless they bare themselves like I did just now. That shouldn't be the case. These discussions should be able to exist as hypotheticals and discussing canon events instead of requiring everyone who wants to weigh in to have their own trauma validated.

It's easy to pile onto Endeavor because he's the clear "bad guy" in the scenario who will never be able to erase what he's done even if all of his family magically forgave him and he turned into the patron saint of puppies and kittens. But for some reason it's not easy to recognize people can feel the same way about Dabi who can recognize him for being both victim and victimizer.

I wish it wasn't the case. There's a lot of right and wrong and stuff that isn't wrong - just uncomfortable and sucky in this subplot; but fandom is too stuck on insisting in an all or nothing bad guy/good guy to fully appreciate the nuance in this plotline.

#tw abuse #cw abuse

27 notes · View notes

todomitoukei · 3 years

Note

In regards to Enji and therapy: first, I think he only sent Rei to the hospital because her mental health started affecting others. Like, when she was crying everyday (like Shouto described) and completely dead inside, it wasn't a problem because, well, she can still carry a baby. But once she attacked Shouto, that got other people involved (Enji, Shouto, and various doctors), so she had to go before she made more trouble.

Second, bouncing off of that: from what I've read, the stigma against mental illness specifically comes from the idea that mental illness makes you a "burden" on society--especially if you reach out for help, because it's seen as getting other people involved in your problems (which is a no no in, not only Japan, but most collectivist countries). So once Rei started affecting others, Enji yeeted her outta there.

However, there has been a rise in attempts to educate the public that it's not a burden (or, if it is, it's no different then "burdening" your doctor with a broken leg), and that untrained people can't be expected to handle every issue.

Third, I feel like a lot of American readers forget (or ignore) that manga? Is not a good source on Japanese culture--ESPECIALLY not Shounen Jump. There has been a rise in attempts to educate people on mental health and reach out to those who need it, just like there's been a rise on femenist and queer movements. But, unless One Piece ends soon and a new, hyper woke manga becomes the company's new cash cow, Shounen Jump is and will continue to be very conservative. Topics like sexism, racism, ablism, queer identities--none of those are allow (Hori has spoken about how he's actually been forbidden from expanding on his favorite female characters, like Mina). And that's not even mentioning SJ's pedophilia problem (thanks to the creator of One Piece, who regularly convinces SJ management to rehire literal convicted sex offenders who have been caught with child porn and has often shown support of anti-cp/sexual abuse laws; if you try to speak up against cp or pedophilia, you will probably be blacklisted. SJ will not risk offending their biggest cash cow.)

Basically, Western readers need to remember that you're not going to get an accurate view of modern Japanese culture from manga, and you're especially not learning about any progressive cultural movements from BNHA.

But thats a whole tangent and to bring it back to the topic at hand: even if there's a stigma around mental health, THERE ARE STILL MENTAL HEALTH OPTIONS. There are still doctors and therapists. Enji and Rei have a responsibility to take care of their kids, regardless of public opinion. The fact that they caved to societal pressures over their child's well being is not a valid excuse.

“Yeeted her outta there” pLEASE

It’s true that he only sent Rei away once her condition affected others, but it’s still weird then that he didn’t do anything about Touya despite seeing him try to kill Shouto.

Manga not being the best representation of Japanese culture is a good point! I think a lot of people also just have a certain idea of what X culture is like and then sort of don’t ever wanna hear that they’re wrong (or at least not entirely right), almost as though they don’t want a country to admit it has flaws and try and improve (or for people to bring up issues of a country so that it can improve)? I don’t know, I just never get that attitude of “don’t criticize this thing I like” because if you like something, then don’t you want it to be as good as possible?

But yeah, shounen isn’t exactly a genre that focuses on the human rights movements in Japan and if it perfectly represented Japan then I guess all Japanese women just exist as love interests and never get any good character development. I’ve heard about that mangaka you’re referring to and it’s really sad that so many mangaka are still showing support to that man.

I didn’t know SJ actually forbids Hori from expanding on the female characters more that’s really sad...

Anyway, that last paragraph you wrote is definitely a good summary of that whole discussion and it’s clear that Rei feels the same way now and regrets that they didn’t help Touya when it was so obvious that he needed help and the fact that people get upset about people bringing up the fact that Touya should’ve gotten therapy is just weird.

#dabi #ask #301 #todoroki #Anonymous

23 notes · View notes

taisniere · 4 years

Text

[English] The "YES" list

[Sorry for my bad english, i’m french, i try my best to be understandable]

Because there is not only a unique way to live your therianthropy nor really a "101 guide of theperfect little therianthrope".

Here is a list of "yes" that proves your legitimacy in your animality despite your differences with other animal-people that you may come across on the net.

"Ask 10 people to describe and explain therianthropy to you ... and you will have 11 answers!"

- Yes, all beliefs are legitimate. You can perceive your animality as linked to esotericism, you can believe in reincarnation, in past lives (to have been a human like animal in the past) or the feeling of coming from another plane of the universe. In the same way, you can perceive your identity as psychological, neurological, linked to a neuroatypia, a mental illness, post-traumatic stress and so on. You are free in the way you view your inner creature. However, you cannot force anyone to believe you and verbal abuse is not the solution. Let yourself go to who you are without imposing your beliefs, you cannot force a person to believe in the astral or seek to influence it. You can debate and exchange but not harass a person who does not have the same point of view as you. Always be respectful and try to understand the person in front of you, even if you may be pissed off at times. Therianthropy is above all an identity and a feeling, no one can know better than you who you are.

- Yes, we have the right to be an animal ... And to have nothing to do with it! You can have a whole bunch of passions and hobbies that seem more representative of who you are. Animal identity does not have to be the only pillar of your existence (but you have the full right to make it a specific interest). Your life can be punctuated by your animality. For others, it is just basic information - about themselves - like wearing glasses or enjoying playing chess. There is no more valid way to live your therianthropy than the other.

- Yes, you can act like an animal if it feels good (or even use toys for animals), if it brings you closer to your theriotype, reduces your anxiety, calms your dysphoria and allows you to find yourself in self-stimulating. Shifting is not necessarily involuntary. Shifter can be a way of "stimulating" as a person with autism or with ADHD would do to reassure themselves and reclaim their body and their environment. This does not make you a "linker" or a "fake" but helps you to appreciate and support your daily life ... something that can be complicated for an animal person (sensory sensitivity, feeling of shift, feeling of suffering related to your kind, nostalgia for your "house" and so on). Be careful, "imitating an animal" does not necessarily make you a therian. Anyone can bite, scratch or squeak. However, in a therian person, it is important to find tips to better understand his everyday life (this does not excuse anyone to behave badly in public or to be violent, I say it often but it is important to repeat it). Finally, have shift is absolutely not an obligation to be therian. There is as much a way of experiencing one's animality as being an animal person.

- Yes, it can be nice to wear "gears", that is to say accessories related to your animal. You may or may not like to wear dog collars (a nod to his situation as a "domesticated" animal in a human world), false teeth, tails and more. It is ABSOLUTELY not an obligation to be a "real". It is also a question of comfort and well-being. If putting on your false ears is good for you, do it! The main thing is to better live our animal condition. However, not everyone is necessarily open-minded. Wearing gears can provoke derogatory comments, remarks and looks from passers-by. Similarly, it is possible to be intimidated and humiliated by one's comrades or even to receive complaints from teachers. I am not saying that their attitude is justifiable (on the contrary) but we live in a western society with very ingrained standards and we cannot be unanimous. In this case, I advise you to put your accessories in your pockets or bags (to keep them not far from you and "feel" their reassuring presence wherever you are) or even carry a key ring. Never be too far from "the animal" without displaying it. After, this is only my advice!

- Yes, in the same way, you have the perfect right not to like these so-called "gears" and not to wear them. You are free in your mind and in your body. Nobody has the right to insult you because you do not feel the need to wear a false tail on your pants.

- Yes, phantom limbs can be a real, engaging feeling. Yes, viewing is just as legitimate. Some people rarely - never see - feel phantom limbs. It does not matter ! This does not invalidate you in the community! However, "imagining" can be a comforting solution. You can visualize your tail, your muzzle, your wings, your scales. As with shifts, the main thing is well-being. No one is in your place except yourself. Make your life beautiful and don't worry about trivial things. If you like to feel your fangs sticking out of your mouth, phantom limbs or not, you remain just as legitimate in your feelings and needs.

- Yes, dysphoria exists in alter-human people and no, it is not the reappropriation of suffering of transgender individuals. Dysphoria is a word that can mean many things: a “hatred” towards his body (weight, face…) which is very gripping, suffering vis-à-vis his body which is not one of its kind (being the best known case among transgender and non-binary people) but also the feeling that his body is simply not the right one. It is legitimate for a therianthrope person to feel bad about themselves. Feel that his environment is not the right one. The suffering is just as real, it is there, as strong and recurring. Please note, I am not saying at all that this suffering is similar to that of transgender and non-binary people. I'm not saying there should be an "alter-human" PRIDE (something that has nothing to do with dysphoria per se ... see my other articles). I'm just saying that this pain exists in many circumstances and no one can know better than someone else whether or not they really suffer. There are many tips to reclaim your body. Guides "care guide", for example, where I invite you to take a look. Pain is not a unique way to be experienced. We are all humans and therefore all unique. Don't feel you have to always justify your pain.

- Yes, you have the right to be LGBT + and to be therian at the same time. Yes, you have the right not to be LGBT + and to be therian anyway. Gender identity or sexual orientation is completely independent of your animality. There are no reconciliations to make, these are two separate things! You cannot take ownership of the struggles that transgender or homosexual people experience, such as the need for political recognition or rights to survive in this LGBTphobic society.

In short, yes, you have the right to dream, to imagine, to feel, to be a creature in private, to want to disguise yourself, to be indifferent ... in short, to let yourself exist!

Hoping that this list of "yes" reassured you.

Do not hesitate if you have questions or ideas of things to add.

Hoping that this could help young therians (or even all therians for short!) In lack of confidence vis-à-vis their feelings and their person. Thanks.

33 notes · View notes

idoljiminie · 5 years

Text

V’s After End - Where the Message Fails

So I have now gone through both the Forgive and Judge ends of V’s After Ending, and throughout my playthrough, there was something that I felt just wasn’t working. Now that I’ve completed the entirety of V’s After Ending (or shall I call it Rika’s After Ending, because that’s what it felt like), I want to talk about what makes this ending unsatisfactory.

Before I start, I just want to say that I still really appreciate Cheritz. I can see how hard they have worked on this game. They have tried hard to address certain issues and discuss messages they want to send. The way they handle these issues is very debatable and done poorly in ways, but considering this game is first and foremost made in South Korea where the issue of mental health has quite a ways to go, props to them for trying at least?

Some of the messages they were going for in this After Ending are interesting and can be valid in more minor scenarios. The thing is… I strongly believe they do not work in the context of Rika and what she has done.

Basically, this game makes you either forgive Rika and be sympathetic to her, or makes you feel bad and as if you are being cruel if you do not.

In the Forgive End, the blame for Rika’s actions is essentially not placed on her. The story puts the blame on her mental illness, as well as all the traumatising circumstances throughout her life. Through Yoosung reading up in a psychology textbook, he comes to the conclusion that what Rika did was not entirely wrong and that she didn’t do bad things on purpose, as her mental illness is what caused everything.

Because of this conclusion, Rika is not held accountable for her actions. At the end of this After Ending, Rika has learned to find happiness and goodness within herself, “becoming her own sun”, and is living her life. The only consequence of everything she has done in this game is that public perception of her is bad. The severe crimes she has committed are not dealt with, and she does not even face any legal consequences.

There is also a lot of discussion throughout the After Ending that questions whether justice is really something that is needed. Zen in particular continuously raises the point that it would be better for everyone’s own mental and emotional health, as well as their individual growth, to forgive what Rika has done, and not hold onto any negative emotions in their heart.

Now I see what Cheritz were trying to do with this After Ending. They want to send the message that holding grudges and hate within yourself hurts you. They want to point out that unless you understand the other person, you can’t really judge their actions as being wholly good or bad. Who decides good and bad, and who decides whether something is just?

Now these are some interesting questions, and I actually believe that this can be valid in certain scenarios, provided the scenario is not nearly as major as the one in this game. The entire message Cheritz tries to send in the After Ending falls apart when you look at what Rika has done.

Rika’s actions, that this game wants to forgive and not concern yourself with justice over, includes:

- Manipulating people around her to be extremely dependant on her,

- Physically abusing her partner, including purposefully blinding him, to make him prove his devotion to her,

- Taking many vulnerable people into a cult,

- Drugging and brainwashing said people,

- Raising a child to be exploited and carry out her will for her personal gain, breaking down this child and his worldview and his trust in people he loved so that he would turn against everyone else and be obedient to only her, while also forcefully drugging this child in the process,

- Attempted murder (stabbing V, making Saeran explode Magenta)

Not to mention that throughout the Another Story routes, she repeatedly denies any of these actions as being wrong, stating that it is needed, under her delusion that she needs to release her devil and it’s the only way these people can find Paradise. She was offered help many times, but she refused it and continued to do these awful things, justifying herself as she did so.

This game wants to treat judging Rika for all of that as if it is on the same level as judging someone for cutting you off in traffic.

But how can we possibly not view any of what she has done as bad? How can the game say that the concept of justice isn’t something that needs to be applied here? In what way does understanding her mindset diminish the seriousness of what she has done?

How can all of this be forgiven so easily, with the perpetrator getting away with it all and facing hardly any consequences?

Based on the original 5 routes and Secret Endings, I do not think this game originally set out to try to excuse Rika in this way. If it did, I think they would have made her actions much less extreme to start with. But since Rika has been getting more attention lately, and thus more fans and more demand for her happy ending has emerged, Cheritz is pushing for more sympathy for her now. Rika’s newly released backstory has added a number of new circumstances to further try to absolve Rika of blame for her future actions and elicit greater audience sympathy for her in order to do so. However, while mental illnesses and a traumatic past and life can be an explanation, they are not a justification for everything that Rika has done.

In addition to all of this, forgiveness is portrayed as something that must be done in order for everyone to get the best possible outcome. The Choi Twins’ plot with their father is dealt with and resolved and they get their long awaited happy reunion, and MC and V get married and raise a child together.

The Judge End aims to create a sense of discomfort among all the characters because Rika was not forgiven. Luckily, the end wasn’t so bad that it prevented the Choi twins from reuniting or from V and MC remaining together (although they do not get married in this end). However, characters are still portrayed as being unhappy, and regretful over what has happened with Rika (who ends up in a coma) and feeling as if they did not make the right choice nor did they get closure.

The Judge End also really tries to hammer in the idea that the player is being too harsh. They include a dream sequence consisting of Rika being beaten down by every character, stating that everything that has happened throughout her life is deserved. The ending makes it seem that since you didn’t want to forgive Rika, then you must want her to be forever suffering, being hated by everyone in the world and only existing in complete hopelessness by being a shell that lives in her own self-isolation and darkness. You as the player are made out to be cruel for inflicting this end upon Rika for not forgiving her.

This entire After Ending would have worked better if it tried a more balanced approach between these two ends, instead of forcing a message onto the player that should not be applied to a case as extreme as Rika’s. Instead of one end resulting in Rika getting away scot-free and the other with her being dead inside, perhaps they could have allowed for Rika to face the proper consequences of what she did without everyone being made to feel bad about it? Maybe letting the player hope for Rika to be better and find inner peace, but not actually needing to forgive her in order for that to happen?

The message that victims of serious harm will only find peace if they forgive and don’t concern themselves with the idea of justice is a harmful one. The idea that mental illness and life circumstances take the blame away from an individual’s severe actions is false.

I can only hope that Saeran’s eventual After Ending does not follow the same direction as this one.

#mystic messenger #v after ending #v after end #jihyun kim #mysme #mm spoilers #v route spoilers #i played these routes until like 1am #and then i wrote this and now it's 3am #this is my first time writing something like this on tumblr #long post #mm v #my post

1K notes · View notes

lightcomingthroughthedarkness · 5 years

Note

I don’t understand how people can be so heartless to Bob regarding social media. I frequently take break from instagram and have deleted my FB and twitter accounts entirely, and that’s WITHOUT being attacked how he is. I can’t look at his mentions without feeling ill, and they aren’t even directed at me! People are so cruel. The relative anonymity and instant access of social media, when in the wrong hands, has in many ways made us poorer society.

I remember in the 90s, when I think, The West Wing did an episode about internet, anonymity and how the internet was going to be the thing that would change people's right to privacy up to the point of it becoming an issue in society that would change the way the world operates. Something along those lines. And we see it today. How the internet has changed literally every single aspect of human life. It allows people to contact whoever they want, say whatever they want, do whatever they want, treat anyone however they want and we never have to deal with the consequences. We leave that up to the person we targeted. Social media is also one of the leading causes of increased mental health issues. Not social media in and of itself, but what social media represents and what it allows us to do with it and how people choose to use it. Bob said it very well and he tweeted "Social media oft shows us the ideal life. Making us feel isolated, inadequate."

People feel hurt and angry because of the death of a fictional character. They've latched on to her, felt seen by her, felt represented and validated. It was a good thing, what that character meant to fans. A beautiful thing for people to experience. Representation matters. When she was taken from them, anyone who they felt stood in the way of them or who had a hand in her (fictional) death, became the enemy. Jason of course the biggest one. Bellamy for being the character who threatened CL because it meant Clarke would move on some day and not only would it be with a man, it'd be with the character who they saw was Lxa's opponent. So not only did Bob play Bellamy but from time to time, he'd express an opinion and if it was interpreted as "anti Lxa" in ANY way, then he too was the enemy. So now, people would "joke" about not only Bellamy but about Bob too. Though they weren't jokes. They were racist comments. They were disgusting attacks. I'm sure it wasn't even rational in their heads but they found excuses to rationalize them as "logic". "Oh, he said a problematic thing so he is x, y and z". "If Bob felt that way about a fictional storyline, that means he's an abusive asshole who hates women because he must then view the world the same way in real life." And so on and so on... First the fictional character they loved was killed. Then as the show went on, the male opponent started to become an even bigger threath, because now it seems like maybe he's gonna take the place only their fictional charcater should have. The hate, the attack, the ridicule of the male lead become MORE cruel. But, in a desperate attempt to have some control, even just a little, they start anti shipping. Because if they can show Jason that they love this other storyline, then they don't have to lose it all. They can still keep SOMETHING. Clarke alone. Clarke never moving on. Clarke mourning Lxa forever. Clarke ending up dead with Lxa. Their endgame in the afterlife would be better than any other outcome where Clarke gets to live outside of Lxa/CL. Because of Clarke lives and loves again, then what did Lxa mean? Why did they still hold on and mourn Lxa if Clarke doesn't? Their pain would then be dismissed and CL would be invalidated. And fandom wank continued..

But they still had Eliza. Who was their captain. Who was on THEIR team, right. She would never disappoint them and her choices in life would never go against L and CL. Surely, if Eliza was THEIR captain, she then must live her real life in a similar way as her opinions about a fictional storyline, right".

Turns out. Bob and Eliza are real people. With real lives. With their own shit going on. Suddenly we find out, Bob and Eliza are in love. They are married. Happy. They have had real lives all along. They've made a decision to spend their lives together.. and suddenly it's another loss. How can Eliza be this person? How did they misjudge her so badly? How did she, THEIR captain, fall in love with the man who not only plays Lxa's opponent but the man who, in their eyes, was anti Lxa too? It all keeps slipping through their fingers. What are they allowed to keep? What is left for them to latch on to? What can make them still feel validated? They lost their fictional character. They lost their ship. They lost the actress who was their captain. And in all of this, the thing they hate the most is instead validated. Bellamy and Bellarke are validated. It's like a sport. The other team "won". The anxiety, their inner turmoil and the anger they feel, needs to explode somewhere. Who is to blame for the emotional chaos they feel? What could they possibly hold on to, to make them feel validated EVEN JUST A LITTLE BIT? They find reasons. Bob is an abuser and a cheater. Eliza is a lying and ungrateful person, who only used them for her self gain. They are bad people. If they are bad, then they deserve each other and the only ones they can trust now, are themselves and the people who are their victims. ADC was cheated on by an ex. She is a victim now, because she would never support this relationship. She is the only angel. Arryn becomes the personified feeling they are carrying now. Hurt. Betrayed. The victim. Without knowing anything about these people's lives, this person was mistreated, like they were with the news, so the vicious attacks are now justified. The vicious rumors on social media become the truth. It adds to their suspicions. Bob and Eliza are OBVIOUSLY bad people, so the rumors must be true. And if they are bad, then they need to be called out and they need to be cancelled. The fans have the moral high ground and they are the keepers of truth. They now have the right to attack. To spread these rumors because it feeds their perceived idea of what the truth is. It gives them control back. Some validation. That they are not in the wrong. They have not lost everything they had latched onto. They haven't "lost" anything. Bob and Eliza have been exposed.

And social media allows them to do this. To wage war. To express their emotional chaos in a "safe" way. On the internet. Anonymously. They can be seen without ever giving up their privacy. Because no one knows who they are or what they look like. They don't have to hold in their feelings or DEAL with them at all. But Bob is the one who pays the consequences. He receives their emotional chaos. He is not only to blame for their pain but he is also responsible for what happens to it. He gets to carry their hurt and betrayal because they can't deal with their overwhelming anxiety. And if he deactivates, then he is running from the truth. He is weak. Obviously there is truth to the rumors. If he doesn't deactives but continues on as usual, then he is an asshole who doesn't care about the well-being of others. Surely, he must understand that he is the cause to their pain, so he must be destroyed and cancelled.

That's why they do all of this. It has nothing to do with Bob. They don't even know him. It has everything to do with themselves. Because everything I've just written has nothing to do with the real human being that is Bob Morley. Or Eliza Taylor. None of this is about them. At all. It is about these people on social media who use anonymity to express their inner chaos. Because if they don't put the responsibility on Bob or Eliza, then they have to face their own pain and insecurities. It's easier to blame someone else. So they do. And the one who carries all of this on their shoulders, is Bob. And Eliza. They can never win because whatever action they take, the people on the internet will make it about them. And their privacy is never theirs. Because no matter what they do or don't do, it's an personal attack to the anonymous people on the internet.

#bob morley #eliza taylor #beliza #ask answered

164 notes · View notes

sage-nebula · 4 years

Note

mannnnn thank you for validating my dimitri salt because the fandom take of (usually f!)byleth """saving""" him with their (usually her) """warm hand""" etc. etc. gives me the heebie jeebies. i get that there's a lot of young people in this fandom who haven't necessarily worked out yet that no one should feel responsible for "changing" their significant other! but seeing it everywhere is annoying and i'd rather be over here in my own private salt mine, thank you very much >:(

You are very welcome. Putting the rest of my response under a cut so those who don’t wish to see this don’t have to.

First off, as a disclaimer, I just want to say: I don’t think you necessarily have to be young to be attracted to the “power of love saves all” trope, and I am also a firm believer that you can enjoy something in fiction without endorsing / liking it in real life. I myself am a fan of some dark tropes; I love drama and angst, and I have been known to put characters into downright awful situations that I would never want anyone to suffer through in real life. Fiction serves many purposes, but one of those purposes is to allow people to explore ideas that are dark or terrible in safe avenues that hurt no one. This is why there has been fiction that depicts things like gruesome murders, for example, for centuries. People who write books about murderers (usually) don’t actually murder people themselves, nor do they want anyone to be murdered. They’re just telling a story they thought might be interesting, and others who enjoy that type of story (but also probably aren’t murderers and wouldn’t want to murder anyone in real life) are reading it. So it’s entirely possible that people who are drawn to the idea of F!Byleth “saving” Dimitri from his “darkness” with the power of her love are adults, and are also people who wouldn’t go for that sort of thing in real life. That’s completely possible, and I don’t begrudge those people for it. You do you, and all that. If that’s your type of thing, great. More power to you.

But as you’ve gathered from your posts, I personally don’t like it at all.

I haven’t finished Azure Moon yet, but so far I hate … pretty much everything about the way Dimitri’s character has shaken out, and how his relationship with Byleth is being forced now. Because let’s get one thing clear: Dimitri’s feelings that Byleth “saved” him are almost as much of a 180 as his feelings regarding not wanting to kill Edelgard, with potentially even less explanation if you can swallow that he, for some reason, believed that Patricia was the first Flame Emperor because Cornelia (enemy and known liar) said so as she was dying right off the bat without any proof to back up the claim. When Dimitri first saw Byleth after five years, he at first thought they were a ghost, and then accused them of being a spy, and THEN went on to say that he didn’t really care either way so long as he could keep murdering people (and still later said that he would “use [Byleth] and [their] friends until [their] flesh fell from their bones” so, yikes). It wasn’t until Dimitri saw Dedue that there was any sign of his behavior changing even slightly. Dedue’s reunion got the romantic sounding music. Dedue brought out the softness in Dimitri. Dedue comes across as a far more natural love interest for Dimitri than Byleth ever could. Once Rodrigue kicks the bucket, Dimitri still pushes Byleth away until he breaks down into a Woe Is Me speech and Byleth offers their hand. At that point Dimitri’s gratitude and fondness for Byleth begins being pushed very hard, in a way that feels unnatural and unrealistic given how he’d behaved up until that point. If Dimitri had been more broken up and touched at Byleth’s reappearance after five years, sure, maybe. But as it stands it feels unnatural, and leads me as a player to believe that Byleth flat out just did not mean as much to Dimitri as they meant to Claude or especially Edelgard.

But all of that—the bad writing, of which there are other instances in Azure Moon, to the point where in my opinion this feels like the Conquest of Three Houses—is a minor issue. The bigger issue is the fact that the game pushes that we’re supposed to sympathize with Dimitri and see him as a tragically heroic figure when I … don’t, at all, for multiple reasons.

The first, and perhaps biggest, issue is the way his trauma and mental illness is being used by the narrative as the defining reason for why we should sympathize with him. Dimitri was traumatized when he was about fourteen by seeing his parents, friends, and others killed brutally in front of him during the Tragedy in Duscur. (Note that in this same incident Dedue witnessed GENOCIDE CARRIED OUT ON HIS PEOPLE, HIS FAMILY MURDERED RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM, but the trauma that he should have from this is basically never touched upon, and instead he acts as though people from Faerghus—you know, the kingdom that COMMITTED GENOCIDE AGAINST HIS PEOPLE—should not associate with him lest it stain their reputations. Hmm. Hmmm.) Somehow, at the tender age of fourteen, Dimitri went on a brutal killing tirade during this incident, delighting in bloodshed, which understandably disturbed and traumatized Felix (whose own brother was slain during that incident, mind, albeit not by Dimitri obviously), who then cut ties with him, not wanting to be friends with someone like that anymore. (Note: Everyone acts as though Felix was the bad one for this, rather than thinking it reasonable to not want to be friends with someone who delights in murder and bloodshed.) As a result of all of this, Dimitri regularly hallucinates the ghosts of his dead relatives and friends, and devotes his entire life to avenging them by murdering whoever was responsible for the Tragedy of Duscur, as well as whoever gets in his way of accomplishing that. (Note: “Who was responsible” is something Dimitri will accept with basically no evidence. He believes Edelgard was responsible because she called herself the Flame Emperor and wore a similar outfit to the one he saw back then. Never mind that she is his age and thus was also a fourteen-year-old child at the time; no, he believes she must have magically made herself the size of an adult and was capable of killing not only her own mother, but also his father (who carried a Hero’s Relic!) and countless others. Because that makes sense.)

So. It’s clear that Dimitri has deep-seated trauma, and it’s understandable that he would have trauma from such a grisly, horrible event. It is also true that not everyone reacts to trauma in the same way, and that there is a definite stigma against those who don’t react to their trauma in ways that people can twist to be “cute” or “endearing”. I’ve talked about the Good Survivor vs. Bad Survivor dichotomy among fans on my blog before, and I stand by everything that I said. However, there are several key points to keep in mind:

Not all behaviors can be classed as just “Good” or “Bad”, and furthermore, even if two behaviors are agreed upon to be “Bad”, that doesn’t mean they’re on the same scale. Being asocial and snapping verbally at people isn’t the behavior of a “Good” Survivor, but it’s also not nearly as bad as actually murdering people and doing it as slowly and painfully as possible. Getting on someone’s case because their trauma makes them reluctant to socialize or trust isn’t the same as calling them out for torturing people to death. This shouldn’t have to be said, but this is tumblr, so I’m going to say it.

Succinctly, a shitty past does not excuse a shitty present. Yes, Dimitri was traumatized. No, this DOES NOT justify his actions even before the timeskip, much less after it. Similarly, Dimitri lampshading that his behavior is bad and calling himself ~a monster~ doesn’t make it better, either. If anything, it makes it worse, because Dimitri knows that what he’s doing is horrible and he continues to do it anyway. Just because you’ve been traumatized (rather through a single incident or years of abuse or whatever) doesn’t give you a free pass to do whatever you want. You are accountable for your actions and behaviors, always. Trauma may explain why you behave the way you do, but it does not excuse it.

The problem with the narrative portrayal of Dimitri on Azure Moon (and arguably Verdant Wind as well, since we had an Alas Poor Dimitri moment when he was killed on Verdant Wind despite him literally calling for the deaths of everyone on the field in that path, straight up telling Claude to his face that he was going to kill him) is that the game pretty much flat out tells you that you should sympathize with Dimitri because of his trauma. Oh sure, Felix calls Dimitri “the boar prince” and routinely chews him out, but if you tell Felix that you’re not going to talk to Dimitri shortly after the timeskip, Felix tells you to “not give up so easily” and that Dimitri surrendered his humanity in pursuit of becoming a better killer, as if that’s supposed to make him sympathetic. Rodrigue tells Byleth that he wishes that he had the courage to “scold” Dimitri, but doesn’t actually do anything about it. And every single person present, including both Rodrigue and Gilbert, go along with whatever Dimitri wants, even when what he wants ignores the problem of the fact that Faerghus citizens are starving to death in the streets because of the situation in the capital. Dimitri flat out tells EVERYONE that he is all but abdicating his duties as king in the name of revenge, but rather than Rodrigue or someone else experienced coming to the logical conclusion taht he is therefore no longer fit to be king and relieving him of those duties (not necessarily violently; I doubt he would have put up an argument), they instead just go, “welp, nothing we can do about it we guess” and go along with what he wants, leaving the people to suffer, because Dimitri is of the Blaiddyd bloodline and, well, he’s a sad boy and they feel bad for him.

I shouldn’t have to say it, but I’m going to: This is disgusting. It’s disgusting that Dimitri’s trauma is used as a way to try to make the player feel bad for him despite the atrocities he commits time and again right there on screen. When Byleth first returns to the monastery after five years, it’s to find that he’s decorated the place with Empire soldier corpses. Byleth has to mercy kill Randolph before Dimitri can rip out his eyes, something Dimitri grows angry with them for. Dimitri says, immediately after that, the line that has stuck with me: “I’ll use you and your friends until your flesh falls from your bones.” He’s told that the people in Fhirdiad are starving and dying in the streets and need help and he flat out says he doesn’t care. He relishes in bloodshed and crows at every opportunity about how he wants to kill. While both Claude and Edelgard look regretful about the battle at Gronder Field, Dimitri just once again roars about how he wants his soldiers to kill every single person present. And through it all, we’re told that this is okay and we should forgive and feel sorry for him because he’s traumatized. It’s not really his fault, it’s just, ooh, that darn trauma!

As someone who has C-PTSD from years and years of abuse, I can’t begin to tell you how much narratives like this infuriate me. Those of us with trauma aren’t mindless infants who are unaware of our surroundings and incapable of controlling our behavior. When I say “a shitty past doesn’t excuse a shitty present” and “traumatized individuals are responsibel for their behavior,” I say that from the perspective of someone with trauma that affects me to this day. My abuse was such that sometimes I still have nightmares about my biological mother that leave me dazed and distracted for the whole day. I’ve really been through it. But I’m also 100% responsible for my own behavior. It’s my responsibility, and no one else’s, to make sure that I don’t hurt others. If I do something wrong, that’s on me, and my trauma will never excuse or justify it.

So for the narrative of Three Houses to act as though Dimitri’s rampant murder, (attempted) torture, and love for bloodshed and violence is excusable and forgivable because of his trauma is infuriating to me. It’s infuriating to me how, after that insipid ~warm hand~ moment, Dimitri launches into constant Woe Is Me speeches where we’re meant to reassure him that it’s okay that he committed so many murders for no reason other than to quench his blood thirst, it’s okay that he wanted to use his former friends as meat shields to get what he wanted, it’s okay he abandoned his people to die in the streets, that he’s still a good and worthy king and ~just what Faerghus needs~. We’re supposed to see his return to Fhirdiad as a good thing, an inspiring moment. We’re supposed to side with him when he (I assume) later acts the hypocrite by telling Edelgard that People Dying Is Wrong and that she should surrender to him instead. (Never mind that deaths caused by Edelgard’s actions were caused as a result of a war that was necessary to take down the Church of Seiros, which actually had been ruling all of Fodlan under the guise of letting the different territories rule themselves for ages, while Dimitri just killed Empire soldiers for his own blood thirst and revenge, but you know. If you ask most of the people in the fandom, Saint Didi can do no wrong.)

But the thing is, all of that is bullshit. It wasn’t okay that he committed so many murders for the sake of his own revenge fantasies and blood lust. It wasn’t okay that he wanted his former friends to be his meat shields. It wasn’t okay that he abandoned his people. None of that was okay. And I don’t want to sit here and console him and make him feel better just because he apologies and cries about how he’s The Biggest Monster Ever as a result of his actions. Because a.) his actions were monstrous, and b.) that’s an emotionally manipulative tactic, and I’m here for none of it.

Before I go any further, let me state flat out: I’m not calling Dimitri an emotional abuser. I don’t think that was the intent behind those Woe Is Me pity parties of his, from a writing standpoint, and therefore that’s not what he’s thinking he’s doing when he goes on them. I will call Dimitri many things, including a murderer, but I won’t call him an emotional abuser because I don’t think that was the intent in the writing. However, regardless of whether that was the intent in the writing or not, it doesn’t change the fact that one of the oldest tricks in the emotional manipulation book is, when emotional manipulators / abusers are called out on their behaviors and forced to answer to the things they’ve done, they’ll flip the script and start degarding themselves and talking about how awful they are so their victims end up comforting them. A very basic demonstration of what I mean:

Victim: “It really hurts me when you act like you can’t trust me and go through my phone to see who I’ve been talking to. I feel like my privacy is being violated and like you think I’m dishonest.”

Manipulator: “You’re right, I know I should trust you more. I just get so insecure and scared that you’ll leave me.”

Victim: “I know you deal with insecurity, but that doesn’t give you a right to go through my things. It really upsets me when you do this.”

Manipulator: “I know, I’m such a horrible person. I’m the worst partner. You deserve so much better than me, I understand that you hate me, I’m just the worst and am absolutely useless and terrible and not fit to be even your friend, much less your partner.”

Victim: “No, wait, that’s not true …”

And on and on. Even if they pepper in “I’m sorry”s in there, it’s never once a genuine apology, because they spend so much time tearing themselves down in an exaggerated fashion that the victim feels like they have to comfort the person who hurt them. Similarly, when Dimitri goes on his speeches about how he’s ~unworthy to be king~ or a monster or whatever, the answer choices given are Byleth comforting him one way or the other. We’re never given an option (beyond telling Felix we won’t talk to Dimitri right after the time skip) to tell Dimitri that he is awful, that he doesn’t deserve to be king, or really to revoke our support in any way at all. And because Byleth is not given that option, the narrative is telling us that the correct “choice” (because there really isn’t one) is to sympathize with and empower Dimitri despite how heinous is behavior is. Because Dimitri was traumatized, poor thing, and thus it’s okay that he brutally murdered all those people for no reason other than his own satisfaction.

(Note: The game never once says “revenge is wrong because it just breeds more revenge.” Even though it seemed like they were going that way with Randolph and Fleche, it’s not Fleche wanting to murder Dimitri that makes Dimitri realize that what he’s been doing is fucked up, it’s Rodrigue dying defending him from Fleche. So even if you wanted to say that Dimitri being blood thirsty and out for revenge was meant to teach him a lesson about how he should behave, it’s not, because that’s not a lesson he ever actually picks up on.)

And that finally ties into what I think you were driving at in your ask (boy, I’ve been at this for a long time), which is the narrative of someone “saving” someone else with their love. By telling the player that they, as Byleth, should excuse and forgive Dimitri for his atrocities because he was traumatized and sad, the narrative (and all the characters in the narrative) are basically pushing Byleth to be Dimitri’s therapist. And as I said in the tags on one of my Azure Moon hate posts (or maybe on twitter, I can’t remember, it all blends together), I am not here for that.

Aside from the fact that both Edelgard and Claude seem to genuinely care for Byleth the whole way through, the other primary difference between them and Dimitri is the fact that Byleth doesn’t have to play therapist for either of them. Claude, for the most part, doesn’t have any major traumas; he did have to grow up being outcasted for being mixed race, and that is its own kind of trauma which I am in NO WAY diminishing, but that trauma he faced was the more realistic type of trauma that people in real life face every day. He is still the most well-adjusted of the three. As for Edelgard, she is in my opinion even more traumatized than Dimitri, but not only is her trauma handled in such a way that it’s never used as an excuse for her behavior (the experiences that traumatized her helped her form the beliefs that spur her actions, but her actions always route back to those beliefs, not to “ghosts made me do it”), but she also pretty much keeps her trauma to herself as best she can and never hinges her emotional stability on Byleth. Yes, Byleth’s presence helps balance Edelgard since Byleth is a secondary confidant and can therefore offer counter-influence to Hubert’s toxic influence (not bashing Hubert here, I’m just saying, he is the WORST influence), but although it’s made clear that Edelgard deeply missed Byleth for the past five years to the point of lamenting about it constantly to the rest of the Black Eagle Strike Force, she also kept her shit together and didn’t wantonly murder people as a result of Byleth’s absence. When she comes to Byleth with issues, they’re usually tactics or strategy related. Byleth is only ever able to learn about Edelgard’s past in late night moments of emotional vulnerability, such as after a nightmare. And even then, Edelgard sharing those moments is less “HEAL MY PAST TRAUMA AND MAKE ME BETTER, PROFESSOR” and more “okay, I trust you enough to tell you this.” It’s not about helping stabilize Edelgard, it’s about earning enough of Edelgard’s trust to learn of her past.

This is in stark contrast to Dimitri, who, again, is completely off his shits, and him being off his shits is treated as a problem that Byleth (/the player) needs to “fix.” Felix tells you to do something about Dimitri. Rodrigue asks you to steer Dimitri in a better direction. Gilbert and Dedue both thank you for “saving” Dimitri even before he finishes being off his shits. The Azure Moon route is about forcing Byleth into the position of therapist and having them do emotional labor for Dimitri, which is hilarious if you think about how Byleth didn’t even start having emotions until teaching at the academy, but also unbelievably aggravating to me, as a player, because I don’t want to be a therapist for a murderous sadboy. I don’t like Dimitri. I don’t approve of his actions or behaviors. And I don’t give a shit what his reasons are for it. I’m not here to be his therapist or do that emotional labor, and I shouldn’t have to be. No one should have to be, except a paid therapist, and only because they’re being paid and have agreed to take on the job. But even then, Dimitri is still his own responsiblity. He is a grown fucking man. It shouldn’t be my or anyone else’s job to do this for him. Neither Edelgard or Claude (or Yuri, for that matter, in Cindered Shadows) required this much emotional labor and bullshit, for fucksake.

But of course, in all of this, I think what gets me more than anything present in the entire game is the fact how, from what I’ve seen, people in fandom by and large worship Dimitri and bend themselves into pretzels painting him as heroic while simultaneously spitting bile at Edelgard and making her out to be a villain. The contrast in their respective pages on TV Tropes is stark. I know I shouldn’t be surprised, given that Edelgard is a woman (and a queer woman, at that) and Dimitri is a blond white boy, and that’s just the way these things tend to be, but it still pisses me off and frustrates me to no end. Fandoms are simultaneously the best and worst of times and this will likely never change. (But honestly, if Edelgard’s role was filled by the blond white pretty boy while Dimitri’s was filled by the woman, I guarantee you that reception to them would be flipped right around. Guarantee.)

Anyway, this turned into a huge rant. I didn’t even expect it to be this long when I started writing. But suffice to say that while I’ve not yet finished Azure Moon, it’s currently my least favorite of the routes I’ve played (best is Crimson Flower, then Cindered Shadows because shut up I’m counting it, then Verdant Wind, and then Azure Moon; I’m ignoring the existence of Silver Snow since I cannot imagine ever not siding with Edelgard when I’ve chosen the Black Eagles), and I cannot stand Didi. He is the worst of the House Leaders by far. Considering how much he has in common with Rhea, it shouldn’t be surprising I feel this way about him, but boy, do I feel this way about him. So go ahead and feel validated, anon. You will not find Didi or Azure Moon love on this blog. You are not alone in this, trust.

#this got so long wow #but i mean every word #fucking hate azure moon and cannot stand Dimitri #this is a Didi Alexandre hate blog #(well not really since dedicating a blog to hatred for a fictional character is stupid but)#(you know what I mean)#also it really is fucked up how Didi's trauma over the Tragedy at Duscur is highlighted so much #and he's treated as being so tragic because of it #but Dedue watching his people be genocided and then being discriminated against for his race #is like . . . completely glossed over #and he's OKAY with it and encourages The Whites not to interact with him lest their rep be tarnished #and also is okay with it bc of White Savior Didi #g o d #fucking nasty #worst route #(again not counting Silver Snow in rankings bc I won't play it bc what is the point)#(how could anyone side with Rhea over Edelgard)#(that route doesn't exist tyvm)#anyway #rant over now i promise #fire emblem: three houses #dimitri alexandre blaiddyd #Anonymous #meta

6 notes · View notes

aridara · 4 years

Text

Gun control: common “objections”.

“Gun control doesn’t work.”

It does. Strict gun control significantly decresses shootings (especially mass shootings), gun violence, and suicide rates. You can see this by confronting countries with gun control (for ex. Japan, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland...) with equivalent countries without gun control (USA). Hell, you could see this by confronting USA states with gun control and USA states without it.

“Guns make you safer.”

They don’t. Having a gun at home makes you significantly less safe.

“Countries with gun control...”

Halt. I need to interrupt you to give you some important advices, that could prevent you from making mistakes later on.

“How much gun control does Country X have” and “How many guns are owned by Country X’s civilians?” are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT questions.

There’s countries that have strict gun control and where a lot of civilians have guns; and there’s countries where, despite not having strict gun control, not many civilians have guns. So, when you talk about countries with/without strict gun control, make sure to use statistics about gun control. “In Country X, lots of civilians have guns” doesn’t tell me whether Country has gun control or not.

Bad socio-economic situations (like poverty, famine, war...) means higher rates of violent crime.

This means that, if you want to see how gun control (or lack of gun control) influence violent crime rates, you REALLY should confront countries that have a similar socio-economic situation. Don’t confront a poor country with a rich one, because you’ll just ruin your observations.

High social pressure means higher suicide rates.

This means that, if you want to see how gun control (or lack of gun control) influence violent crime rates, you REALLY should confront countries that have a similar social situation. For example, Country A puts a lot of pressure onto its citizens to work as hard as possible, to the point of mass exhaustion and stress-induced illnesses? Don’t confront it with Country B, that doesn’t have these issues.

Articles that falsely claim that there’s an epidemic of crimes committed by immigrants are NOT valid evidence.

This is self-explanatory. If the article is false, you obviously can’t use it as evidence that there’s a crime epidemic.

“But Chicago...”

Chicago is right next to two states that have very low gun control. And, thanks to the USA’s bullshit “we don’t like gun control” policy, they do jack shit to prevent people from going ot Wisconsin/Indiana, get a gun there, and then return to Chicago. Don’t blame gun control for stuff caused by the lack of gun control.

“Mass shootings are a disproportionately tiny minority of deaths! Therefore, it’s not an important issue.”

You know what’s also a disproportionately tiny minority of deaths, compared to EVERY OTHER kind of death? Car-related accidents. Hearth disease. Drug use. And guess what? For all of them, we decided to do stuff to reduce them.

Also, the USA has a disproportionately huge amount of mass shootings, compared to equivalent countries that have strict gun control. This shows that there’s something going on.

On top of that, there’s not just mass shootings. There’s other gun-related crimes, there’s suicides, and there’s deadly accidents.

“Most guns used in crimes have been acquired illegally! That shows that gun control doesn’t work!”

No, that shows that the USA’s lack of strict gun control allows a lot of criminals to get a gun illegally. And yes, I’m ABSOLUTELY including the gun show bullshit.

“But guns are used defensively a lot more often, compared to when guns are used to do crimes!”

Besides the fact that the claim itself is questionable... so what if it’s true?

If we apply strict gun control, some people will still have guns, and therefore still be able to defend themselves. Some people will be able to defend themselves just fine without guns. And some people won’t have to defend themselves because strict gun control will reduce the general danger. Where’s the problem?

“But gun owners stop mass shootings!”

That claim is, once again, questionable.

“98% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones!”

Halt. Before I can accept your claim, you must pass two simple challenges.

If you claim is about MASS SHOOTINGS, then you have two options. One is to consider all mass shootings. The second is to ignore certain kinds of mass shootings, but explain what kinds of mass shootings you ignored.

If your claim is about GUN-FREE ZONES, then you have two options. One is to explain what definition of “gun-free zone” you’re using (without lying, obviously). The second is to use a definition of “gun-free zone” that excludes areas where civilians are allowed to carry guns.

“Taking away guns doesn’t reduce suicide rates. Suicidal people will just use something else.”

False. Suicidal impulses tend to be brief; if you have a suicidal impulse but there’s some obstacles in the way (like, saying, not having a gun readily available), it’s more likely that you’ll give up on the suicide attempt.

On top of that, guns are pretty lethal. Other suicide methods are less reliable - which means a higher chance that the victims will be saved.

“Taking away guns doesn’t reduce violent crime rates. Violent people will just use something else.”

False. Violent crime rates are reduced - particularly those related to gun crimes.

Even if violent people decided to use a different weapon, they’ll have to either use less lethal weapons (for ex. knives); or they’ll be forced to use more difficult methods (for ex. building a bomb). In either case, it means less victims.

Even IF we assume that knives are just as lethal as guns / bombs can be obtained as easily as guns... then why are you worried about gun control? Just get a knife / bomb.

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

But people with guns have a much easier time killing.

Also, in case you didn’t notice, we ARE talking about people. Specifically about when and how people can get guns.

“But gun control won’t eliminate crimes completely!”

No, but it will significantly reduce them.

Also, by your same logic, the lack of gun control hasn’t completely eliminated crime, so we should throw away that.

“Mass shooters are mentally ill. We should help mentally ill people, not ban guns.”

Compared to neurotypical people, mentally ill people are disproportionately more likely to be the victims of a violent crime, and disproportionately less likely to be the perpetrators of a violent crime.

As for helping mentally ill people... who is advocating against that? What, do you believe that we must choose between “strict gun control” and “help mentally ill people”? That’s nonsense.

“But the 2nd Amendment says ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’!”

It’s an amendment. Not God.

And even then, it also says “well-regulated militia”.

And even then, people who like to say “The 2nd Amendment says ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’!” also have absolutely no problems with taking away said amendment from the people they don’t like. So you’ll have to excuse me if I’m not that impressed with your 2nd Amendment.

“Now it’s not the time to talk about gun control.”

Quick question: WHEN do you believe it’s the “right” time to talk about gun control?

Because people who say “Now it’s not the time to talk about gun control” often believe that it’s NEVER the time to talk about gun control. Which is bullshit.

“You want to ban guns!”

Halt. You’re allowed to use that argument ONLY if your opponent actually wants to ban guns altogether.

However, if your opponent just wants to regulate guns, then you’re distorcing their arguments so much, it goes into strawmanning territory. It’s like claiming that Italy’s policy on driving licenses is the same as Saudi Arabia’s previous policy of forbidding women to drive. So fuck off.

“In the last centuries, many countries committed genocide against their own population. They were all pro-gun-control.”

You’re so full of shit, that when your teeth hurt, you go to someone who works with septic tanks.

For starters, you’re once again talking about a gun ban. You’re allowed to use that argument ONLY if your opponent actually wants to ban guns altogether.

Second: many of those countries actually did NOT have strict gun control for their citizens. See for example Nazi Germany. (Not to mention that, if “let’s prevent a group of people from having guns, but let’s allow our citizens to freely have guns” counts as “pro-gun-control”, then the USA itself has always been extremely pro-gun-control since at LEAST 1900.)

Third: many countries have strict gun control, and somehow they are NOT committing genocide towards their own population. Or anyone else.

In short: your association between gun control and the fucking Nazis is extremely, impossibly dishonest.

“I have graphs!”

Good for you.

----------------------------------------

In case you end up debating against another anti-gun-control person, feel free to use these handy guides:

12 perfect responses to irrational pro-gun arguments (Salon)

4 gun nut arguments that debunk themselves (Cracked)

How to argue with gun nuts (OurFuture)

NRA supporters can’t debate the facts on assault weapons, so they use this dumb argument (ThinkProgress)

So you want to argue with a gun nut? (The Good Men Project)

Suggestions for debating a gun nut: don’t bother (Daily Kos)

Ten lies distort the gun control debate (Forbes)

#gun control

8 notes · View notes

nie7027 · 5 years

Text

Super5 headcanons part 3

Part 1 Part 2

{{Yeah im posting it again because very few people have seen the original post and Im a simple human that craves validation, so please if you like it reblog it. I doubt ill do it again but just in case i put a nifty tag so you can block it}}

Thank you everybody for saying such nice things of part 2 (as i said i wasnt that confident so it made me really happy to know you liked it) and sorry for taking so long but school is a bitch and almost killed my inspiration. Anyway here comes part 3

Minegishi: i just got out work. Can someone care to tell me what happened?

Hatori: uhh, yeah . sorry

Hatori: i got out of work like an hour ago and came home to find Shimazaki sleeping on MY bed

Hatori: Shibata was already at the gym and shimazaki hasnt waken up so i dont know much more??

Hatori: i dont know either what to do...

Shibata: is he still there? I told him to take my bed!

Hatori: well he clearly didnt...

Minegishi: ok but HOW did you find him exactly?

Shibata: ill tell you later guys. My next class is about to start

Shibata: And dont worry Hatori! i dont think hell wake up anytime soon.

Shibata: You should have seen him carrying the dog! It was cute <3

Shibata: in a strange way

Minegishi: dog?? WHAT DOG?

Hatori: did you just say "carrying"?

Shibata: sorry guys gtg

Hatori: shit WAIT

Hatori: where am i supposed to sleep now? I cant sleep on the couch!

Shibata: you can sleep with me

Hatori: WHAT? NO

Shibata: Do you prefer to wake him up?

Hatori: I pick the right side

Minegishi: No homo

Hatori: fUCk U

Shimazaki wakes the next morning to the sound of someone gagging to his right

"THE HELL IS THAT SMELL? WHY DO YOU STINK SO MUCH?" yells Hatori before letting out a muffled yelp when the pillow Shimazaki threw hits him square on the face

Shibata, probably alerted by Hatoris screams, comes running and asks from the doorframe "Whats going here?"

"THAT BASTARD SMELLS LIKE POOP AND NOW MY BED WILL SMELL TOO" says Hatori while pointing at the man on his bed who is just groaning clearly annoyed at being awaken

"Hmm it was probably the dog" says Shibata pensive and then looks carefully at shimazaki "You dont have more clothes dont you?"

"Holy shit! Thats true. Youve been using the same clothes since then..."

Shimazaki cant understand why it suddenly matters so much to them "No i dont. Now that that has been cleared up can i go back to sleep?"

"You have to change first. Hatoris clothes wont fit you. so take a shower while i search for something to lend you" says shibata and then turns to Hatori "you gotta go now or you are gonna be late. Dont worry todays my day off, Ill wash your bed"

"Thanks man" says Hatori and then quickly discusses something abouy dinner with shibata before leaving the apartment. Shimazaki can only stare. He just wants to sleep.

But before he can turn his back and return to sleep Shibata is already on him hurrying him to the shower.

Shimazaki doesnt like the idea of giving up his clothes to Shibata (he doesnt like letting go of his possesions because Mental eye cant find inanimate objects and he learned early on life how easy it was to lose things) but even he is starting to get nauseous at the smell of trash and he isnt in the mood to deal with it himself

Shibatas clothes fit loosely but they are comfy, besides once he gets out the shower the man has breakfast ready for him (theres still a box of his favourite cereal) and leaves him to his own devices while he does laundry.

By the end of the day Shimazaki has his own clothes back and they are softer than he remembers ("its the softener" says Shibata, "the what?" responds shimazaki)

Minegishi and Hatori arrive later with boxes of take out and they eat together in awkward silence until Minegishi casually asks with a smirk if Hatori and Shibata slept well at which shibata laughs and tells them Hatori is a blanket hogger which in turn makes Hatori complain about shibatas snores.

The childish fight continues and even though Shimazaki doesnt take part in it he listens atently

At the end he returns to minegishis apartment that night and sleeps on the couch. Neither of them uttering a word of what happened.

The next time Minegishi asks him to go grocery shopping he accepts.

This is stupid. This was a waste of his time.

Shimazaki couldnt read price tags or labels and he didnt know what he was doing here or why Minegishi had brought him

At most he could tell apart boxes from cans and the weight of things but he couldnt differentiate whether he was holding a can of tuna from a can of yakitori sauce or 1k of salt from 1k of sugar without having to ask somebody else.

It was even worse when it came to liquids if the milk/juice failure was anything to go by

After the first few failures of trying to pick stuff Minegishi had tried to teach him about couponing and discounts but then again he had to ask him the price everytime and they both soon got tired of it

All he could do was to touch and feel the fruit and vegetables trying to tell apart the riped from the rotten/damaged

Looking for any bump, hole, softness...things Minegishi taught him

It was stupid.

Minegishi could ripen/fix any plant with his powers and they both knew it

This was a waste of time.

He hated every second of this and wanted to go already but Minegishi had been hellbent on him learning at least this and left him in the fruits section to pick whatever he deemed best while he finished the shopping.

And that was what he was TRYING to do when a store clerk had the brilliant idea of addressing him

In his defense they had been almost 3 hours here and he had been done since the first. The fact he didnt even know what the hell he was holding anymore except that it was round and ripe not helping his annoyance.

He turned to tell her to fuck off. He just wanted to intimadate her. Force her to leave him alone.

He may have gone a little bit overboard.

He opened his eyes.

"Excuse me sir. Customers arent supposed to grab the tomatoes with their bare hands. The bags are-AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Her scream could be heard all around the store

Before he could teletransport away the tomato he was holding twisted and tangled its newly grown vines around his hand in a tight grip. (The sight of it clearly didnt help the girl's panic)

"Dont even think about it" hissed a pissed Minegishi when he passed by his side on his way towards the screaming girl.

Minegishi couldnt feel more stupid than he was feeling a the moment.

In his haste to initiate Shimazaki on the path of becoming a civil person he had somehow forgotten the man was actually blind (not his fault it was so easy to forget when you have seen him destroying entire buildings).

He had tried. He had really tried to come up with any way to fix this mess of a trip but it was getting late and they hadnt even started their actual shopping.

So at the end he gave up and left Shimazaki to the only task he thought could keep him busy and at the same time allowed minegishi to keep track of the mans position anytime while he hurriedly finished the shopping. It was a good plan. What could go wrong?

The moment he heard the scream he knew everything could and will go wrong where it concerned Shimazaki.

Thankfully he could feel he was still holding something vegetal (a tomato?) so Minegishi quickly dashed (shopping cart forgotten) to the mans position and the screaming girl.

His first instict had been to go and calm the girl even though he didnt know what had happened but when he realized people were starting to stare he quickly grabbed Shimazakis arm and dragged him the way he came.

"The fuck did you do?" Minegishi asked once they were in another aisle safe from curious stares

"I did nothing!" responded Shimazaki somewhat offended

" As if! What did you do to her? "

"I didnt do shit to her! I was just doing the fruit thing you asked me!" he raised his hand to show the tomato still holding onto it

"And? Why was she even near you?" mineshiki asked while his powers disentagled the vines and took the tomato

"ITS YOUR FAULT APPARENTLY WE ARENT SUPPOSED TO PICK THE FRUIT"

"Huh? What? I always do-THATS NOT IMPORTANT! Why was she screaming?!"

"I told her off"

"What? People dont scream like that when someone tells them off, even when you..." Shimazaki was clearly hiding something "How did you do it exactly?" minigishi asks with narrowed eyes

"....i may have opened my eyes"

"Your eyes?" minegishi stares increduously "whats that- oh" hes about to ask what was that supposed to mean when he remembers Shimazakis bottomless eyes caused by his physic powers. He may have gotten used to his hollow stare but he still remembers what he felt the first time he saw it. The girls scream finally making sense "You never open your eyes unless you want to threaten someome...did you want to threaten a simple clerk?? "

"No"

"Then?

"i just forgot!" shimazaki huffed

"You...forgot?"

"YES CAN WE GO NOW?" irritation lacing the mans tone

It was that moment that Minegishi realized this trip was taking a bigger toll on shimazaki than he (and probably even the man himself) anticipated and sighed.

"Yeah, i was almost finished anyway lets find the cart"

Shimazaki silently followed.

They finished the shopping without any further accident and while they waited in line to pay something caught minegishis eyes. It was just what he needed.

There was a row of cheap aviator glasses hanging in display.

After some considerantion he grabbed one of the pair with the mirror lens kind and handed them to a now calmer Shimazaki "Here, put this"

Shimazaki who had been following Minegishis movements asked curiously "whats this?"

"Glasses. In case you forget to keep your eyes closed again people wont be able to see your eyes. Put them on and open your eyes. i need to see if they fit and if they'll work"

He miraculously did.

The frame was thicker than it was supposed to be for these kind of glasses (a crude imitation of the stylish kind people wear in magazines) but they fitted and the mirror lens hid perfectly shimazakis glowing irises(?) (Hell never know)

"How do they feel?"

"Strange"

"You could wear them only when you are out in public. They are cheap. Ill buy them and you can do whatever you want with them"

Shimazaki took them off and when it was time to pay he handed them to minegishi

Once outside shimazaki at first refused to teletransport the bags back to the apartment but complied once Minegishi told him he would force him to help carry the bags all the way if he didnt do it AND promised to buy take out to eat.

Minegishi thought the glasses had been left forgotten in the bags but the next morning while he was getting ready to work he noticed they were laying folded on top of a sleeping shimazaki

When Hatori and Shibata inevitably asked about Shimazakis new glasses(that he now used all the time) minegishi told them about what was now deemed as the "supermarket incident"

The next times they went shopping Minegishi stayed all the time with Shimazaki and kept teaching him about vegetables and any thing that came to his mind.

Once they finished (everytime quicker than the previos) it became Shimazakis job to drop the goods at the apartment in exchange of picking what they were going to eat that day

It wasnt exactly what Minegishi had planned but it was a progress (or that was what he thought until Hatori complained about tripping on shopping bags that suddenly appeared in the middle of the hall whenever Shimazaki dropped something there)

Shibata was annoyed because even though they all agreed Shimazaki was behaving nicer the others didnt still believe him about the whole puppy ordeal

so that, coupled with the nagging feeling he had left after washing shimazakis clothes and after hearing about the market incident made him come up with a plan

"A mall trip?? What for?" hatori asked perplexed

"He has just one shirt"

"So?"

"He has been wearing it since we were together, actually i dont remember him wearing anything else ever"

"Thats his problem!"

"HIS JACKET HAS BULLET HOLES " replied shibata getting impatient with how much it was taking Hatori to understand

"He probably likes it that way??" said Hatori still not getting it

"Actually ive been thinking the same. I noticed the bullet holes too" finally came Minegishis voice from the receiver. He was was working at the moment because if they wanted to do this he had to work a double shift to free one day. "I dont think he has anything else"

"See? Minegishis with me!" exclaimed thriumohantly Shibata which only made Hatori roll his eyes

"Fine! i get it! Ive seen the bullet holes too...but i dont get why does it have to be us?"

"Because we are his friends" easily replied Shibata causing Hatori to frown at this

"Are we really? When has he done something for us?" hatoris tone suddenly turning serious "You are literally asking me to spend one of my few days off shopping clothes with MY MONEY for a guy who wanted to kill me mere months ago?"

"We dont know that" said shibata

Hatori trew him a glance that clearly was supposed to mean 'you gotta be kidding' "Look, do we even know if he likes us back?"

At this both men kept silence until shibata dared to speak "he is wearing the glasses"

"God forbid me for forgetting those damn glasses! Guys, im just saying we are already doing so much for him for nothing! why do we need to do more?"

"Because thats what good people do" came Minegishis response and shibata nodded firmly making hatori huff. He was gonna regret this.

" fine! But do we even know if hes gonna like what we buy? If hes gonna even wear it? As you said we had never seen with other clothes"

"Thats why we are gonna take him with us!" said Shibata, glad that this was finnally getting somewhere

Hatori turned to look at the phone "didnt you said you believed shopping stressed him?"

"Mmm these last times had been better" said minegishi

"What if he actually doesnt care about the clothes or-"

"He does" replied Shibata and Minegishi in unison making Hatori stare confusedly

"How do you know?"

Shibata thought back to the hesitance he noticed on shimazaki when he handed him his clothes but didnt think the man in question would like it if he went and tell this to the others and was debating this when minegishi spoke again "Ive noticed someone has been using my softener and i doubt its the plants"

Hatori frowned and then sighed

"You both have settled your minds dont you?" hatori asked and then grumbled when an unison "yes" was heard

"Do you realize we are working with a lot of 'maybes' and 'probably'?"

"Maybe" said the voice from the receiver and Hatori could swear he could hear minegishis smirk

"C'mon man! We have done worse than this" said Shibata happily clapping Hatoris back

"Ugh FINE That bastard better be grateful" grumbled Hatori

This part forced me to think of shimazakis past and now i made myself sad (this isnt the first time he wears glasses)

So the market incident and the glasses scene was stuff i thought about since i started these and was really excited to write it. I hope i did them justice .

I didnt realize how much longer part II was compared to part I so i think part III ended in a nice middle ground.

Haha i again didnt reach the scene i planned to reach(the prank) and at this pace this thing will have 6 parts. Someone save me

Anyway hope you like it and for those of you who dont know I am writing a Teru-centric fanfic about his decision to visit his parents and the aftermath and ill appreciate it if you could check it out (link here) and tell me what you think or at least share it so more people can see it because tumblr sucks and wont let me do it.

See you next time

#mob psycho 100 #mp100 #shimazaki ryou #minegishi toshiki #shibata hiroshi #hatori nazomu #super5 headcanons #nies spam

8 notes · View notes

distractedfanatic · 5 years

Text

Grey’s Talk + Real Talk

This delves into mental illness and it also discusses spoilers for Grey’s Anatomy 15x16.

Under cut for sensitivity and spoilers. This is also stupid (STUPID) long and I’m sorry but I needed to say it. Hopefully it finds the people who need to read it. 💗

[but seriously, it’s long]

Deluca’s Dad storyline was harder for me than I expected. And not for the reasons I thought. It was hard because I expected to be more conflicted and I felt guilty for how passionately sure I was about my reactions. I also feel that my strong (negative) opinions merit some explanation. Specifically, because my issue is not with his mental illness, but with the behaviour even (and especially) from the lens of mental illness. My possibly controversial stance is that mental illness is not an excuse. It’s a reason or perhaps an explanation, but it is not an excuse for treating people badly, for alienating people or for neglecting self-work and certainly not for abusive behaviour to people trying to help and support (and I know sometimes this is impossible. I get that.) But I do think Andrew’s Dad was manipulating him and it broke my heart to see Carina’s pain in this episode - give that woman a hug!

[Digression into some context building on my opinion....]

Mental illness is close to my life. It’s a personal struggle and journey for me and it is an active, constant, often painful commitment to remaining accountable for my actions and my relationships. It’s not easy, and it’s really not fair, BUT it’s my truth and I believe in the power of leading by example. So I don’t say it lightly that I believe mental illness is not an excuse and I believe I must out myself in order to take that stance. I cannot always control what I think or feel or even how I act. But I can control how I react to it after, how I approach damage control, how much accountability I take and how much power I give mental illness in exchange for wiping my hands of its destruction.

My easy days are what some would consider their hardest. It’s all on a spectrum. My reality allows me to see both sides clearer because I have such a stark comparison between good and bad, up and down. I refuse to give mental illness credit for the absolute beauty and gratitude I have for my life and my good days, so why would I blame it fully for my bad days. Giving an illness I did not ask for and cannot control, the power of saying it makes me who I am or it dictates my quality of connections is not worth it to me to be able to surrender to it and hide behind it and I owe it to myself and everyone else to embrace it and understand it so it does not control me. I do name it. I do speak it - but how that looks for me is not rooted in shame or manipulation, it comes from a place of honesty. Of “I’m not okay today and I can’t have this conversation”. Of “I wasn’t myself and I’m doing the very best I can”. I feel the responsibility I carry as a result of mental illness and I have deep respect for anyone who is doing their best - whatever that looks like. And I draw the line at painting myself a victim - it is a disservice to the honest to god work it takes to be a human with a mental illness in a world still not built for us. And these stories on Grey’s about parents with mental illness are tough for me because I recognize that I’m in the drivers seat and should I decide to raise kids I will need to hold myself even more accountable because the cards I’ve been dealt cannot be any child’s burden. But I also appreciate this is a deeply personal topic and I respect that other people may disagree - that is their right. This is simply my own truth.

[Back to Grey’s….]

When mental illness is depicted on TV that’s always risky. (Shout out to You’re the Worst and A Million Little Things for getting a lot of stuff right and being self-aware). My personal experience is also why I have SUCH a soft spot for Helen (or at least, the season 15 version of her). I’m so proud of her, if that makes sense. I’m happy for Alex to have this time with her as her best self, and I’m proud of her. I loved how in 15x15 they played with the audience and Alex’s perception of what mental illness looks like and what stability looks like.

It is a struggle to accurately portray these topics because it’s a struggle to actually live them, or to watch loved ones live them. On TV and in life, it’s hard to balance a fear that you or your loved one isn’t okay, but also be open that they are not defined by their illness and that it can (hopefully) be managed (by meds, therapy, alternative options, or a combination). That they are a person that is bigger than any illness. And the cruelty is that “okay” and “not okay” can look so very similar.

So in Helen’s situation the bar was set low for Alex and he’s seeing that she is doing okay, so maybe he can stop looking at her as someone to take care of and focus on building a relationship. Andrew is doing the same, in theory - even if I think his motivations are influenced by other factors. But I do think Helen and Dr. Deluca will be foils to each other here. Both struggle with mental illness, both have sons deeply impacted as a result. But are the outcomes going to be different?

But also, has Helen primed us to expect that he will be opposite. If she is stable, do we automatically expect him not to be? We do have it on good authority (Carina) that he isn’t as okay as he seems. How much are they playing with our perceptions and misconceptions about mental illness? I don’t know that. I also don’t know Dr. Deluca enough to know what his personality is. He does come across as quite intense from the get go - but I don’t want to unfairly assume this is nearing manic territory, when it could just be who he is: a passionate, excited doctor and father who may be a bit tone deaf as to the impact he’s had on his family. My gut feeling is he is not okay. Carina tells us he is not okay. Everything. EVERYTHING about her in this episode exudes pain and exhaustion and proof of how not okay he really is and how she is shouldering that burden - more so with Andrew not open to seeing her side.

Now, regarding the conversation between Deluca and his Dad - that I personally feel fueled Andrew’s desire to take his Dad’s side… As it was happening I wasn’t convinced he would go down that rabbit hole. So I’m kind of disappointed that’s what seems to have happened. But there was a very key connection that tells me this was intentional - and if that’s the case, it is a larger theme that needs to be explored between him and Mer.

In 15x12 when he’s getting frustrated with her hot and cold he says (I’m paraphrasing my ass off here) [“I thought you were so BEYOND me. But you’re not. You’re like a child”] -- say what you will about the validity or appropriateness of those comments. But he was tuning into a real feeling he was having and naming that he had felt undeserving of her, at least in part. He was giving us a window into an insecurity he may not even be fully aware of.

SO. To see his Dad echo that to the letter was very interesting:

VD - “I see you... but this woman of yours, she is beyond you.”

AD - “Wow... Thank you”

VD - “Andrea, even I have heard of Meredith Grey, all the way back home. She’s more than a beauty, she is brilliant.

AD - “Yeah, I’m aware”

VD - “So... then... we change the word together! We save the babies!”

If I’m correct in how intentional this was, then I 100% believe Deluca got hijacked by this nagging insecurity and is going full speed ahead, not only because he wants to give his Dad a chance or believes he is truly stable enough for this project (which may be true for all we know). But an additional, and perhaps more powerful motivator for Andrew is that if he can be part of medical history then he can meet Mer on the pedestal he has put her on - subconsciously or not.

My disclaimer to all this is that I do believe he is confident, and I’m aware he went after her first. But you can be confident and sure of an attraction and still insecure. You can be open to love and still be intimidated. He can feel all the things. I think the trouble will be if he is unaware that he is feeling them and therefore does not deal with them. And finally, if this is an issue that surfaces, and it’s not addressed, it could breed resentment and frustration on both ends - I do not want Mer taking this on as her own because she is not lording her power over him and in fact, she was concerned about that dynamic because she understands how hard it can be. My hope is that she recognizes it and can reassure him and he will find some solid footing in their relationship and with his Dad. If I didn’t love them so hard and love him so hard I’d probably enjoy seeing him all innocent and vulnerable, but I’m just scared he’s opening himself up to be heartbroken by his Dad. And I’m not sure I can handle that. haha. Finger crossed no matter what happens with the Deluca famjam, it only serves to bring Merluca closer. 🤞💗

I’m fascinated by where they could take all this. I’m cautiously optimistic that even if it goes sideways, they can still offer some valuable commentary on mental illness and the stigma around it.

I’m so excited to see the reactions from the rest of the fandom!

Sorry this got so real (and SO long). I just couldn’t talk about this episode without going into what is informing my thoughts. Talking about mental illness and mental health matters, and if my openness resonates with just one person, that’s enough. Everyone has light inside and it’s okay not to be okay. And for everyone else fighting this monster, and doing the very best to be your very best: I see you. You are not alone. 💗

#trigger warning #tw: mental health #grey's anatomy spoilers #grey's anatomy 15x16 #spoiler alert #okay not to be okay #you are not alone #real talk #mental illness #mental health #long post

4 notes · View notes