#i absolutely do not believe that a person ~deserves~ to be physically harmed for reckless driving. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ericamzdm · 4 years

Text

S1E1 and Emotional Abuse

Apparently my feelings do expand beyond five screenshots.

So! I’m going to take the Catra/Adora segments from the first ten minutes of SheRa apart, with a focus on Adora. It’s going to be dry, and it’s going to be talking about emotional manipulation and abuse at length, so please feel free to stop reading if that’s not something you want to deal with.

Frankly, the Adora/Catra content in S1E1 makes my skin crawl on a re-watch. It’s not that I don’t like the characters - I’m actually quite fond of both of them! But this episode is extremely on the nose about what it’s means to be raised in an abusive environment, and how easy it is to perpetrate abuse when it permeates your sense of what is normal and how things work.

Before we get into the episode itself, a definition. (I did say this was going to be dry)

Abuse is:

Intentional - Accidents aren’t abuse. (although abusers will lie about intent)

Harmful/Controlling (to/of the victim) - harm/control is the primary mechanism abusers use to obtain their goal, rather than an incidental effect.

Beneficial (to the abuser) - Abuse is perpetrated to get the abuser something, even if just a ‘thrill of power’.

If it doesn’t hit all three, it may be bad, and it may make the perpetrator a jackass, but it’s almost certainly not abuse.

The first relevant scene is where Catra is late to class (sorry, “evaluation”). Adora’s “Where’s Catra/*scoffs* Not again/She’ll be here, I promise” is, in itself, fairly benign, but already shows that Adora’s concern for Catra veers into controlling territory. Who is she, to make promises on Catra’s behalf?

Catra eventually does show up, and we get a lengthy ‘playful banter’ sequence that almost reassures you that their relationship is reasonably normal and healthy. They have in-jokes! And laugh! And give/take jabs in good faith!

And then Shadow Weaver shows up. And this happens.

Just to be very clear here. Adora physically dragged a visibly uncomfortable Catra into an encounter with someone who we shortly learn (and Adora is fully aware) is her abuser.

BREAKING FOR A PSA: The above ALONE makes her a fundamentally unsafe person for an abuse victim/survivor to be around. I have cut people from my life for this kind of thing. DON’T FORCE PEOPLE INTO UNWANTED INTERACTIONS. IT IS SUPER UNCOOL.[/PSA]

*coughs* We now return you to an overwrought analysis of a Y7 cartoon...

Let’s review that definition of abuse!

Is Shadow Weaver acting with intent to cause harm as a way to benefit herself?

It sure seems like it! The intent and harm are self-evident. The benefit is a little harder to grasp - but ‘thrill of power’/intimidation would cover it.

Conclusion: Shadow Weaver is abusive. Also, the sky is blue!

Now, the more interesting question: Is Adora acting with intent to cause harm as a way to benefit herself?

...and (While the PSA holds) the answer is probably no. While the interaction wasn’t an accident, it’s pretty clear that the way it played out, and the harm caused, were not Adora’s intent. This wasn’t, strictly speaking, abusive.

It was, however, negligence and intentional ignorance that borders on abuse. Catra clearly knew how this was going to roll. Adora doesn’t exactly seem shocked by Shadow Weaver’s actions. So what the heck did she think she was doing?

The bright, happy explanation: Adora wanted her friend to be rewarded for her good work! She was being kind and selfless! She believes that Shadow Weaver is ultimately fair and rewards merit, because she’s just too intrinsically good to imagine a world that works any other way!

The ...less bright and happy explanation: Adora wants/needs Catra to be fairly rewarded, not for Catra’s benefit (“I thought you didn’t care about that!” is a refrain that will come up), but for her own. Adora needs to believe that the Horde/SW are as meritocratic as they claim to be, because if they are not, then her own accomplishments are meaningless favouritism; and to accept that would be an unrecoverable blow to her ego. So, into the line of fire Catra goes!

Catra rolls over, Shadow Weaver turns to exit and we get ...ugh, this.

A visibly distressed throughout Catra pulls herself together enough to manage a half-hearted ‘It’s Fine’ shrug at Adora’s Questioning Look. Adora blithely accepts the shrug with that smile (”Oh good, everything is okay!”).

This time, the disregard for Catra’s emotional state does slip over that border into abusive/manipulative territory. Adora is seeking (intent) reassurance/absolution (benefit) that requires Catra to bury/sublimate her own distress(Harm). The smile is the clincher - it’s what makes it clear that, from Adora’s perspective, this was the desired/expected response. Now Adora can run after Shadow Weaver guilt-free, looking for her Good Girl Cookies!

Not going to cover the hallway sequence in depth; will just note that it is itself a laundry list of abuse and abuse flags. Shadow Weaver is just all around awful, really.

A friendly reminder that this next Catra/Adora scene starts with Catra being happy for Adora! Tickled pink! Adora is going up in the world! They need to celebrate!

The upset comes when Catra is informed that, not only is she not getting an equitable reward to Adora, despite equal performance (It’s fine. She doesn’t care. she does She knows that was never going to happen.), but that she’s not getting any reward at all. And yeah, that’s upsetting! It’s grossly unfair, even by Shadow Weaver standards (we are led to infer). “What is her problem with [Catra]?”

(Unsurprisingly, neither of them recognize ‘separate the victim from their support structure’ as the blatant abuse tactic that it is, rather than anything they could have had a hope of influencing.)

And Adora comes up with this. This right here.

This is well over the line into manipulative/abusive - Adora is blaming Catra (harm) with the implicit goal (intent) of avoiding addressing the fundamentally unfair nature of the situation (benefit).

As above - Adora’s self-worth hinges on the rewards she receives being ‘valid’. If she accepts that they aren’t - that her success is a product of favouritism (or, you know, victim grooming) - it would shatter her.

But this defence mechanisms is actively harmful to Catra; it prevents Adora from acknowledging Catra’s treatment as unfair/abusive. Rewards in the Horde must be fair; if Catra is not being rewarded, it must be because of something that Catra has chosen to do/not do, just like Shadow Weaver said.

(The Just World hypothesis is a heck of a thing.)

Oh, hey, we’ve got the first instance of Catra being genuinely mean. It just took Adora victim blaming her.

So, is this abuse? Let’s see.

The harm is easy - Adora is upset at being called a people pleaser.

The intent - Well. Catra is clearly aware that this will upset Adora, but is upsetting Adora her goal? And...I don’t think it is, really. Catra’s intent - her desire - is to have Adora admit she enjoys and seeks validation. That she is, in fact, a people pleaser.

And this is basic Hierarchy of Needs stuff? It’s like wanting someone to admit that they enjoy food and shelter. Of course she does! Everyone does! Adora’s denial here is low-key bonkers, and speaks to her dysfunctions around love and validation.

So what we have is: “Catra wants (intent) Adora to admit she benefits from the validation she receives, and thus acknowledge Catra’s lack of validation as hurtful (benefit)”. This isn’t abuse, because the harm is incidental. The upset Adora experiences isn’t necessary (and is in fact interfering with the goal).

All Adora had to do to defuse this was say “Yes, I do like being rewarded. It sucks and is unfair that you weren’t.”

Instead. Well.

We get this. A classic sorry-not-sorry.

Adora wants (intent) Catra to stop being upset and forgive her (benefit), so implies that Catra’s upset is invalid(harm) [she can’t be angry over not getting something she didn’t want].

Adora tries(intent) to guilt-trip(harm) Catra for having had other emotions, so that she will go back to being happy for Adora(benefit).

And it’s only when that doesn’t work that she breaks out the skiff key.

Getting someone an extravagant gift (”love-bombing”) isn’t abusive in itself, but it can absolutely be part of an abusive cycle. Adora has decided that, instead of assessing her own behaviour to identify and address the valid reasons Catra is angry, she’s just going to do something reckless and extravagant to temporarily please her. It’s selfish and manipulative, and doesn’t solve anything. All those hurts are still there, and are inevitably going to boil over again, even if Plot didn’t interfere.

And, just. All of this. All of this stuff coming from Adora is super, super unhealthy. A lot of it is textbook emotional abuse. And I know where she gets it from! Shadow Weaver is her model for a Reasonable Authority Figure! It’s a wonder she’s not worse.

But, I find it ... not a little distressing that people can apparently go back and watch this episode and go (depending on anti status) either “LOL Catra so terrible.” or “Oh boy, what a beautiful, romantic relationship.” Because. Yergh.

You want to know one of the things that makes emotional abuse so awful? No one sees it. Adora isn’t yelling or hitting or being angry, so it’s not possible that she’s hurting Catra every time she trivializes her feelings with a smile, or smirks and blames Catra for her own hurt. Why, Adora is sad when she demands Catra’s preformative joy! Clearly Adora needs that validation more than Catra deserves ownership over her own feelings!

No, it’s clearly Catra who’s at fault, because she’s the ANGRY one. She’s the one hissing and yelling and running away and pushing back about all this hurt that clearly never happened, because hasn’t Adora always been so wonderful and calm? If Catra was right, why can’t she be ~rational~ about it? She’s must be just crazy, bad, selfish, abusive.

And...can we just not? Can we just, for once, take a miss on looking at a fictional character who is being explicitly emotionally abused and blaming them because they aren’t reacting like a perfect pristine angel, and are at fault for not Calmly Discussing their way out of an abusive situation? Please? Just for this ten minute segment?

#abuse #emotional abuse #emotional manipulation #spop #adora #catra #shadow weaver #I have so many feelings #look this stuff is upsetting #i don't know how they got away with including it in a kids cartoon #this is as done as its going to get #i should go work on something soothing for a while

255 notes · View notes

class1akids · 4 years

Note

I completely share your feelings about the events in 286 being super frustrating after the highs of 284&285, but I can't help but feel that this frustration is absolutely intentional on Horikoshi's part. Kacchan's selfless act is ultimately much more important to his character than any immediate impact it might have in this particular battle. And I can't see Deku as he is now reacting in any other way, and we are absolutely meant to be as frustrated by this as Bakugo is (and as Aizawa... (1/3)

and others have been in the past). I definitely don't think Horikoshi is glorifying Rage!Deku (yes, he gets pretty art, but well, the best art in this arc has been Shigaraki's!) - Hori's made it very clear since the beginning of the series, and now repeated it through Bakugo, that Midoriya's behavior is not just self-sacrificial but self-destructive, and can be very harmful to himself and others - and ultimately, as Bakugo has pointed out, it comes down to his inability to see any worth... (2/3)

in himself as a quirkless child. You've said before that you thought Midoriya's flaws aren't sufficiently explored by the narrative, but I think this has been his biggest flaw since the beginning of the story, and has been rather consistently explored (3/3)

These are good points. Yes, Shigaraki taunting Deku about how pointless Bakugou’s sacrifice was makes me feel like that it is exactly how we are supposed to feel, but I’m hoping there to be more pay-off than Deku just entering rage-mode, but something bigger that affects the narrative in the big scheme of things.

You say that it’s an important character moment for Bakugou himself, but since the scene is a direct, intentional parallel to the Sludge Monster incident, let’s imagine that scene with just Deku running in, getting scolded for getting in the way and going home. Everything else happens the same, but All Might never tells him that it was Izuku who inspired him in that moment, never tells him he can be a hero, never gives him OFA... Wouldn’t it change how we readers and Deku himself feels about that entire scene? Would it be an important character moment for Deku on his journey to be a hero without any pay-off whatsoever if he didn’t gain anything and didn’t save anyone, but just proved that he’s willing to risk his own life even if he realistically can’t achieve with it anything? What would be the value of that?

So I think that Bakugou’s sacrifice deserves narratively a pay-off that pays its dividend into Bakugou’s own arc, rather than just Deku’s (by enabling rage mode). Otherwise, to me it will remain really unsatisfying and bleak. Further reinforcing the idea that Deku gets always rewarded for acts that others suffer for.

I also see Deku’s supposed lack of self-worth as something that’s not very convincing to me and often contradicted by the story itself. Selfless sacrifice, getting the job done “no matter what happens to me” is not really a self-worth thing or not even a Deku-thing, but a quality that the real heroes have. This is why All Might recognizes him in the first place, not just with a head-pat, but someone worth putting his full, unconditional faith into, that’s the quality we see from Mirko in this arc as she charges forward despite her lost limbs, from Hawks when he prioritizes taking out Twice over saving himself from Dabi and I don’t feel the narrative framing those acts as sign of lack of self-worth. Also, Deku’s acts of heroic recklessness pay off every single time - in the Sludge incident, against Muscular, against Overhaul. He always comes out as the moral (and physical) winner.

There is also Deku’s motivation - which is helping people - but not only that. He wants to help people in one particular way, by being a hero like his idol. So at the core of it, even if it’s centered around saving others, it is about Deku himself, fulfilling his own very specific aspiration, exactly the way he wants to. I think that requires a secure self-image to be able to go after a dream against all odds and so stubbornly believing that he can make it. Wouldn’t a person lacking self-worth be more likely to settle for “less”?

I think the writing is fuzzy on Deku’s arc to the extent that I am genuinely confused what is the point Horikoshi is trying to make with it - if any - or what flaws he wants me to believe Deku to have.

At most, what I’m thinking may be his arc, is a Frodo-type of journey, where he starts off on an adventure that he always dreamt off, and at first feels like a fairy-tale of getting everything he ever wanted as a reward for his good qualities, but it gets turned more and more into a nightmare and a burden he never signed up for, but still rising to the challenge, with the end being that in order to save everyone, he’ll have to sacrifice the power he dreamt of (if my theory about destroying AFO means also destroying OFA turns out to be correct).

This is why I feel like we are overdue for the story to let Deku fail in some real way with consequences that he has to grapple with. If the vestiges win this fight for him, then it just proves again Deku right - he doesn’t need anyone, nobody else can measure up, and he should have just done it all by himself letting Shigaraki touch him right back in chapter 275 before Gran Torino dragged him away.

So much bloodshed would have been spared - Bakugou, Aizawa, Gran Torino, Ryukyu, Endeavor - everything they did feels so useless?

But I hope that we will get a more satisfying answer than that and the vestiges are there maybe to buy some time for Deku (and do more exposition about OFA as a power) rather than to win it for him, and what saves him will be the efforts of everyone put together, wearing down Shigaraki’s ridiculously OP body one hit at a time until he falls apart...

I guess I’m just very attached to the teamwork narrative, where everyone’s contribution is what makes the protagonist’s victory possible, and where all those characters are on a journey of growth themselves, rather than tools in the arc of the MC.

#bnha manga spoilers #bnha 286 #bnha war arc #bakugou's arc #deku's arc #bnha critical #war arc

47 notes · View notes

chidoroki · 4 years

Text

Would any of TPN kids kill another human?

I first had this idea back with ch160 but didn't give it that much thought. That has changed ever since the kids raided Grace Field House. More demons, more plot twists, more guns. As my worries constantly grew, so did the amount of human enemies; Peter Ratri, his men, Isabella, the mothers and sisters. While a human enemy isn't anything new (Isabella & Krone at Grace Field and Andrew & his men back at B06-32), they are far less common than all the demons we've encountered up til this point. The children have no trouble hurting or killing demons when they've come across them. Humans, however, are very different. In most cases, the kids have survived by escaping, so harming another human has rarely crossed their minds. With everyone now stranded on the Grace Field plantation, their usual tactic won't be possible. Sure, the reforged promised will (probably) allow the kids to finally escape, but being trapped on a dangerous plantation with a group of highly intelligent and armed humans in the meantime does make you a bit anxious.

Of course, my worries have lessened with recent chapters. Isabella & her ladies are now helping the children, which is huge. Peter's followers are still around (i assume?) but don’t pose much a threat. The major concern that remains is Peter himself, especially with his most recent scheme to kill our best girl. We know he has no issue with pulling off such an act, but what about Emma?

I've seen people get really excited about these panels, hoping that Emma would shoot the bastard. While I fully support the idea of this boy getting the pain he so rightfully deserves, I don't think he'll get it at this moment. As I've said, humans are different. The kids shooting a demon? No problem. Killing one? Absolutely. Shooting another human? Rare. Actually killing a human? Unheard of. The series has given us glimpses of murder in the past (the shelter raid and Andrew) so expecting it again wouldn’t be too farfetched. I'm not saying there will definitely be a moment where in happens in the near future, but if there would be, who do I believe would be capable of committing such an act? Allow me to ramble..

Emma: No. This is the girl who has trouble killing demons. Yes, she's fully capable of doing so in order to defend herself and her family, but she doesn't normally wish death upon anyone, or anything (events at Goldy Pond being exceptions). She can be reckless but killing an actual person just wouldn't fit her character. If it had to be done, she would most likely regret it immediately. Fear of making wrong decisions tend to weigh heavily in her mind. In this scenario with Peter, I have no doubt she'll try to talk him and change his heart. We've seen her talk-no-jutsu Yuugo and Norman, even attempted to do so with other villains such as Lewis and Andrew. If she were to fire her weapon here, it would probably be in self-defense and would only cause injury, but not kill. (unless, something happens that makes her completely snap)

Don, Gilda & the Grace Field kids: No. Most of them are far too young. Don may have the physical strength but I believe he avoids killing if it's possible, fancying the run away tactic more (ch138). I don’t recall Gilda ever killing a demon herself.. or shooting an arrow or gun. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Norman: No...? Like Gilda, I have yet to see this boy use the gun he's been given. That's not to say he isn't capable though. He miraculously escaped Lambda somehow, right? He also had absolutely no doubts when ordering a civil war, killing the royals and the extinction of the demons. He isn't against the idea of killing or having the blood on his hands (figuratively and literally), however the deed has never been done by his own hands. He had his Lambda crew and a ton of poison for that. If the series wishes to throw me through a loop and surprise me, then go for it.

The Lambda crew: Yes but no. These kids have so much pride in their power that killing demons is seen as a simple task. Hell, some of them even enjoy it. Their animosity towards such creatures is well known, and I believe they might hold such feelings towards the humans who experimented on them as well. If the opportunity arises, they could pull it off. The issue is that they all follow Norman's command. It's rare they don't follow his orders. Not only that, but.. aren’t they all like seriously injured right now? Cislo, Barbara and Zazie from their fight against the Queen and Vincent was recently shot at too. Hayato seems like too pure of a boy to do such a thing, same thing with Jin.. wherever he is.

Oliver & the Goldy Pond kids: Yes and no. Remember how I said it was rare for one of the kids to shoot another human? Well that occasion belongs to Oliver, back when he shot Andrew's shoulder and hand with wonderful accuracy. Taking it a step further to actually kill someone? I think he would be the only one out of the Goldy Pond group to commit to that, especially after holding a gun to Peter's head during that whole “you’re not our father” nonsense. I can imagine any of the others following Oliver's lead and cause harm to another human, but that's as far as it goes. Well, at least the half of them that aren’t being kept safe in the storage room at the moment. I have my doubts, but if any of them did shoot to kill, I would only be mildly surprised.

Ayshe: Yes. Humans killed her demon father figure. It's natural that she wants to kill them in return and get some sort of revenge. She claimed she could never forgive them. Granted, those humans were Norman and his crew and they're now all working together during the Grace Field raid, but she could still hold a grudge. Honestly, I'll be all for it. Having her kill a human (preferably Peter) in order to feel that satisfaction and to allow herself to let go of that hatred would be nice. Maybe she has already, idk, she doesn't say much. I just love her and want to see her get more attention.

Ray: Yes. Ray is the reason why I kept thinking so much about this idea. Back when ch160 released, we saw just how angry he is at the Ratri clan for being the sole reason why all of this suffering even started. Suffering that lead everyone around him to live such harsh lives and take the lives of people he cared about. I couldn't help but notice the fury in his eyes. Such an intense look that we've seen several times before.

That look usually surfaces whenever someone's life is at risk. He showed that same animosity after Lewis stabbed Emma, and we know for a fact that Ray had full intentions to kill in that moment. Granted, Lewis is a demon and killing one is reasonable, but that shows us how merciless he can be towards an enemy (something not all the Grace Field kids are capable of) and just how important those people are to him.

When emotions are running high, we see just how strong his desire is to protect his family, no matter what it takes. He never really dismisses the idea during a life and death situation, whether the threat is a demon or another human.

It shouldn't be too surprising. Like Ayshe, Ray has shown us his hatred towards certain humans for a long time and the idea of killing them has never been a foreign concept to him. It may be subtle, but it's there. We can go back as far as the first arc if we wish to see it.

He knows how unethical the act is and how serious one must be to commit to it. He understands that such a concept would be way too hard for most of the children to carry out, Emma included. In order to achieve safety and happiness for his family, he'll protect them not only from a physical threat but from doing something they might regret and hurting themselves mentally & emotionally.

He was once so close too. I don't mean a simple injury either, I mean a full on headshot. Dead. One-hit KO. He finally had the resolve to throw all moral aside in order to save an innocent life, because he would rather deal with such a trivial burden that would only affect his sanity than have any more casualties in his family that would ultimately weigh everyone down. Ah, if only it weren’t for that wild demon..

Some might think that one of the kids killing another human may be stepping over the line, but if any of them had the chance in a dire situation, my bet would be on Ray. He shares that hatred towards certain humans like Ayshe. He's shown his hostile side like the Lambda crew, as well as Emma on occasion. Speaking of our girl, the two of them are both highly protective of their family. While he may not be as reckless as she is, he still had his moments. From his suicide attempt, to using himself at bait in the demon forest. He snuck into a demon hunting ground in order to save our best girl and eventually fight alongside her and others against one of the best villains I've seen. He chose to escort a large group of children to safety, knowing he would be on edge for three weeks constantly worrying about Emma's condition, instead of making the quick trip back with Yuugo because he knew how important it was to her that those kids, new members of their family, remained safe and feel what true freedom is. He also journeyed to the Seven Walls knowing full well there would be a low chance of returning or even making a new promise. He took all of those chances so others could survive and have a better future. (am i giving him too much credit? idc i love him) He's willing to do so much for his family and I'm so proud of him. So if Ray were to pull the trigger now, when his family is face to face with the savage man who caused his loved ones to suffer their entire lives, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

Now originally, my thoughts stopped there, but with the return of a certain someone.. I shall add one more possibility.

Isabella: Yes. Please. Having her own the shot that claims Peter's life would grant me much happiness. It would be the best payback for not only having her suffer, but her wonderful children as well. I feel like it would be an act of kindness (i guess thats what i'll call it?) similar to Yuugo and Lucas agreeing that they alone should shoulder that heavy burden of dealing with Andrew's men in the shelter while the kids escaped.

Of course I could've just been rambling for no reason at all because who know if anyone is even going to actually kill someone? If the moment ever comes, I can imagine Emma trying to talk them out of pulling the trigger, too. So, there we go. These thoughts have been whirling around my mind for weeks but now I'm free.

#the promised neverland #tpn manga #tpn emma #tpn norman #tpn oliver #tpn ayshe #tpn ray #tpn isabella #emma #norman #oliver #ayshe #ray #mother isabella #chidoroki used chatter

45 notes · View notes

sonxflight-a2 · 4 years

Note

Would you kill me if I asked you to do all the emoji thing for hanryou lol 😝

☯ Send Me An Emoji ║ @kathexismania ☯

😤 - Something about your muse that makes mine angry

“His recklessness and obstinacy have always been the cause for my frustration, but... Nowadays, I doubt I can actually get angry at him in particular - no matter how stupidly stubborn he may occasionally act, my discontent grows out of worry and care rather than annoyance or ire itself. Even in the time of parting or disagreements, our bond doesn’t cease - if anything, the only reason I ever confront Hanzo is the desire for him to heed to my voice a bit more often. To remember that I wish him good and to know that he deserves the share of peace and love, no matter of his opposing beliefs. And this is the matter about which I will stay uncompromisingly persisting...”

😰 - Something about your muse that worries mine

“The very same matters I just mentioned, plus I can add here his morbid willingness. This whole nonsensical concept of ‘life isn’t meant for everybody’... He says it’s no one’s mindset but his own, yet knowing his past and trusting the experience of mine... I nonetheless believe it was long-ingrained within him by outer forces and most likely without his inital realization. I wouldn’t be surprised if once he believed oneself to be some kind of instrument, a tool of certain authority rather than actual human being. I am more than sure his late wife brought him a certain enlightenment about it, and I can only thank her for that... ”

🤥 - Whether my muse thinks yours is an honest person

“He is. At times, even brutally so, which I believe causes people think he’s crude and unthoughtful, while in reality it’s quite otherwise... At least, when it comes to the ones my husband is close with. Let this be something I got used to, it's not the best quality once you need to reach a certain goal with cautious mean, especially when the right person is already wary towards the men of our profession. Guess in this case professional partnership adds to the pros of shared workfield...”

😈 - If my muse has dirty thoughts about yours

“We are highly active, willingly married couple... Why won’t you try and guess?”

💩- A mean thought my muse has about your muse

“Hasashi, I love you, but damn I swear I'll kick your ass myself if you will do that again... Something like this, the train of such thoughts is usually pretty similar when it comes to me.”

👌 - Something my muse finds amazing/impressive about your muse

“The fact he embarked on the path of atonement and is determined to follow it with no askew is already more than worthy of admiration. Let his motives being somewhat selfish and price he paid terrifying, not many would be willing to go through such drastic change. For good or bad, his willpower in general never stops to amaze me. Even though we both think we met our match when it comes to each other’s volition...”

👍 - Something that my muse approves about your muse or thought they have done very well

“I can’t thank him enough for helping me to finally deal with the downside of my restrainment. The treatment of wounds, any wounds, can be quite hurtful and requiring of the certain anesthetic... My emotional stagnancy wasn’t exclusion. Despite me being absolutely pissed at the whole damn world the morning after our ‘cooperative therapy’, I’ve never felt so relieved in ten years as I did feel later, like it was some kind of abscess upon my very heart getting opened at last. For this and many other things that was brought by our relationship, I will always be grateful...”

😘 - How my muse shows affection to yours and if it’s different from how they show affection to everyone else

“I guess I'm way more... physical when it comes to Hanzo, in the mean I barely mind and even tend to initiate the occasional tactile contact in spite of the risk to catch a prying eye. While the most of our affections will always happen behind the close doors, at times I cannot help but yearn for something as allegedly simple as the hold of his hand. Makes me feel like some shy adolescent boy, yet all the same there’s something lovely and beauteous in the moment his palm or fingers take a returning hold of mine.”

📺 - What show my muse thinks yours will enjoy watching (together, or just in general)

“Our work schedule doesn’t allow to us pay that much attention to movie industry these days, but I don’t remember us ever watching the movies of Akira Kurosawa. Then again, it can be easily fixed during our joint days off...”

💀 - Whether my muse thinks yours is dangerous and how dangerous

“We are both dangerous, in various meaning of this word and when we need to be... Neither of us has a peaceful past nor serene field of work, so becoming a reciprocal menace in reaction to the threat can be vital for the sake of survival, either of our loved ones or our own. Men like us... They will do anything possible in order to protect the people they love. Regardless if this will require them to sacrifice their own live or take the one of their enemy...”

👑 - Whether mine thinks your muse is of high social status and/or whether they respect them in such a way

“It’s no need to mention I’ve fallen in love with my husband for who he is as a person... Honestly, I’ve never paid that much attention to the status issue. Furthermore, growing up in highly esteemed family and being surrounded by peers like mine, I know well such matter can serve as the force of deception - I cannot tell how often I had to encounter the spoiled brat who believed they allowed to do whatever they want because of their parents’ money, and how the look of their faces changed once they realized the boy who dared to resist them is no less rich. Respect is to be earned, regardless if you’re some kind of modern prince or the child of simple worker. Unfortunately, the crowd tends to believe otherwise...”

🥃 - How many shots of strong liquor my muse thinks yours can take before passing out

“I think the better question will be how many bottles... Then again, it can depend on his current condition, because it’s either just a few shots or a whole damn gallon not being enough to put him to rest.”

🎁 - What my muse will get yours for a present

“Well, it’s for him to know at his Birthday... Or any other day I will decide to make him a certain gift. After all, does the present really stays an actual present if you know what you’ll be given beforehand?”

🍿 - What my muse thinks is entertaining about yours

“We challenge each other. Motorbike race, the contest of dry humor and sassiness or... other matters of our life together, it’s nice to have a worthy opponent for a friendly brawl. Though my husband may be a sore loser at times, in my view it’s a win-win situation either way, for I enjoy the process as much as the possible victory.”

📚 - What my muse thinks your muse’s usual reading material consists of (a specific genre, smutty literature, etc.)

“Does operation reports count? It’s been a while since I saw Hanzo reading an actual book rather than work’s material, but I can't and will not make a complaint in relation to this - our job requires such a responsibility. All the same, his workaholism causes the stir my concern, no matter how hypocritical this may sound...”

🍽 - What kind of table manner my muse assumes yours to have on first meeting them

“Not the best question to ask when it comes to our couple. Recalling how tense and cranky our relations were at the very start, I doubt either of us tried to think much about each other - it was only about getting my work done as soon as possible and be over with it until the next visit. Now, I think we both were too hurting and too headstrong to see anything else aside of established images. In a way, this makes feel thankful for that hostage incident...”

🏆 - What my muse thinks of your muse regarding a specific achievement yours have

“Specific? Oh well, I believe you should name an exact one then. There’s actually a lot I can be proud of in relation to my husband and people may have a different opinion towards what to count as some sort of achievement. High career rank and well-build physical form is usually the first to be noticed...”

⚔️ - If my muse wants to have a fight with yours

“Sigh... No. Actually, I question if I ever truly wanted to fight or harm him in any way... No matter how much I treaten to kick his ass, due to his recklessness or during another of our sparring sessions. If anything, I’m still sorry for how prejustly I could treat Hanzo back in the days. Pretty sure he feels the same...”

⚰️ - What my muse will say at your muse’s funeral

“I... don’t want to think about that, all the more answer on this question. The death of beloved one is something you cannot and should not plan or even imagine - it brings no use and only gives a rise to unnecessary ache. Regardless of how morbidly curious one’s mind can be, it reality you won’t ever be ready for this kind of things. The thought itself is devastating enough...”

💎 - The most valuable object my muse can willingly give your muse

“Whatever he’d need from me... We can act grumpy about us stealing each other’s clothes, but in reality it’s really that simple.”

📣 - Something my muse will say in defense of your muse being unfairly accused

“A few would dare to make any of such accusations about my husband right in front of him, yet there were some attempts behind his back I was drastic to prevent. As a rule, people doing that lack certain intelligence along with caution and know nothing of Hanzo and what he had to come through, while I on the contrary manage to possess a sufficient data about my opponents in order for them to be quick to hold their tongues once they’re clever enough. One shall think twice before opening their mouth...”

💃🏿 - Whether my muse would want to dance with yours

“We already did, and it was quite a pleasant suprise for me to learn he’s capable of waltzing around without any actual preparation. I wouldn’t mind if he’ll express the wish to do it again once we will have a spare time or will pay a visit to Sakai’s familial residence - there’s very specific beatitude can be found in the instants you’re circling around the dance hall within the hold of your beloved.”

👗 - Whether mine thinks your muse looks good in their usual clothing/their chosen clothing style

“He does... Albeit, as long as he’s safe and sound, he looks good for my vision either way. In the eyes of beholder and all that, you know?”

🎻- If my muse thinks yours can play an instrument, or what it is

“I’m aware Hanzo doesn’t play any. Althought, as much as I don’t mind being the only musically inclined person in our pair, it would be interesting to see him learning... Knowing his tastes, a guitar would probably suit him well.”

🎲 - If mine thinks your muse’s luck is good or bad

“I don’t know... I’ve never believed much in luck anyway, however, I believe its concept is far from being so simple... Much as one’s morals, the fortune can be incredibly relative and versatile.”

💰 - If my muse will pay the ransom for your muse if they’re kidnapped

“I think Hanzo would rather want me to find the bastards who kidnapped him and bring the frigidity of justice upon their rotten heads. Not to mention, it’s unlikely someone would be foolish enough to attempt doing this to the commander of Special Team, at least not for the money...”

✉️ - Whether my muse would want to keep in contact with yours if they are apart

“We’re husbands... The answer is kind of obvious, don’t you think?”

👀 - The most interesting/memorable rumor my muse has heard about yours

“When we just started dating and yet had to reveal our relationships... Some of my former colleagues and the members of his squadron asked if we finally found a lady friends, which was especially amusing to hear when we appeared to be in the same room. Yeah, one gruff six-something-feet tall brawny girlfriend I was happy to become a spouse for, heh...”

#✧ 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕝 𝕞𝕖… 𝕛𝕒𝕔𝕜 ✧ ║ ic #kathexismania #answer #✧ 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕣𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕣 𝕤𝕖𝕒 ✧ ║ hanzo #☯ 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕙𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕖𝕣 𝕙𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕓𝕝𝕠𝕠𝕕𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕥 𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕤 ☯ ║ᵛᵉʳˢᵉ #{{ o O F here you go }}#long post //

2 notes · View notes

vanquishedvaliant · 4 years

Text

Critique of Fairy Gone’s final episode

Been stewing on it for a few days, but for a show that I've enjoyed so thoroughly, it's hard to accept how much the ending of Fairy Gone let me down.

It's not a resolutely terrible ending, certainly not the worst I've seen in an anime this year, and at a surface level it seems mostly passable, but thinking about it more deeply yields a number of distressing implications that point to- if not a betrayal of it's own themes and ideals, is a deeply depressing answer to them.

And the worst part is that there is nothing that need by changed beyond the very last episode itself to improve it. All the pieces were in place, but I feel they were played just slightly the wrong ways, and ends up saying several very unfortunate things.

Spoilers below, and a long essay of comprehensive critique.

Cutting straight to the heart of it; Ver's death was cheap and cruel drama for last minute resolution, and I believe that it hurts the story far more than what little was gained from it. So why did Ver have to die, exactly? Especially when her counterpart Wolfran was allowed to live?

She claims that she must atone for her sins, but what precisely are those sins? Veronica was at no point affiliated with the Eins order, was very pointedly foiled in her attempts to commit terrorism and assassination, and was even implicitly forgiven by the target of her vengeance not once, but on repeated occasions.

Her ultimate crimes amount to little, and more so when compared to Wolfran, who has to this point served an apocalypse cult and terrorist sect and repeatedly gotten away with the harming of innocents and furthering the plans of those who would do further harm. But he gets off with a scratch, forced to keep on living and atone with life instead.

Furthermore, the attack that lead to Ver's impalement and eventualy demise is incredibly dubious, and frankly, offensive when immediately followed by Free's *identical* maneuver that went unpunished. There were no differences between these two attacks at all; they both used their fairies to boost themselves towards the Divine Beast's head, and struck out with a sword. It is endlessly rude of the show to favour Free in this for seemingly no reason other than to ensure his participation in the final boss fight, but even then, there are numerous ways they could have shown this without *perfectly mirroring* the very actions that got Ver killed.

So I've covered the why and the how, but what about what Ver's death means? From the show's perspective, we're told it means she's giving her all to sacrifice herself for Marlya's sake in some grand gesture of love. But this argument holds very little water when examined closely. The two had resolved to take on the fight together no less than 4 times over the previous two episodes, and Ver taking it all on herself is simply contrary to that. HEr reckless behaviour is hardly out of character, but it shows an almost oblivious disregard for the resolution and reconciliation the two faced in the incredibly heartwarming and poignant reunion they had earlier.

Furthermore, Ver's sacrifice; and Sacrifice is what it is, plays into the previously established themes of the Blessed Child and the Cursed Child that Marlya and Ver were designated as and well developed throughout the course of the story. While one might rightly point to this being capitalized on, the message that this choice sends is incredibly dark and depressing.

We're shown that even though these two managed to reconcile and meet again after years, Ver is still doomed to die for her cause, and Marlya is still doomed to have all those that she loves die. It almost proves the rule that Maryla's care for others puts them at risk. We've never been shown comprehensive proof that this idea is truly a delusion- in a world with fairies and magic, and the two of them being from a village of people specially attuned to them, it has always been treated as an entirely *plausible* fear that she has had to force herself to overcome.

From a broad perspective, it means that Veronica's sins and mistakes are worth her dying for absolution, while Wolfran's do not warrant his death. It means that while Ver is punished for attempting to strike at God, Free is rewarded. This pattern of the principal male characters being favoured over the main female characters is... Unfortunate, to say the least.

Not to mention the all-but-explicitly blistering text of Ver and Marlya's love for each other, Ver's death and Marlya's following sadness are simply one more of an endless field of the graves of women loving women that media has continued to dug for decades, insistenting that a tragically unfulfilled love is the only outcome.

And what comes from Ver's death, physically? Her fairy joins with Marlya's, powering her up and allowing her to bring the end to the conflict. Firstly, the plan was described as feasible with Ver's fairy alone, so the twin powerup seemed like unnecessary flash, but let's accept the fancy fusion for what it is, and still ask;

Why is Ver's death necessary for this? Would it not have sufficed for the two of them to join forces together, and with their newfound connection and communication been able to join their powers? Is there not more to gain emotionally from the two of them affirming their bond to each other rather than having it be cruelly ripped apart by fate once more?

None of this precludes Free from participating, or even Wolfran. Hell, it would have been much more exciting to see all 4 of them team up together to take it down. You can still highlight Free and Marlya's comraderie by having them support each other, while also celebrating each of their connections to their counterparts.

But this isn't what we got.

We get two men who endured this apocalyptic conflict literally no worse for wear, and arguably each better than they started. One woman punished for her already forgiven sins, doomed to be sacrificed for the sake of others and forced to die to prove her love, and one woman who was taught that even her longest and truest relationships will be forcibly stripped from her, and that all she can do is remember them in her heart, with the looming threat that it will continue to happen over and over.

And so Free and Marlya set off on a motorcycle trip to find the answers to the Fairy's mystery, Wolfran settles down in his old town, and Ver was so utterly destroyed from one simple mistake that her grave site is merely a formality.

This is strange, and so easily improved. Free was never much connected with the fairies; his story was always about the echoes of the war he was forced to fight. Why would he not stay and aid in the reparations? Why would he not help his friend adjust to life at home, in the way he couldn't the first time?

Why did Ver and Marlya not go together on that motorcycle trip to learn the truth of their Sunan inheritance, finally together and free to go where they wished? To show Marlya that those that cared to her will not always leave her, and to show Ver that there is good in the world worth living for?

Fairy Gone has been... an enjoyable, thought provoking experience all the way through. It's been an amazing show that I've been excited to watch more of every week... and it's because I loved it so much that Fairy Gone's final episode hurt me so much; both personally as a wlw, and intellectually as a fan of complex narratives. It was so very close, and it could have so easily been better.

And I really, really believe it should have been. We deserved more.

#Fairy Gone #long post

10 notes · View notes

saferincages · 6 years

Text

one of my favorite things about the narrative arc of CXG so far is the constant re-examination of that very first action in the premise - that is, Rebecca’s move to West Covina. Rebecca was suffering in New York. She was floundering. Sure, she had a prestigious job, but it wasn’t fulfilling her, and she (from what we’ve seen) had no worthwhile personal connections. When she sees Josh on the street, he mentions happiness, and she’s enraptured by the idea of that. She transfers that idealization onto Josh, but it’s not ABOUT him, “it never was” (so her line in the first theme song, “But that’s not why I’m here!” turned out to be unexpectedly true).

In “I’m Going to the Beach with Josh and His Friends!” on the party bus, an explanation is demanded of her, and though she skirts the issue about following Josh, what she admits to is actually completely honest: “The truth is, I was miserable in New York. I was so depressed. And all I did was work. I had no life. The world was just, like, gray. And then I ran into you, Josh. And, and you told me about West Covina, and you kept using the word "happy." And I hadn't, like, thought about that word in so long and it just, like, reverberated within me. And so that day, I-I made the decision that I...I had to be where the happiness was. So I put feelers out and I got a job here. Look, was it impulsive? Yes. Was it crazy? I don't like that term. But the point is, guys, it's the best decision I've ever made. I love it here. I love it. I love the sunshine. I love the strip malls where you can get a foot massage and a smoothie and a new key made in, like, less than 20 minutes. I love driving on the freeway. I love what the dry heat does to my hair. I love everything about this place, okay? So the reason that I'm here, the real reason that I'm here? It's not logical, it's not rational. I'm in love. With West Covina." Absolutely nothing in that monologue was a lie. Her confession of being in love with Josh later, when Paula picks her up, is still rooted in this same idea - he’s kind and understanding towards her, he’s proud that she sees the treasures of that place (“can’t believe that a girl like you would think this place is a dream come true”), and she latches onto that emotion (as he does to her “being swayed by a guy like me,” both of them really idealize the attention and feeling they offer to one another, but that’s another post). Her life was changing in positive ways, and, incredibly, she was affecting many of the people around her in definitive, and often positive, ways as well. (There are probably more examples than this, but off the top of my head: in 1x15: Darryl: “Rebecca made me wake up. You know, if it wasn't for her, I wouldn't have changed my life.” Josh: “She helped me believe in myself for the first time, like...ever.” Paula: “She helped me with my marriage. She was like a surrogate daughter.” in 2x04, when Greg has begun to deal with his alcoholism and finally makes the necessary decision to go to Emory: “Though I won't forget, I won't regret, this beautiful, heart-stopping, breathtaking, life-changing...” Nathaniel in 3x05: “...challenging my world-view and warming my heart.” Valencia in 3x06: “I have never had a friend like you before.”)

They've all been making realizations, waking up, embracing a certain authenticity in their identities and lives, changing aspects of themselves that needed to be addressed. There’s not a single character who hasn’t been influenced by her presence, and while she did a lot of reckless, hurtful things (and Josh is going to be the one who has to really sift through that now, I think, and he deserves the space to do that, they both harmed each other. while Rebecca begins to recover, I have faith that they’ll acknowledge Josh’s response to that abuse as well, but that’s also probably another post, I have too many feelings, guys), there’s a lot of good to be found there, too. The narrative never condones her negative actions, but it doesn’t demonize her, either, and keeping her empathetic and deserving of love and care is such an important perspective. These characters are all very multi-faceted, and with that humanity comes flaws (none of us are perfect or above reproach), but they all also have relatability and wonderful qualities and potential for improvement, and I appreciate the fact that making mistakes or needing help or being ill doesn’t mean someone isn’t worthwhile and capable of good.

Her relationship with Josh unraveling was inevitable, because that illusion of passion and happiness being wrapped up in one person is bound to fall apart, and as painful as her downward spiral was to witness, it also reinforced the importance of the life she’s established. When she attempted suicide previously, her mother characterized it as “inconveniencing a lot of people.” When she apologized using that exact same wording to Paula, Paula assured her that wasn’t how anyone felt. She’s surrounded by friends now, people who genuinely care for and encourage her, show concern for her, a support system that isn’t going to abandon her. She never had that before. She has women who will sleep on the floor outside her bedroom through the night because they want to know she’s safe. She has a friend who will drive through the desert (without sunscreen) to see her. She has people who wish her well and a sense of happiness (something even her mother never instilled in her - being a “survivor” can be valuable, too, when Naomi says she wants her to survive, she means it and probably even thinks that’s for the best, that it’s strength, but if surviving for Rebecca meant being numb or despondent, what kind of survival was it, really?). She has people who don’t walk away, even when they know the darkest of her truths. She has therapists who want to take time to actively help her as she works things through, who listened and diagnosed her properly. Had she hit rock bottom again in NY, had she hurt herself there, she would’ve had to face it alone, and trying to face treatment like that, all alone, is terrifying. She knew something was wrong, but she was facing it without support (“and when I tried to find a reason for my sadness and terror, all the solutions were trial and error - take this pill, say this chant, move here for this guy”), and now she has a place (“the stigma is worth it if I’ve realized who I’m meant to be, armed with my diagnosis”). More importantly, perhaps, than happiness (which is always kind of an intangible, mutable thing), she finally has hope.

Recovery doesn’t mean a cure, nor does hope negate difficulty. She will struggle and there will be hard times, that’s an unavoidable part of the process, frankly it’s an unavoidable part of being alive, especially with a chronic condition (be it mental or physical, and the writers showing the fear in that along with the work it takes to cope and move forward with it is very meaningful, this representation matters, and I’m so moved and proud of the way they’ve crafted it).

But that initial statement, which at the time was cloaked in denial, is now even more fundamental - the situation’s a lot more nuanced than that, and the best decision she made was moving to West Covina and discovering love, not with a boy, but with the unexpected found family around her, and maybe through that journey, with necessary steps, she can find a way to understand and begin to embrace herself. That’s the real love story we’re witnessing.

#crazy ex girlfriend #rebecca bunch #the situation's a lot more nuanced than that #i've been mulling this over and i hope it makes sense #my brain is exhausted and there are things i probably could have articulated in a more fully formed way but #i wanted to attempt to express it anyway #i'm so grateful this show exists for so many reasons #basically i really love rebecca bunch and honestly this entire cast and journey #but she especially has come to mean so much to me #suicide mention cw #long post for ts

259 notes · View notes

dreamypastel · 6 years

Text

Apprentice Asks [Answered]

im just gunna answer these with my own will cause both my ladys need more info on them :3

[source]

ITS A LONG POST TRUST ME~

1. Which character(s) is your apprentice romancing? What attracts your apprentice to them?

Nebula- She is Universal but Id like to see her more with Muriel and Nadia. She loves whoever she can put her trust in.

Jackie- She is Mainly for Arsa. She absolutely loves things out of the ordinary.

2. If your apprentice was a romanceable character in The Arcana, what would their route be like? (Feel free to be as detailed or as vague as you’d like.)

Nebula- Nebula is a very kind and caring Apprentice, She would give you total respect even if she hated you. She would have you explore with her about how she ever wanted to see the stars up close and how close the moon feels to her spiritually. She would show you magical spells she made by herself and show you how special her Familiars are to her. Miron on the other hand would not approve, He is very protective of Nebula but until he trusts you, He wont let you lay a finger on her.

Jackie- Jackie is a very hidden and quiet Apprentice but very Naive. She never leaves her shop unless she is by force (like Nadia dragging her out lmao). It would take a lot of effort to get to know her but one thing known about her is that she is very reckless. Once youre close enough to her, She will be as soft as a cloud and very innocent. She would admit that she wants to travel like her Teacher would but shes always been afraid to leave her home.

3. How does your apprentice take their coffee? Do they even drink coffee? If not, what do they drink instead to put pep in their step?

Nebula- She tries to avoid caffeinated drinks such as coffee. Her skin is pale due to being held in most days as a child so shes kinda like a Vampire when the sun hits her skin. She wont have anything to use all that energy on.

Jackie- Both a Coffee-addict and Tea-addict. She doesnt have much energy to begin with. She uses most of that energy spell casting and potion making.

4. If your apprentice was attending a potluck, what would they take as their contribution?

Nebula- A well cooked smoked Salmon with lemon and thyme

Jackie- Fruit Salad

5. What are some of your apprentice’s minor and major fears? What’s the best way to comfort them when afraid?

Nebula- Nebula is mostly afraid of either someone she knows and loves dies while her least is getting bitten by Nyx. She would need someone to hold her close and tell her everything is going to be alright.

Jackie- She is mostly afraid of leaving her shop, afraid to be suddenly taken away from where she loves. The least of her worries, She hates Ghosts. Jackie would need a lot of hugs to calm her down.

6. Does your apprentice enjoy dressing up or would they prefer to just wear what’s comfortable?

Nebula- She loves to dress up but it depends if its comfortable. If not, Burn it.

Jackie- She doesnt really like anything fancy, though yes she would look good in it, she would rather wear anything that she has a good feel to like a blanket.

7. Is your apprentice happy with their physical appearance? If so, do they flaunt it? If not, what do they want to change?

Nebula- Shes happy with who she is but she would rather prefer to have more expensive clothing and more tattoos.

Jackie- She has a strong self-loathing against herself but its rather shoved in the back shelf for how much she cares about that.

8. What would your apprentice want as a birthday gift?

Nebula- Flowers, Jewelry and anything sweet!

Jackie- Spell books and Potion recipes. But also to skinny dip somewhere nice and safe.

9. What is your apprentice’s natural stress response (fight, flight, or freeze) and how does that influence their actions when confronted with a stressful situation? Do they recover from stress quickly or does it affect them for hours afterward?

Nebula- She wont hesitate to Fight, she got a bit of muscle in her to do so. It really doesnt help her situation, it just rather makes it worse but she quickly could recover from it.

Jackie- She is afraid of anything that harms her, Its a split decision to Run away or Freeze up in fear. Which probably is better than fighting it off in her opinion. She isnt good at handling stress at all which could last for days.

10. What’s the first thing someone is likely to notice about your apprentice when meeting them for the first time? Do they have any other quirks that set them apart?

Nebula- She isnt really that short depending on other people. Her hair is rather unique unlike others which is naturally shiny.

Jackie- She looks very innocent at first but dont let her fool you. Jackie is pretty cranky but whats unique is her oddly pointed ears.

11. How does your apprentice act when meeting new people? Are they outgoing, shy, awkward, aloof? Do they like being the center of attention?

Nebula- Shes very shy at first until quickly she seems very nice! She really doesnt mind being the center of attention at all.

Jackie- Very awkward and very aloof. She doesnt cope well with new people. She would rather not be the center of attention or she might end up gagging from her own ego which is under the ground at this point.

12. How does you apprentice treat people in positions of authority? Does your apprentice believe they deserve respect just because of their position/status?

Nebula- She really doesnt give a damn but still should be respected.

Jackie- O hell naw.

13. Your apprentice sees someone who is very obviously wealthy accidentally drop a small pouch of coins. What do they do?

Nebula- She would offer to help them out!

Jackie- At first she isnt so sure to trust them at all but depending on the person, She would offer a little bit of help.

14. What was your apprentice’s reaction to Julian’s speech on the docks in Book VII? How did they deal with it afterwards?

((SHIT I DIDNT READ THAT YET OR I DONT REMEMBER READING IT SORRY))

15. How does your apprentice feel about sharing a bed with Asra in the shop?

Nebula- Took a lot to get used to it.

Jackie- HELL YES.

16. Does your apprentice enjoy the luxury of the palace and Nadia’s gifts or do they find it overwhelming?

Nebula- She appreciates everything that Nadia done for her at the palace.

Jackie- Very overwhelming, She didnt really like staying there but at least enjoyed speaking with Nadia.

17. How does your apprentice react when confronted with the creature from the abandoned wing in Asra and/or Nadia’s routes in Book VII? What’s going through their head at the time?

Nebula- Shes frightened and scared but intrigued.

Jackie- She hates whatever THAT thing was.

18. How does your apprentice feel about Consul Valerius?

Nebula- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ whatever man

Jackie- She no likey at all.

19. Is there a song or songs that you associate with your apprentice?

Nebula- [Faded-Alan Walker][All About The Bass-Meghan Trainor][Touch-Haux]

Jackie- [Im Only Joking-Kongos][Breath Of Life-Florence+The Machine] [Hollaback Girl-Gwen Stenfani][Stronger(What Doesnt Kill Me)-Kelly Clarkson] [Technicolor Beat-Oh Wonder] [Touch-Haux]

20. Is your apprentice friends with any other fan apprentices?

Nebula- She knows one other Apprentice named Mizar! [ @foskysniwa ]

Jackie- She isnt good at meeting others.

[source]

#the arcana #my ocs #fan apprentices #nebula #jackie #nyx #miron #my girlies #the arcana fan apprentices #not art #long post #aaaaa

6 notes · View notes

theloobrush · 4 years

Text

The liberal legacy

Last night my work colleague was assaulted by a group of around ten teenagers as he went about his job just outside our regular workplace. The gang was gathered in the car park which is accessed by a narrow alley way between streets. My colleague is sore and shaken but recovering and the police were called.

Earlier this week i had reported individuals and small groups gathering around our work place, in defiance of the prohibition on people going out without good reason and forming large groups. We are in the middle of a pandemic that has taken the lives of over 2,000 people in the UK and a stupid minority continue to flout controls that are designed to save lives, including their own and their families. And if the youth think they are invincible, and won’t be touched at all by this virus, they are dead wrong. Yesterday a previously healthy 13 year old boy in London died from the virus. The other week a 19 year old died.

We live in a society that promotes individual freedom and autonomy as the supreme virtue and value, almost as important as life itself. I call this the ‘liberal legacy’ and you will be well aware of the thinkers, bohemians, politicians and cultural influencers who have created and perpetuated the modern Zeitgeist of hyper-individualism.

But freedom to do what? People should be free in order to become the best they can be, to have the opportunity to develop their talents and abilities to the fullest. To securely be themselves in their private lives, and with their personal possessions if this harms none. But a warped notion of unqualified freedom has dominated the West since the 1960s at least, sustained by social elites, and left-wing groups in particular. They demand freedom for its own sake, though such freedom is, in itself, neither bad or good. A specific characteristic of modern liberals is they refuse to accept that anyone’s freedom is subject to a higher purpose or general constraint, even that we are all bound by ethical duties to each other. Instead they focus on a philosophically ungrounded idea of ‘rights’. They reject all hierarchies of value and meaning, so they refuse to make value judgements. They are,at best, amoral. Then these amoral ideas seep down from the elites to all parts of the population, even the most dim witted and degraded, through the media and state educators. The worst of people interpret the elite’s doctrine of unqualified freedom as a licence to do what the hell they want, believing (rightly) that the elites are not going to challenge them and that any restrictions will be lightly imposed and barely enforced. Not surprisingly, at a time of national emergency, the authorities cannot get a substantial minority to co-operate with simple instructions to protect the population as a whole.

What to do? We need to begin a cultural, political and legal transformation, that will gradually repair the damage that our present elites have caused. We need to reverse the decades of erosion of the natural ties that bind society. While the authorities may now go in hard with the full powers of the state, these shows of force will not be sufficient or sustainable without large scale public co-operation. Everyone has a responsibility for finding the offenders and enforcing law and order in their communities. To deal with the lesser offenders we need to inculcate a culture of shame. We need to shame those who are persistently anti-social. We need them to know their behaviour is unacceptable to the people around them. They need to be derided and shunned. This public shaming can be done by social media. No more patting the bad boys on the head. No more joking about what scallywags some young people are. All anti-social behaviour needs to be publicly challenged - and consistently. We need to change the social narrative. And in a legal revolution, the community, not elite judges or out of touch magistrates, should determine the sentences for crimes that have been committed against the community. We need to bring home the idea that crime is against us, the people, their people, not ‘the state’ or ‘the crown’.

So there needs to be an end to the pity culture, and the culture of excuses. We can insist individuals take full responsibility for their actions. There is an argument that no one’s behaviour is absolutely free, and many criminals are undoubtedly mentally disturbed or addicted to substances. Let us be completely clear: this is no reason not to impose strong measures. We must still take all necessary measures to contain the criminal ‘cancer’ and ‘virus’ (cancers and viruses operate unconsciously of course). We need to stop discussing what people ‘deserve’ and look simply at the effect of their actions. If their personality defects are persistently causing significant harm then, irrespective of why they are the way they are, they need to be restrained. If necessary, excluded from mainstream society as a matter purely of public protection. And as we are considering only public safety, they should not be released until they have ceased to be a significant threat to the community. Their behaviour within the prison system and level of compliance and personal development should dictate when they are ready to be released. With the benefit of the doubt given more readily for non-violent offences. For violent and sexual offences, the offender should be incarcerated or if allowed out, always subject to life long licence whereby they can be recalled at anytime for anti-social behaviour. If there is a therapy they need and that is effective, provide it by all means, but they can’t at the same time be free to cause mayhem.

There should be mandatory drug testing for all offenders. All chronic addicts need to be rounded up and detained indefinitely, until they are detoxed and have demonstrated they are likely to stay clean. Within the correction system they should be made to achieve targets of behavioural modification, evidence of change of attitude and general compliance with the correctional system. I know that in some cases this will require that addicts be detained for many years. So be it. These individual’s minds are so damaged and deranged by addiction, they are not free in any meaningful sense, so what harm is done by depriving them of what is only an apparent liberty? Such a policy (of mass incarceration of addicts) will be costly, but still less costly than the total amount of money currently spent within all sections of society on the consequences of their behaviour including policing, resuscitating and treating adults for their medical complications, the costs to businesses and physical and mental injuries of crime victims, increased insurance premiums, and social welfare support. The mass incarceration of chronic addicts will also deprive the drug gangs of their main customers.

Present drug policy has failed. To legalize all drugs would make the current social and health disaster endemic, producing a permanently drug addled and brain damaged underclass, a zombie class. If drugs were legalised the addicts’ behaviour would continue to have massive consequences for society which no reasonably citizenry should bear.

Attempts at public ‘ drug harm education’ continue to be a failure among a certain section of society. No person in the UK today is unaware of the damage caused by drugs (or for that matter, cigarette smoking) Reasonable people would modify their behaviour, I agree. But a minority are not able to be reasonable; they live carelessly, reckless not only about their health but the health of their children and others. Similarly, the decades long police focussed ‘War on Drugs’ is also a failure: we know attempts to interrupt suppliers are also ineffective; as each supplier is neutralized, they are simply replaced with others, ever more cunning and vicious, and this will always be the case as the drugs trade is so lucrative.

In a further blow to the narcotic culture, we need to end cash welfare payments to those with addictions, replacing these with regularly ‘topped up’ prepayment cards that can only be used through law abiding retailers, and for all transactions to be tracked. Welfare payments are the public’s money after all, and we all have a right to see that welfare, which is taken from our taxation, is spent on real needs rather that lauderred into the hands of organized crime and terrorists. (By the way,I’m no right wing scrooge. I’m all for the generous upgrading of welfare support for children, the disabled and carers, as long as these payments come with accountability).

As for the the sickest, most violent paedophiles and rapists, and serial child killers, it is time to remove the velvet glove from the iron fist. If we can be sufficiently certain we have caught the actual offenders, I have no moral problem with the worst of the worst being euthanized, just as you would euthanize a rabid dog.

0 notes

nicolepremier · 7 years

Note

Nano - 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, 3 (ik there are a lot but i couldn't resist ;-;)

3) Scars or painful spots

Nano’s entire body is covered with scars from involuntary surgical operations and experiments. Most of the time his clothes cover the scars. He isn’t even entirely sure what all has been done to him - how much of his body has been taken without his consent, what has been added that was not his own… is he still even human? How much of his body is still his?

The worst, though… was when they started cutting up his brain… Emma ordered it. She told it was for the best, since he had no choice but to become who they made him. It would be better for him, more merciful even, if he didn’t have to feel… The last emotions he clearly remembers feeling were terror and utter despair when they put him to sleep and he had no idea who he would be when he woke up.

5) Guilty pleasures

Daydreaming… reading… anything that gets him out of his body, out of his reality, and takes him someplace else. Sometimes he thinks that his imagination is the only thing he has left that is still his… and he wonders how long it will be before even that is taken away from him.

After leaving Toshima, Nano began to discover new, more sensual pleasures. The warmth of his partner’s body beneath the sheets against his own, the sound of music and the newfound emotions it induced that he had once thought were dead, the taste of green tea and freshly baked bread with jam in the morning, the feeling of warm running water against his skin, the rhythmic sound of his partner’s breathing as they sleep beside him, the feeling of his lover’s hands running through his hair, their lips against his, fingertips tracing his scars as though it would make them disappear, the pleasured moans that escape their lips when he caresses them…

6) Their vices (physical or emotional)

Misanthropy - Nano despises humanity to the point of reclusiveness/seclusion and active maliciousness/cruelty. It is difficult for him to forgive humanity for everything they have done to him, for everything that they made him do on their behalf, and for everything he has witnessed of their interactions with one another. He feels that they deserve the fates they seemingly bring upon themselves as retribution for their sins.

Neglecting self care - Nano has a tendency to forget he has a body that he actually needs to take care of until it’s absolutely necessary. He won’t cut his hair or nails, won’t change his clothes, will suffer pain/cold/discomfort/hunger silently, and will not sleep enough. He often forgoes safety and comfort unnecessarily and will make himself suffer needlessly, figuring that if he can survive it, he is fine. The cause is primarily recklessness and self-destructiveness, but even after leaving Toshima he will continue to keep this habit partially out of not wishing to complain to his partner nor give them cause to sacrifice their own needs for his.

Lack of empathy - Nano is innately bad at reading other people and can come off as heartless and unempathetic even when no harm is intended. He can’t always tell how other people are feeling, and even when he can (especially if the circumstances are petty) he often doesn’t see why he should care. In his darker moments, he can be outright cruel and sadistic, taking pleasure in the pain and suffering of others.

Drug dealing. He doesn’t really do drugs himself (at least not voluntarily) because he doesn’t need to. He IS a drug. He finds it very satisfying to watch people OD on his blood and kill one another to get to it. This is his primary form of entertainment after fleeing ENED. He’ll stop once he leaves Toshima, although the temptation will remain.

Sex. (In a relationship.) Nano’s sexuality is complex. He dislikes people so much that it’s very difficult for him to get close to them or trust them. When single he’s more likely to preferentially choose masturbation over sex with another person simply because it requires less human contact. And if he has sex, it is likely to be extremely casual and either viewed as an instinctual means to satisfy biological drives or a means to sadistically control/torment/degrade/mock. (If he’s topping Shiki, for example, it’s almost certainly the latter category.)

Within a relationship, however, in a way sex is everything. It’s much more than just a way to satisfy lust. It’s a means for Nano to confirm that the person he loves is really there, that they are alive, that they accept him as he is, that they want him, that they are going to stay with him. It’s an extremely emotional experience in addition to a physical one. Joining their bodies is a way for him to feel closer to someone. If he is upset or losing the battle to his inner demons, sex gives him strength to keep fighting… to keep living in spite of the pain. It makes him feel more deeply connected to both the person he is with and the world itself which has otherwise rejected him.

Biting/Blood. Nano has a habit of biting his partners. He has a tendency to mix up the emotions he feels, and often confuses lust with hunger. Sex is very primal and instinctual for him so he tends to do whatever feels right in the moment without much consideration for consequences (regardless of whether his partner likes it or does not). He might bite hard enough to draw blood, because the sight and taste of his partners’ blood excites him. He can get carried away with his emotions/instincts in sexual situations and wind up being far too rough/brutal and subsequently hurting his partners. From a psychological standpoint, he finds drawing blood a way to partially overcome the normal limits of physical separation between two people and thus feels that it brings them closer together. It feels similarly intimate and psychologically thrilling if his partner were to bite and/or drink his blood as well.

Reading/TV/Music/Dissociation - Nano spends a large amount of time trying to separate his mind from his own body, preferring to lose himself in fantasy/imagination that deal with the horror and pain of reality. This habit is so ingrained that it persists even after leaving Toshima. Once he discovers things like television and music, he will binge watch fictional shows and lose himself in music because they have the power to fuel not only his imagination, but also trigger emotional responses that he are either not his own or which he has forgotten about.

Failing to get out of bed/trying to get his partner to stay in bed with him even when they have important things to do (thus making them late for work etc) - Nano feels safe, warm, and protected in bed with his partner. He doesn’t ever want it to end nor to be alone apart from the person he loves, even when he knows they have important things to do and will be coming back later.

Spending too long in the bath/shower - Warm water feels very good to him, and is not a pleasure he is used to experiencing. So if he has the opportunity, he can be indulgent. It feels even more decadent if his partner is with him.

Soft textures - Nano isn’t used to having the opportunity to be picky about physical sensations. However, he generally finds that he is drawn to things like soft sweaters, cats’ fur, soft bedsheets, fleece blankets, etc. He dislikes textures that feel overly starched and stiff because they remind him of ENED, so he will generally avoid them if given the choice.

Green tea/baked goods - It’s a pretty good sign if Nano remembers to eat at all, and at first he has a difficult time even distinguishing between various foods, but he’ll start developing preferences once he is around them more. He finds green tea refreshing, invigorating, and natural. He hasn’t settled on a favorite food yet, but he finds that he generally likes baked foods, both sweet and savory, especially while still warm. The textures are generally pleasing to him. He seems to prefer things that incorporate ingredients like fruit, olives, mushrooms, garlic, or cheeses. He is generally also fond of soup/stew and ice cream, despite the fact that the ice cream inevitably makes him cold. He still sort of has it in his head that he shouldn’t need to have sensual things like food that he enjoys and for a long time will prefer to wait patiently for his partner to give him such things instead of guiltily seeking them out on his own when he feels that he does not deserve to have them.

Alcohol - Nano won’t generally seek out alcohol on his own, but if it is given to him, he will generally drink too much of it. It’s sort of a positive feedback loop where they more he drinks, the more he wants to keep drinking.

Melancholy/Moroseness/Sullenness/Depression/Despair - Nano can be withdrawn and solitary when he falls into depression. Once he begins to overcome his emotional numbness, he will be able to experience not only love, trust, and joy… but sadness, pain, and terror as well. Sometimes the weights of his past seem heavier than others. If he’s left to too much introspection, he will tend to be more existential and tend towards self-hatred and misanthropy. If he starts to succumb to despair he can be outright self-destructive and suicidal. He will pull away from others and turn inwards against himself. If he does not have a solid emotional support that he can fully trust, it is possible that he will once again slip into recklessness.

Guilt - Accepting the fact that he has the power to change his own fate will lessen Nano’s despair. However, it also leaves him responsible for all of the actions he has taken in the past that he was previously able to excuse on account of not believing he had any choice in the matter. He knows that there is no way to atone for all of the sins he has committed, and so he is increasingly shackled with guilt. His PTSD causes him to be plagued with nightmares, triggers, and flashbacks that can at times seem crippling.

10) Fears/phobias

Nano would tell you that when everything has been taken from you and you truly have nothing left to lose, there is nothing left to fear. But once you have something to hold onto, terror is free to enter your heart and consume you alive.

That being said, Nano has seen so many people die at his hands that he cannot help but imagine how those he meets would look once the life had drained from their eyes… even, and especially, those he cares deeply about. Human lives are so fragile, they break so easily… Surely the ones whose lives he took had others who cared deeply for them, loved them even… What if they took the one he cared for in return? Would he bring about their death by loving them? Or… what if the beast that lurked within his soul broke loose one day and hurt them… killed them even… perhaps they would be safer and better off if they were far, far away from him… yet he knows well the pain of being alone…

So in essence, Nano’s worst fear is himself.

11) Bad or petty habits

Nano is notoriously oblivious to the mundane details of everyday life and social convention. He has a tendency to be overly blunt and honest and thereby shocks and offends a lot of people. White lying is not a talent he has ever had to develop and does not come naturally to him, so he is not very good at it. Never ask Nano a question unless you want an honest answer. For example, his boss at a day job asked him if he wanted to go out for drinks after work to get to know everyone. He replied that he didn’t care about getting to know any of them and wanted go home and have sex with his boyfriend instead. (They were in Russia… he didn’t keep that job very long.)Nano puts on whatever clothes he happens to find first that day (regardless of whether they’re inside out or he’s worn them for a week straight already), he gets lost in his thoughts and forgets to eat, he leaves his keys at the baker’s when he is sent to buy food, he winds up locked out and can’t remember where he went that day and might have left them, he tries to break into his own apartment in broad daylight, he scares the neighbors who start rumors… then they have to move again, he doesn’t really understand why, and he still can’t remember where he left his damn keys… but why should it matter when he is perfectly capable of going through the third story window?

16) Dark secrets/’skeletons in the closet’Ohh, Nano has a lot of those… But to take the inquiry quite literally…

When Nano escaped and went on his killing rampage at ENED, he didn’t just tear off Emma’s arm… he took it with him. He couldn’t bring himself to kill her then because he still loved her in spite of everything, but he knew those feelings were twisted beyond redemption.Watching her severed arm decompose was somewhat cathartic. As the flesh rotted and fell from her bones, consumed by insects and fungi, and was brought back to nature, his feelings for her faded as well. Eventually he buried it, and with it what he considered the last strings tying him to this world. When it was over… he knew he was truly alone.

#asks #Nano (TnC)#Nicole Premier #Anonymous #OOC

1 note · View note

lightningnose · 4 years

Text

Tallstar’s Revenge: Chapters 10-18

Here we go, @ailuronymy ! I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the situation with Sandgorse here, when the time comes. Particularly his rage on Tallpaw at the end of chapter thirteen and then the whole thing with Sparrow and the tunnel.

1) First impressions? Summarize?

Chapter 10: Sandgorse has a brief moment of being good at something before he’s back to being a jerk — and he becomes a reckless and dangerously oblivious jerk on top of it!

Chapter 11: Tallpaw’s first Gathering.

Chapter 12: The visitors arrive and Tallpaw gets a denmate he can actually stand talking to.

Chapter 13: Shrewpaw and Tallpaw hone skills, Tallpaw does a good thing, Dawnstripe is one of very few even slightly responsible cats in the Clan, and Sandgorse becomes unquestionably worthy of exile.

Chapter 14: Tallpaw gets a much needed pep-talk.

Chapter 15: Tallpaw is first too eager and then too slow, while a convoluted battle kills Brackenwing for no good reason.

Chapter 16: Tallpaw needs counselling, Shrewpaw needs more clamping down, and tunnelling is yet again shown as a major problem for the Clan.

Chapter 17: Heatherstar is forced to reconsider tunnelling, a vigil is held, and Sandgorse seems to finally be done away with.

Chapter 18: Sandgorse is dead and Tallpaw really needs counselling.

2) How did I feel?

Chapter 10:

-The one positive quality Sandgorse has is he’s good at his job. The annoying thing is that the way he explains the differences between the different paw steps is actually pretty good, as is the way he talked about only ever working in pairs, etc — I think he could even make a good teacher, if I didn’t already know he was so abusive. Why can’t he be like this all the time?

-I am genuinely surprised to have Tallpaw think to himself that Sandgorse won’t let anything bad happen to him. He turned his back to his own son’s Apprentice ceremony and is much colder with him now that Tallpaw is finally doing what he wants to do — what on earth about Sandgorse’s behaviour makes Tallpaw feel safe under his watch? If it were me, I’d have asked Dawnstripe to go down with anyone other than Sandgorse!

-I hate the repeated mention of crossing borders via tunnels. The blatant breaking of the Code bugs me — I’d bet that if any of the other Clans used tunnels to sneak into WindClan territory, WindClan would be fuming. But because they do it it’s okay?

-Okay so Sandgorse is so single-minded he doesn’t notice Tallpaw’s nervous voice — just says they’re nearly there. Mistmouse doesn’t notice either. That bugs me. It seems absolutely no one in this Clan can notice voice shifts!

-Ugh, Sandgorse being all ‘this is what I’ve always dreamed of’. I figure we’re maybe supposed to feel a bit of sympathy for Sandgorse somehow but all I can do is roll my eyes, this seems like an attempt to guilt Tallpaw into changing his mind. I wish he’d just drop it and let Tallpaw be happy.

-The one thing I liked about the escape scene was Tallpaw’s note that he couldn’t curve his spine/run properly in the tunnel. Yay, he actually internalized at least some of his running lessons! The scene itself seemed like it was trying to be dramatic, but I think the post-escape responses really dulled it for me.

-I can’t believe they were all just annoyed and not one of them noticed how terrified Tallpaw was. Tallpaw might’ve called his father’s lack of fear courage, but I just call it recklessness.

-I can’t believe Sandgorse didn’t notice Tallpaw’s fear at all — surely Tallpaw’s body language would’ve clearly shown how terrified he was. I can’t believe Sandgorse has to gall to not only say that Tallpaw would help them finish it (as if it were a foregone conclusion) but be so completely baffled that Tallpaw didn’t agree with him. Honestly, I was cheering Tallpaw on when he finally told Sandgorse to his face that he was a moor runner — finally!

Chapter 11:

-I really wish we got to see Sandgorse’s reaction to Tallpaw’s proclamation. And I wish it would’ve been one filled with apologies and regret and support for poor Tallpaw.

-Ugh Reedfeather and the hinting at the forbidden romance — I really wish the Hunters would cool it with these forbidden romances.

-“Sandgorse makes me feel like a traitor.” Why won’t someone step in and get Sandgorse in line? At this point I’d even be pushing for exile if I were Dawnstripe, Sandgorse is doing way way too much harm to Tallpaw. This should not be allowed to continue.

-And Shrewpaw is still as much of a jerk as ever. Why won’t he get clamped down on, too? It’s just so annoying. I don’t like seeing him. He’s just annoying. And supposedly Shrewpaw was practising battle moves with Harespring right before he broke in to be a jerk, so why didn’t Hareflight tell him off? Why’s Shrewpaw even getting to go to the Gathering? If I were his mentor he’d be banned from any and all privileges until he shaped up and started maturing!

-If I were Heatherstar I would be very worried about the tunnellers not wanting to go to the Gathering. It’s supposed to be a privilege, but it’s also important for inter-Clan relations — the fact that not one is interested could be a bad sign of them caring more about their personal tunneller tasks than the needs of the Clan as a whole, and/or a sign of them just not wanting to be anywhere with the rest of the Clan. Both would be major red flags to me.

-Shrewpaw is such a jerk. Why isn’t anyone clamping down on him? And again, why does he deserve to go?

-Yes Doespring! Give Shrewpaw a taste of his own medicine for once — now if only he’d get a bit more actual discipline and reprimand...

-Yes Dawnstripe! Notice Tallpaw’s down and actually try to support and encourage him! Praise his running skills and help him — I am so happy to see Tallpaw finally getting some sort of actual praise and support!

-The Gathering mostly seemed boring to me. There were efforts made to point out differences between the Clans, but it never really felt like I had a reason to care. I do wonder why there were nervous glances when Cedarstar announced Silverflame’s three kits (one presumably the future Brightflower, Yellowfang’s mum) — is there a secret there? Maybe it’s best it was never revealed...

-I do wonder why at a Gathering, new Apprentices’ names are called but new Warriors’ names aren’t.

-Oh look, Reedfeather’s secret mate... Ugh.

-I actually liked Dawnstripe pointing out that knowing other Clans’ cats was important for potential future battles. Traditionalist naming would make them easier to recognize, of course, but the principle is still good!

-Oh look, the visitors have arrived!

Chapter 12:

-Okay, meeting visitors.

-Barkpaw getting grumbly about them is kinda funny, almost. I empathize with him upset about not having been warned and about his worry for the Clan — maybe that grumbliness is Hawkheart rubbing off on him!

-The greeting scene with Reena, Larksplash, and Ryestalk was actually really sweet.

-I liked seeing Palebird get sympathy/empathy from Bess when she mentioned having lost a kit.

-Okay, I actually like Reena. She seems to have a bit of personality to her. I like how chill she is. Haha, her telling Shrewpaw to just pretend she’s an egg was honestly funny.

Chapter 13:

-I like Reena slightly less now. While I understand casual nicknames and all, it bugs me that she continues calling Tallpaw ‘Tall’ even after he’s insisted on Tallpaw a few times. Sure, it’s better than Wormpaw, but it’s still not the nicest. Names are important.

-Oh wait, she uses Tallpaw — guess it’s just a force of habit? Not so bothered anymore. And I like seeing Reena have some skill — all rogues/loners aren’t evil nincompoops! A shame the rabbit got away at first, but even Dawnstripe said they couldn’t have seen that hole from where they were.

-Yay, Tallpaw got the kill! Excellent reaction time — with all Dawnstripe said about him being such a good runner, I’d even say he might be shaping up to be a -foot or a -whisker!

-Woollytail. While he was a rude numpty at Tallpaw’s Apprentice Ceremony, it seems he’s not taking out any anger on Tallpaw, which I do appreciate.

-Oh my gosh Dawnstripe actually being worried about Tallpaw when she found out about the flooding, I love it!

-Oh gosh the tunnellers didn’t tell Heatherstar about the flooding? What else aren’t they telling Heatherstar? That’s a major red flag — is the Clan fractioned so bad there are secrets of that size being kept? How terrible! Good on Dawnstripe for wanting to tell Heatherstar.

-Oh look, Shrewpaw. Ugh. Not a fan.

-Oohh, I liked seeing Tallpaw make the guess about the buzzard! Very good logic for sure. I appreciate seeing Shrewpaw has some physical skill, but that doesn’t excuse his bullying. I wish Harespring had explained to Shrewpaw the benefits of that kind of logical guesswork — observing is one thing, but being able to logically connect dots is also super important. Both are vital skills to hone.

-Oh my gosh I absolutely hate Sandgorse even more which I didn’t think was possible. I can’t believe him! Him getting so so angry at Tallpaw even after Tallpaw said it was Woollytail who had spilled and not Tallpaw. Calling his son a coward, getting so angry with him — and it wouldn’t have even been okay if Tallpaw had been the one to spill because the flood was dangerous and not telling Heatherstar was a huge mistake on behalf of the tunnelers. I’m surprised none of the other Warriors came over at the sight and sound of Sandgorse getting so angry — Tallpaw was backing away! Someone should have barged in — how dare Sandgorse lose his temper like that! Sandgorse should be exiled.

Chapter 14:

-Aw Tallpaw needs counselling and — did he just sneak out of camp? I thought Apprentices couldn’t leave camp on their own? What are the sentries doing?

-At least Sparrow goes after him.

-Yes, Sparrow! Yes, Tallpaw! Encourage Tallpaw and help him get conviction in doing what he wants! I love it! Screw Sandgorse, he shouldn’t matter anymore!

-Yeah, why can’t you have normal kin who are proud of you? At least Dawnstripe is doing her best to shield and encourage him.

-Oh great, Tallpaw thinks it’s an invasion. I appreciate his enthusiasm but I do think he should’ve listened to what he was being told — I figure there’s a reason.

Chapter 15:

-Haha, okay this was actually funny. I liked seeing Tallpaw so enthusiastic but also see him apologize quickly when he realized he’d mucked up. Hah, and it was funny when Dawnstripe said she’d only just stopped the war. Oh and praising Tallpaw’s speed — yes, keep it up, praise him for what he does well! He could use it.

-Oh no and the ShadowClan scent. I understand why Tallpaw doesn’t immediately bring it up, because of what literally just happened. I do think he should’ve mentioned it — not gone charging off, but just mentioned ‘hey is ShadowClan visiting the Moonstone too?’

-Oof and I know how Tallpaw feels, wanting to fight to make up for his mistake. I’m glad Aspenfall went quickly — I do think Tallpaw should’ve obeyed, though. Gah this whole situation is unfortunate.

-And ShadowClan attacking to try to claim the moors... Why? This makes no sense to me. It’s greenleaf. Presumably their prey stores are all right, they have absolutely no reason to believe WindClan is weak judging by the last Gathering. Few Apprentices and kits/pregnant Queens just means lots of fully trained Warriors. This attack seems beyond stupid to me, like it’s just a plot device to kill off Brackenwing.

-What even was the point in killing off Brackenwing? This just seems like a pointless fridging to cause extra drama.

-Oh man. I get why Tallpaw is blaming himself. I still think this is a battle that never should’ve happened.

Chapter 16:

-Honestly, this wasn’t Tallpaw’s fault. The timing of the whole thing was really bad — he’d been too eager, and then he doubted himself, and it was just really bad timing.

-Shrewpaw however — Shrewpaw. I understand grieving for his mother, but there is absolutely no excuse for outright attacking a Clanmates like that. Tallpaw didn’t kill Brackenwing. He never meant for it to happen. Heatherstar speaks sense. Shrewpaw needs some serious aggression counselling, though honestly by this point it might be too far gone and the Clan might be better off without him; he’s got a pattern of reckless aggression and unneeded violence. First training with claws unsheathed plus the bullying, and then viciously attacking a Clanmate (which was in his grief, but it doesn’t help his case that his first reaction to a strong negative emotion is violence and aggression).

-Hawkheart talks sense too. I’m glad to see him heal Tallpaw. The safety of the Clan doesn’t rest on one apprentice. Besides, I’d be more concerned about the fact that Tallpaw — an apprentice — was the only one to notice the scent so soon. Sure, not everyone can be a -nose, but surely border patrols would generally have at least one strong tracker on them for cases just like this? Honestly this just makes it harder to take the drama seriously — how was Tallpaw the only one to notice the ShadowClan scent so quickly? Why didn’t anyone give it a bit of extra attention, Tallpaw was practically begging for someone else to notice with his whole ‘hey do you guys smell something here?’ thing. And no one noticed? That’s on them.

-Tallpaw needs counselling.

-Oh gosh of course Sandgorse immediately believes the worst in Tallpaw.

-Reedfeather is clamping down on Shrewpaw — good. The clamping down should have started a lot sooner, but at least it’s something. He’s right — Shrewpaw needs to be loyal to all his Clanmates.

-Okay, this is a kind of interesting argument. On one paw, I see why Hickorynose is angry — the tunnellers were totally missing when the Clan needed them, and they had to use a Warrior who otherwise could’ve helped fight in order to track them down. And they didn’t get back until after the battle was over. Conversely, how is this the first time this argument is happening? As well, I’m surprised the tunnelers are so quick to defend themselves — are they really suggesting the Clan hide away instead of defend their territory? That sounds preposterous! Yet again, all tunnelling does is cause discord and anger.

Chapter 17:

-Honestly, Heatherstar is right about wanting smaller tunnelling patrols — half their Warriors being away tunnelling is a huge problem. If the visitors hadn’t been there, ShadowClan easily could’ve taken over their territory and then what use would their precious tunnels have been?

-Sandgorse is terrible. ‘One of the apprentices’ — that’s awful. That’s got to hurt. The more I see him, the more I absolutely hate him. Larksplash shutting him up because of the vigil is a relief.

-I’m not a fan of Sparrow here. He’s so invested in the tunnels, it’s like he’s trying to goad Sandgorse into heading down there.

-Tunneling is the only thing Sandgorse cares for. Can’t even be bothered to comfort his mate who just lost her best friend!

-Aw, hoping they won’t need those battle skills... Poor Tallpaw and poor Dawnstripe, honestly. It’s hard to recover after an attack that killed a clanmate. But at least they’re trying. And I liked Dawnstripe telling him to take it easy because he’d be stiff after the battle.

-Tallpaw’s almost aggressive streak is kind of concerning. And I’m worried about Dawnstripe letting her apprentice go off on his own — that’s irresponsible, she should be going with him. She and Algernon could’ve talked as they walked with Tallpaw.

-I don’t understand why Tallpaw is so worried about his father. Protecting Clanmates is important, yes, but Tallpaw knows how dangerous those tunnels could be — especially seeing Sparrow soaked... I guess he wanted to get his father’s approval, but I don’t get why. I don’t feel worry for Sandgorse at all. I literally don’t care what happens to him and honestly I’m glad he’s gone. Tallpaw though, he needs counselling.

Chapter 18:

-Honestly, Woollytail is right. Sandgorse answered for his recklessness. I don’t know what he was thinking, going down in the tunnels and having his only companion be someone who didn’t know the first thing about tunnelling. Though I do lay some blame on Sparrow for being so dang pushy about the tunnels sooner, Sandgorse shouldn’t have risen to the bait. He was too reckless, too angry, too stubborn, too set in his ways.

-Tallpaw needs counselling. Honestly I feel relief that he won’t have to deal with Sandgorse’s abuse anymore. I am genuinely glad that Sandgorse is dead. I understand Tallpaw still having some sort of urge to please Sandgorse — I think a lot of counselling from way before would’ve helped there.

-Tallpaw needs counselling. I don’t even know what else to say. The mental health of almost everyone in this Clan seems so bad. Palebird doesn’t get counselling for losing a kit and post-natal depression, Tallpaw doesn’t get counselling for relentless bullying and abuse... Just. Counselling.

3) What chapter/scene most effective? Why?

Honestly, the only parts I really liked involved the visitors and then that brief bit of Tallpaw making the guess about the buzzard. So I guess chapter 12 wins it because that was the only enjoyable part of this entire section. The visitors had characters I actually cared for and liked — which is more than I can say for most of the other characters. Reena in particular caught my attention and I do like her.

4) What chapter/scene least effective? Why?

It feels like we’re supposed to care that Sandgorse is dead. I honestly am glad he’s gone and think the whole Clan is better off without such a reckless, abusive, self-centred jerk. Sparrow had some culpability in his pressing the issue of the tunnels, but Sandgorse should have known that it wasn’t safe and been able to resist the temptation. All he’s ever done is care for himself and his desires — he got what he had coming to him.

And Tallpaw needs serious counseling. The whole Clan is dysfunctional.

5) Any passage stuck to mind? Why?

The bit with Tallpaw guessing about the buzzard because it was nice to see him actually do well and have another Warrior praise him for his guess, because it was a very good guess and that kind of logical thinking is important.

6) Any character feelings changed? How/why?

Not particularly, no. I empathize with Barkpaw closing off a bit after his mother died. I still hate Shrewpaw and Sandgorse. I’m relieved Sandgorse is dead.

7) How about the visitors?

Some of the only cats in this entire book that I like from the start and don’t start to hate. Other than Sparrow, but even then it’s not hatred and just ‘he was really pushy but Sandgorse should still have known better’. Reena in particular is pretty great overall.

8) What would you change if you could? Ramifications?

I can’t pick just one thin! I’d get rid of the abuse and the bullying (or have them there but have them quickly clamped down on/stopped or eventual cause for exile). I’d have tunneling either be meaningful and respectfully handled or I’d nix it all together. There’d be traditionalist naming and proper genetics, Brackenwing wouldn’t die senselessly — honestly, it would be a very different book if I had written it.

#warriors #ailuronymy book club #ailuronymy #this is why i don't follow canon anymore because by gosh #windclan #tallstar’s revenge #tallstar

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

🚨 🚨 BREAKING NEWS ALERT 🚨 🚨 House approves measure limiting Trump’s authority to take further military action against Iran

By Karoun Demirjian | Published Jan. 09 at 6:21 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 09, 2020 |

The House passed a war powers resolution Thursday seeking to limit President Trump’s ability to take military action against Iran without congressional approval.

The 224 to 194 vote fell largely along party lines, with only three Republicans and Republican-turned-independent Justin Amash (Mich.) voting for the resolution from Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.). Eight Democrats opposed the measure, which instructs Trump “to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military” unless Congress has made a declaration of war or there is “an imminent armed attack upon the United States.”

The vote comes just a day after the administration’s top national security officials met with lawmakers behind closed doors to discuss the intelligence and decision-making that informed Trump’s order to kill top Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, who was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 U.S. troops since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet Democrats and a handful of Republicans emerged from those briefings so frustrated by the administration’s refusal to fully engage Congress that it fueled new momentum behind efforts to restrain Trump’s actions as commander in chief when it comes to Iran.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a close Trump ally who has publicly defended the strike, spent a significant amount of time following Wednesday’s briefings in discussions with House Democrats about fine-tuning the resolution. On Thursday, he announced on the floor that he would support it.

“I support the president, killing Soleimani was the right decision. But engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision,” Gaetz said, announcing his yes vote.

But the critical forum is the Senate, where Democrats are in the minority and will need the help of at least four Republicans to pass a similar war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), which could come up for a vote as early as next week. Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.) committed to supporting Kaine’s resolution upon exiting the administration’s briefing Wednesday, after administration officials failed to specify when, if ever, they might seek Congress’s approval for military strike.

“They struggled to identify anything,” Lee told reporters, complaining that the officials instead communicated that lawmakers “need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public. I find that absolutely insane. I think it’s unacceptable.”

Kaine said Thursday that he is discussing his resolution with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Me.) and Todd C. Young (R-Ind.), in addition to Lee and Paul, each of whom has proposed changes to the text — such as removing language that specifically addresses Trump by name — that could help build a critical mass to get it across the Senate floor.

Procedurally, it is likely that the House will have to take up the Senate’s resolution, should it pass in that Chamber, in order to send Trump a war powers resolution that has the weight of potential law. It is also extremely likely that the president will veto it — and that Congress will not be able to muster the votes to override that veto.

But Kaine sounded undeterred Thursday about that ultimate prospect, arguing that Congress could still influence Trump’s thinking, even if supporters cannot override his veto. As evidence, he pointed to last year’s experience when Congress voted to invoke its war powers to curtail U.S. support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen.

“He vetoed it, we couldn’t override it. But he stopped doing what we were complaining about. It had an impact,” Kaine said, noting that the administration stopped refueling Saudi jets. “President Trump may not care about Congress, but he does care about the American public … and if he sees a strong vote on this, and it goes to him, it’s an expression not just of what we think but of what our constituents think.”

At this point however, Republicans and Democrats remain bitterly divided over whether Trump’s strike was prudent and justified, or illegal and reckless, with the dispute coming down to whether Soleimani posed such an imminent threat to warrant going after him without the consent of Congress.

The administration has argued that it had a right to target Soleimani under the Congress’ 2002 authorization for use of military force in Iraq and the president’s constitutional right to self-defense of troops directly and imminently in harm’s way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that the House would vote to repeal the 2002 AUMF “soon.”

The war powers resolutions going through Congress recognize an exception for an imminent threat, but Democrats are not buying the Trump administration’s argument that one existed — and are upset with the administration for withholding intelligence from lawmakers that could inform their determination.

“We deserve the respect from the administration, and the Congress deserves by dint of the Constitution, the requirement of the Constitution, to consult Congress,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, arguing that the administration’s justification for the strike should be redacted and made available to the American public as there was “no reason for it to be classified.”

Republicans, meanwhile, have endorsed the administration’s approach, arguing that “this Congress leaks like the Titanic,” as Sen. John D. Kennedy (R-La.) put it, and thus could not always be trusted with the most sensitive information.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) argued Thursday that the administration’s briefers had provided lawmakers all the information they needed to support the strike.

“In terms of where there is an imminent threat, General Milley was compelling and chilling about what was going to happen and what had happened,” Graham said, referring to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, who briefed lawmakers Wednesday along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and CIA director Gina Haspel.

“I think a third grader could have believed there was an imminent threat coming from the man that we killed,” Graham said.

Republicans are also warning their colleagues against voting for the war powers resolutions, arguing they are “only intended to try to undermine the president in the middle of a conflict with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism,” as House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) put it Thursday.

“How can you sit here and try to apologize for the things that he did by saying taking him out was wrong?” Scalise continued. “This world is a safer place with Soleimani gone.”

House Democrats have been taking pains to condemn Soleimani as they complain that the administration’s moves were illegal for having cut out Congress.

“Qassem Soleimani was a malign force responsible for the death of many Americans,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said, adding that he nonetheless has “no confidence that there is some broad strategy at work, or the policies of the president are doing anything but increasing the dangers to the American people.”

He called the House’s vote the first step “of a broader reassertion of Congress’s war powers. … It is past time for Congress to do our job and not simply write the executive a blank check.”

*********

By Claiming Democrats Support Terrorism, Republicans Hit A New Low

By Max Boot | Published January 09 at 2:37 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 09, 2020 |

If truth is the first casualty of war, dissent is the second. The United States has a long, ignominious history of attacks — both physical and rhetorical — on critics of its conflicts.

Loyalists during the American Revolution were sometimes tarred and feathered. Southern sympathizers in the North during the Civil War were arrested and held without trial. Critics of America’s involvement in World War I were arrested and deported. Anti-Vietnam War protesters were investigated and harassed by the FBI and attacked by police and blue-collar workers (“hard hats”).

Such excesses were not repeated during the Iraq War, thankfully, but anti-war advocates were still routinely slandered. The most common claim was that opponents of the invasion were, as Glenn Reynolds (a.k.a. Instapundit) wrote, “objectively on [Saddam Hussein’s] side, and not neutral.” After Hussein’s capture in 2003 — which was as celebrated as Qasem Soleimani’s death is today — James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal claimed that “the Angry Left” was “pretty bummed.”

I was guilty of some over-the-top rhetoric myself. I wrote a strained op-ed in early 2003 arguing that anti-war protesters made conflict more likely by encouraging Hussein to hold out against U.S. demands. I now cringe when I read that column, because of course the anti-war protesters were right and I was wrong: The invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea even though Hussein was a terrible person who deserved what he got.

Instead of learning from past mistakes, President Trump and his unscrupulous supporters appear intent on repeating them by labeling all critics of his confrontation with Iran as traitors and supporters of terrorism. After Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) complained that he was not given advance notice of the drone strike that killed Soleimani, pardoned felon Dinesh D’Souza wrote, “Neither were the Iranians, and for pretty much the same reason.” Trump then retweeted this vile suggestion that Democrats were equivalent to anti-American terrorists. This week, Trump claimed that “elements” of the Democratic Party are “openly supporting Iran” — another noxious falsehood.

Both Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo falsely argue that the current crisis was created by President Barack Obama. Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R.-Ariz.) jumped in with a Photoshopped image of Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani even though the two men never met. His defense: “No one said this wasn’t photoshopped.” What a license to lie! When he’s caught, Gosar can simply say, “No one said this wasn’t false.”

Competing for the title of the most dishonest McCarthyite in Congress are Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), who said Democrats are “in love with terrorists” and “mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families,” and Rep. John Rutherford (R-Fla.), who accused Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) of being part of a “squad of Ayatollah sympathizers ... spreading propaganda that divides our nation and strengthens our enemies.” But while dismaying and appalling, their vile comments are hardly surprising coming from such rabid Trump apologists.

We expect better from former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley. Fat chance. Seemingly eager to shred the last remnants of her dignity, she said: “The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat Presidential candidates.” This is offensive and false. What most Democrats actually said was that Soleimani’s demise was a good thing (Joe Biden: “No American will mourn Qassem Soleimani’s passing”) before going on to raise well-warranted doubts about whether it’s wise, as Biden put it, to toss “a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.”

Bernie Sanders, admittedly, went over the line by comparing the killing of Soleimani to Vladimir Putin “assassinating dissidents.” But Republicans have no standing to criticize him after giving Trump a pass for excusing Putin’s killing of dissidents by saying, “You think our country’s so innocent?” Likewise, Haley’s lame defense of her indefensible statement ("Leading Democrats are aggressively arguing that we would be better off if Qasem Suleimani was still alive today. That is effectively mourning his death”) falls apart, as my colleague Aaron Blake notes, because Trump expressed regret about Saddam Hussein’s overthrow. Does that mean Trump mourned Hussein’s death? And of course it’s pretty rich that Collins accuses Democrats of dishonoring Gold Star parents when the only person who has insulted them is Trump.

The Republican position seems to be that it’s fine to attack and undermine a Democratic president in his conduct of foreign policy (as 47 Republican senators did in 2015 when they sent a letter telling Iran’s leaders not to make a deal with Obama), but it’s treason to question anything a Republican president does. Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs compared Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to Benedict Arnold for criticizing an administration briefing and said: “It is a shame that this country which is benefiting so much from this president’s leadership does not understand their obligations to this leader who is making it possible.”

Theodore Roosevelt had a different view of what we owe the president. In 1918, he protested his successor Woodrow Wilson’s attempts to criminalize wartime dissent: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” So, by Roosevelt’s definition, guess who is being “treasonable”? Hint: It’s not Trump’s critics.

*********

Trump proved himself to be America’s biggest security risk

By Jennifer Rubin | Published January 09 at 11:00 AM EST | Washington Post |

Posted January 09, 2020 |

President Trump and his senior advisers’ rhetoric and actions on Iran over the past week have deeply unnerved many Americans and even cracked the previously solid wall of Republican sycophancy. USA Today reports: “Americans by more than 2-1 say the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, amid broad concerns about the potential consequences ahead. A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called Trump’s behavior with Iran ‘reckless.’" Even worse: “[There] was overwhelming agreement — in each case by more than 6-1 — that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war with each other (62%).” Finally, “By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons.”

It was not just Trump’s slurred words or the incoherent screed he delivered on Wednesday. It was not just his threat to commit war crimes. It was not just Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s arrogant dismissal of any skepticism about an “imminent threat,” nor the administration’s contempt for Congress’ role in war-making. It was not just the administration’s blithe disregard for Iran’s capacity to inflict serious harm on Americans through surrogates or cyberterrorism. It was the recognition that we were dependent on the Iranians, of all people, to deescalate and that left to his devices, Trump surely would have sent us careening into a disastrous war.

Each time Pompeo snidely declared we should take the administration’s words as gospel, he heightened the conviction that we should not trust these people any farther than we could throw them. Vanity Fair’s T.A. Frank aptly writes: “Trump looks less like a stealth strategist than a loony gambler who wins low rewards in exchange for sickening risks.” The administration is so reckless and thoughtless that even some Republicans or ex-Republicans who generally would defer to the president on national security matters are now hollering for Congress to tie his hands.

Brian Katulis and Peter Juul from the Center for American Progress remind us that Iran’s most potent tools — its capacity for cyberwarfare and its “network of terrorist organizations, proxies and criminal organizations stretching from Afghanistan to West Africa and including the Western Hemisphere” — remain available in the weeks and months ahead to avenge Soleimani’s killing. Katulis and Juul deadpan that “we need a more balanced and steady approach on Iran than we’ve seen in the past three years.” Yes, a sane, stable and informed president would be helpful right about now. Unfortunately, it turns out that Trump’s unhinged conduct is not only self-impeaching, but self-enfeebling.

“We must restore trust and confidence in America’s own intelligence and law enforcement institutions, not launch corrosive political inquisitions against them,” Katulis and Juul warn. "We must work with our allies and partners around the world to defend against terrorism and cyberattacks, not undermine our credibility through social media bluster we’re unwilling to back up.” But wait a minute. After the last week, does anyone think there is the slightest chance Trump can do any of those, let alone all of them? Americans can barely persuade Trump not to start a disastrous war. Indeed, removing Trump is a prerequisite to pursuing the smart objectives Katulis and Juul outline.

Trump and his advisers have nowhere near the understanding, judgment, self-discipline, competence or diplomatic deftness to conduct themselves in ways designed to lower tensions, and even if they suddenly acquired those qualities, the damage they already have wrought will take months or even years to reverse. Trump’s trashing of the intelligence community, of allies and of cold-hard facts has done lasting harm to our international standing and to his ability to rally the country. He has bled himself dry of moral authority and credibility, both of which are essential to carry out the duties of commander in chief. Trump cannot lead us; he can only scare us.

**********

Republicans accuse majority of Americans of hating America

By Paul Waldman | Published January 09 at 1:01 PM EST | Washington Post |

Posted January 09, 2020 |

Perhaps it’s no surprise that the possibility of yet another war in the Middle East has brought out the worst in so many conservative supporters of President Trump. But even if that prospect seems to have been put off for now, it’s likely that the ugly impulses that have surfaced will emerge again and again as we approach the elections in November.

Democrats should decide now how they want to respond.

First, let’s take a little tour around the Republican authoritarian mind-set in the wake of President Trump’s decision to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani:

Rep. Douglas A. Collins said that Democrats are “in love with terrorists, we see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families.” I have a vague memory of a presidential candidate attacking a Gold Star family in 2016; can’t quite recall who that was.

“The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership,” said former U.N. ambassador and future presidential candidate Nikki Haley. After it was pointed out to her that literally zero Democrats were mourning Soleimani’s death, she argued that “mourning” means wishing he were still alive, and anyone who criticized the decision to kill him wishes he were still alive and is therefore “mourning” him. That, of course, is not what “mourning” means.

When Rep. Pramila Jayapal said the administration had presented no evidence of an “imminent threat” that necessitated Soleimani’s assassination, Rep. John Rutherford of Florida responded by saying, “You and your squad of Ayatollah sympathizers are spreading propaganda that divides our nation and strengthens our enemies.”

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said, “The alarmists and apologists show skepticism about our own intelligence and sympathy for Soleimani.”

Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina tweeted that “the vast majority” agrees with the killing, while “Democrats are falling all over themselves equivocating about a terrorist.”

Republicans are quite certain not only that the American public shares their belief that the Soleimani assassination was the right thing to do, but that anyone who disagrees must love terrorists.

There will be much more polling in coming days, but as it happens, the first poll out from USA Today finds that 55 percent of the public say the killing of Soleimani and its aftermath made the United States less safe, with only 24 percent saying it made us more safe. The poll also found:

There was overwhelming agreement — in each case by more than 6-1 — that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war with each other (62%).

By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons.

It’s true that the poll found that a plurality of 42 percent supported the killing, but that’s actually pretty low given all the noise that Trump’s propaganda machine has whipped up. And the more important point is that solid majorities reject the arguments Trump is making around the killing — that it was necessary to keep us safe and to weaken Iran as a threat.

America, it seems, is a nation of Ayatollah-sympathizing, terrorist-loving Soleimani-mourners. Or maybe most people just don’t buy the proposition that unless you support every decision Donald Trump makes you’re a traitor.

This has a familiar ring: Going all the way back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, advocates for war have accused those who don’t share their enthusiasm of being traitors. More recently, the September 11 attacks were followed by endless accusations from Republicans that any Democrat who failed to support whatever the Bush administration wanted to do was supporting al-Qaeda, and later, Saddam Hussein. As George W. Bush himself said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

The difference now is that Democrats don’t appear particularly frightened of that charge. But how should they respond to the specific accusation that if they disagree with Trump, they love terrorists?

In the past, they’ve responded by trying to show they can be tough. That’s why so many Democratic leaders voted for the Iraq War, at a time when memories of 9/11 were still fresh and nearly two-thirds of the public supported the war.

But now they have an opportunity. While Republican rhetoric may be the same, the public is on the side of Democrats and against a deeply unpopular president. So instead of whimpering in fear and trying to change the subject, they can actually call attention to the execrable charge and make Republicans the issue.

For instance, a presidential candidate could say:

I refuse to allow you to say that the majority of Americans who question President Trump’s erratic decision-making are terrorist sympathizers. And when I’m president, I’ll treat Americans with respect for a change. When Republicans disagree with me, I’ll explain why I think they’re wrong, but I won’t call them traitors. I think we’ve all had enough of that kind of poisonous politics.

To be clear, I’m not saying that candidates should say that we can all join hands and work together. This is about what kind of rhetoric is going to be tolerated and what should be condemned. This is the perfect opportunity to get Republicans on the defensive for their hatefulness.

And it isn’t going anywhere, no matter happens with Iran. As we get closer to the election and the possibility of Democratic victory becomes real, Republicans will get more extreme in their words. Their predictions of cataclysm (the governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant, recently said that if Democrats win the Senate “we will take that first step into a thousand years of darkness”) will regularly bleed over into accusations that if you don’t support Trump then you wish for the apocalypse and therefore hate America.

That kind of rancid bile shouldn’t go unchallenged for a second.

*********

Suspected shoot-down of passenger jet near Tehran mirrors 1988 Iran Air tragedy

By Adam Taylor | Published January 09 at 1:59 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 09, 2020 |

The Wednesday crash of a passenger jet near Tehran that killed all 176 people aboard carries echoes of a 1988 tragedy in which a plane that had originated in the Iranian capital was shot down, leaving 290 people dead.

But while that catastrophe has fueled antipathy among many Iranians toward the United States for 32 years, the latest incident raises a different set of questions for the Iranian state — which may be both victim and perpetrator in the tragedy, if early reports prove accurate.

The passenger plane, bound for the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, had just left Tehran’s international airport Wednesday when it lost contact with ground control and plummeted into a field. A preliminary investigation by Iran found that the Ukraine International Airlines jet was on fire before it went down, citing witness statements that the plane had tried to turn around.

However, Ukrainian investigators have been considering the possibility that an antiaircraft missile brought down the jet. A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, told The Washington Post that it was likely that Iranian forces accidentally shot down the plane.

President Trump told reporters Thursday that he had “suspicions” about what had happened to the plane. “Someone could have made a mistake on the other side,” Trump said, adding, “It has nothing to do with us.”

The jet was destroyed in the midst of heightened tensions between the United States and Iran in the wake of the killing of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in a U.S. drone strike Friday in Baghdad. Roughly four hours before the Wednesday plane crash, Iran had launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles targeting U.S. personnel in Iraq, an unprecedented direct strike against U.S. forces.

The allegations of a shoot-down would mirror a tragedy that has hung over relations between the United States and Iran for more than three decades, fueling grievances and suspicion between the two nations.

On July 3, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the U.S. military. The flight, a passenger jet that had originated in Tehran and had already stopped in Bandar Abbas, Iran, was flying over the Strait of Hormuz toward its destination, Dubai, when it was hit by two surface-to-air missiles.

Though Pentagon officials at first denied any knowledge of the incident, it soon emerged that the plane had been targeted by the USS Vincennes, a cruiser that had been involved in a skirmish with Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf and had mistaken the passenger jet for an Iranian warplane.

President Ronald Reagan expressed sympathy for the “terrible human tragedy” but suggested that the plane had “failed to heed repeated warnings.” However, an investigation by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a U.N. agency, found that U.S. military ships in the region did not have the equipment necessary to monitor civilian air-traffic-control frequencies.

Iran reached a settlement with the United States in 1996 after it sued in the International Court of Justice. The U.S. government refused to accept liability but agreed to pay $61.8 million to the families of victims.

Though the tragedy appears to have largely faded from public memory in the United States, the memory of it lingers in Iran, where it is frequently commemorated.

At the time, many suspected that the United States struck down the plane deliberately in a bid to aid Iraq in the war it was fighting with Iran. Iranian hard-liners have long suggested that the downing of Flight 655 shows that the United States cannot be trusted.

“Those who refer to the number 52 should also remember the number 290,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani wrote on Twitter after Trump threatened earlier this week to target 52 Iranian sites, a reference to the number of Americans who were held hostage in Iran from 1979 to 1981.

Rouhani, who has previously supported dialogue with the United States, was referring to the number of people killed aboard the 1988 flight. “Never threaten the Iranian nation,” he said.

A U.S. official told The Post that authorities think the Ukrainian plane was probably hit by an SA-15 surface-to-air missile, a Russian-made system also known as a Tor air-defense system. Ukrainian officials have said they want to search the site for evidence of Russian missiles.

Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, wrote on Facebook that a Ukrainian investigative team sent to Iran includes specialists who helped probe the July 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in Ukraine.

That disaster killed all 298 people aboard. Investigators later concluded that a Russian military missile had shot down the plane.

*********

I’m a U.S. citizen. My family was detained at the border because we’re from Iran.

By Negah Hekmati | Published January 09 at 10:26 AM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 09, 2020 |

My family often crosses the border between the United States and Canada. We live in Seattle and visit friends and family in Vancouver once a month. At this point, it’s become a routine: We drive up, show our documents, answer a few questions and then go on our way. The trip usually takes under three hours.

We planned to drive home after a party on Saturday evening in Vancouver. Earlier that evening, a friend had called to warn us that his wife, who was born in Iran, and their children had been detained and questioned at the border that afternoon. He thought that this must be related to the American military strike that killed the Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani. We told ourselves we shouldn’t have any problems. Everyone in our group was an American citizen; we were even enrolled in NEXUS, a border prescreening program for frequent travelers.

Around midnight, as we approached the Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine, Wash., our friends in the car ahead of us were instructed to pull over. We saw them get out of their vehicle and follow the Customs and Border Protection officers into a nearby building. When my husband and I pulled up to the booth, our children sleeping in the back seat, the officer asked us when we had left the United States. Then he asked where we were born. We, too, were pulled aside, our car keys and passports confiscated.

When we entered the building, we saw around 50 or 60 people already sitting on benches and the floor. All of them were Iranian. Some had been there for 10 hours. When it was our turn to be called up, the officers asked us endless questions: Where were you born? Where did you go to high school? To college? Did your father serve in the military? Are you on Facebook, Instagram? What are your account names? Do any other family members live in the United States? What are their names? Afterward, we went back to the sitting area for another four hours, waiting to be told what to do.

This was the first time my husband and I had faced a problem like this. Around us, everyone was so calm that it disturbed me. They didn’t seem frightened or bewildered; they seemed resigned. They asked the officers for pen and paper to play word games and settled in for a long night. The whole time I was there, I didn’t see anyone complain or even ask why this was happening. When they got their passports back, they thanked the officers pleasantly. I thought to myself, Why are you thanking them? Why should any of us thank them for this unfair treatment?

Eventually, the officials called our names, returned our documents and told us we could go. We finally made it home two hours later, exhausted and shaken. Later, we learned that the U.S. government denied treating us differently because of our ties to Iran, claiming that the delay was because of high traffic, not enough staff and “the current threat environment.” That’s when I knew I had to speak up.

The experience terrified my children. That night, as we walked through the chilly parking lot, they were bursting with questions we couldn’t answer. My daughter told me, urgently, not to speak Farsi. If I didn’t speak Farsi, she said, they wouldn’t know that we were from Iran, and we wouldn’t get into trouble. The officers’ uniforms scared her and her brother — they thought that we were being taken to a detention center or to jail — and the line of questioning confused them. As someone who has immigrated from Iran to Canada, and then from Canada to the United States, I’m used to a certain amount of scrutiny (though never anything this arbitrary and unexpected). But I never imagined that my American children would have to experience it. I never expected them to have to worry about where their family is from, to be anything but proud of their heritage. They didn’t sleep at all that night, fearful that if they did, they might wake up and find us gone.

I grew up in Iran during the war with Iraq. Years after the conflict ended, its traumas restricted our sense of the future. My husband and I left our home country for more opportunities and personal freedom; we were drawn to the United States because it seemed like a place where freedom was prized. We’d been told that it was truly a melting pot compared with Canada, where various communities tended to keep to themselves. When I moved to Seattle in 2014, I was delighted to meet people from all kinds of places — South Africa, Lebanon, Colombia, Venezuela — to befriend them, and learn about their lives. When I took the oath of citizenship in March 2016, I was so proud. I have voted in every election since.

My husband and I became Americans during the Obama administration, a more hopeful and positive time. The following winter, Donald Trump got elected, and almost immediately announced a travel ban on people from Iran and four other mostly Muslim countries. Ever since then, my father’s green card application has been on hold, and he’s had difficulty getting visas to enter the country to visit, including when my brother passed away last year. Throughout my time living in America, no American had ever discriminated against me because of my ethnicity or religion. Even the Border Protection officers treated us as nicely as they could. But American policies are a different story.

After what happened to us last weekend, our friends and neighbors have shown amazing kindness, leaving flowers and even wine and cheese on our doorstep. They wanted to make sure that we felt free, safe and at home. I fear that I can’t say the same about our government.

*********

For Trump, foreign relationships aren’t about strategy. They’re about cash.

By Marc Fisher | Published January 09 at 12:52 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted January 09, 2020 |

George W. Bush explained his decision to send thousands of additional troops to Iraq, at a time when most Americans had soured on U.S. involvement there, as a strategic necessity: Without more boots on the ground, “radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits.” Barack Obama, who came to office promising to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, justified his “surge” of 30,000 more troops to the Afghan war as a matter of principle: “America will speak out on behalf of . . . human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are.”

Donald Trump, like Obama, campaigned on a pledge to get the United States “out of the nation-building business.” But when Iraqi leaders demanded that U.S. forces withdraw after Trump orderedthe killing in Iraq of a top Iranian military commander, the president’s instinct was to describe the crisis in purely mercenary terms: “We’ve spent a lot of money in Iraq,” he said. “We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. . . . We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.”

Trump won the presidency by promising to run the country like a business. He would be the consummate negotiator, driven not by ideology or grand strategy but by his gut, by a plain-spoken, transactional commitment to winning. In this, perhaps more than any other realm, he has fulfilled his promise: He possesses a singular focus on transactions — deals, not relationships; the bottom line, not long-term goals or foundational principles.

In the Middle East, as in Europe, Asia and North America, Trump’s approach has hewed closely to his lifelong belief that a person is judged by the deals he makes, by a reckoning of wins and losses. Trump believes he wins because he can be purely transactional, free from the norms, ideologies and traditions that restrainhis rivals.

He turned against America’s European allies because he thought NATO saddled the United States with way more than its share of the cost of mutual defense. He overturned trade deals such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and then the Iran nuclear pact as well, because he perceived that the United States was giving more than it got in return. He has levied or threatened stiff tariffs on China, the European Union, Turkey and Mexico, arguing that they provide net profits for the United States, even though numerous analyses say they have raised prices for American consumers and cost the country hundreds of thousands of jobs. He argues that North Korea should join the community of nations so it can realize its prime beachfront real estate potential. (“Boy, look at that view,” he told reporters. “Wouldn’t that make a great condo?”

The controversy that got Trump impeached began when he wanted to withhold aid from Ukraine, in part because of his long-standing resentment of America’s tradition of helping other countries with humanitarian, military and economic aid: “Why aren’t all of these countries — why aren’t they paying? Why is it always the United States that has to pay?”

This is not an attitude he developed when he entered politics. In 1980, Trump gave one of his most revealing interviews, to TV celebrity interviewer Rona Barrett, saying that winning transactions was the core of his life: “I think about it literally 24 hours a day, and I really enjoy it. . . . I do understand it’s all basically a game. . . . The people that enjoy it are the people that have been winners.” Trump views existence as a battle to make the best deals. “I really look at life to a certain extent as combat,” he said at the time. His first bestseller described dealmaking as his “art.”

No unified theory of Trump explains his every provocation or impulsive decision. He has said throughout his life that his primary skill and motivation is to be a showman. And he struggles to balance his craving for respect with his desire to win the spotlight, even when it means alienating the very elites and authorities whose respect he seeks. That’s why he talks about hiring“the best people” as aides, yet often turns on adviserswho grabthe attention of the media.

But Trump’s obsession with the bottom line permeates his approach to governing, including his current stance toward Baghdad: We own you. You owe us. “We had Iraq,” Trump said on “Face the Nation” last year. “We spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it.” That idea has stuck with the president, and on Jan. 3, he tweeted that “the United States has paid Iraq Billions of Dollars a year, for many years. That is on top of all else we have done for them.”

Trump “boils complex issues down to things he can count,” said G. Richard Shell, a professor of business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “He asks, ‘What’s the asset here, and how can I get it?’ He perceives unequal benefits being exchanged, and he immediately escalates to the highest level of conflict he can see. And then his people signal to him, ‘No, no, no,’ and he backs off. He backed off on separating families at the Mexican border, and he’ll back off on this crisis,” Shell saidTuesday. On Wednesday, Trump did just that, delivering a measured address, noting that “Iran appears to be standing down” and seeking to “work together” with Tehran on “shared priorities.”

Perhaps counterintuitively, Trump’s impulsive attraction to transactional thinking may make him less likely to stumble into a war than more ideologically driven presidents. “Many wars have begun because politicians felt they couldn’t lose face,” Shell said. “Trump relishes the unpredictability of his behavior. He would never say ‘my word is sacred to me, I have to pull the trigger.’ ”

The decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani without any apparent plan for managing Iran’s inevitable retaliation is typical of how Trump has always operated. He takes pride in acting swiftly and decisively, in the moment. He does not want to hear about antedecents that might inform his decision-making or about how today’s decision might alter future options.

Trump’s attitude toward Iran traces back to the 1979 hostage crisis, the first time the young New York real estate developer opined on national TV about a matter of foreign policy. He focused immediately on the notion of acquiring Iran’s oil: “That this country sits back and allows a country such as Iran to hold our hostages, to my way of thinking, is a horror,” Trump said in the 1980 Barrett interview. If the United States had sent troops to Iran to rescue the American hostages, “I think right now we’d be an oil-rich nation,” he said, “and I believe that we should have done it.”

Trump’s willingness — eagerness, even — to focus on the financial bottom line and then take extreme measures to win, or rather, to be perceived as someone willing to go to extremes, is nothing new. It’s how he built his career, positioning himself as a provocateur who would destroy historic landmarks after promising not to do so or threaten to move homeless people into a high-end apartment building to pressure tenants to leave — all in service of higher profits and better deals.

Research on executives who favor transactional deals over enduring business relationships finds that “you get better deals and fewer of them” with the more impulsive approach, Shell said, but “you get many more deals, and they’re much more nuanced,” if they are based on lasting relationships.

In government, Trump has cycled through a series of top advisers, often frustrated that he hasn’t found people he thinks he can trust. Instead, he focuses on the one thing he can always measure — the value of a deal. As Trump put it in a speech in 2004: “Watch out for people, even [those] close to you, because in the end, if it’s a choice between you and them, they’re usually going to choose themselves. . . . You really have to think of yourself as a one-man show.”

Trump’s great strength — and his frightening emptiness — stem from the same character trait: He lives in the moment and is therefore liberated to take actions that more studious leaders might shy away from. His transactional focus has allowed him to take advantage of Richard Nixon’s “madman theory,” the notion that a president who is willing to be perceived as tough, unpredictable and even unhinged can force an enemy to make concessions for fear of suffering an immoderate attack. Threatening to bomb Iran’s cultural sites, and then backing away after his own defense secretary said it would be a war crime, comes easily to a president who cares mainly about winning the moment. Transaction complete, he moves on to the next deal with the slate clean, at least in his own mind.

**********

0 notes

travisandersondatingblog · 6 years

Text

Toxic Relationships: 27 Signs You Might Be In a Bad Relationship

Being in a toxic relationship is like smoking cigarettes.

Sure, it might give you a quick head rush and make you feel good while you’re smoking, but all the while, it’s killing you on the inside.

It can be hard to see that you’re in a toxic relationship, but if you��re reading this article, I’d say there’s a good chance you are in one.

youtube

I want to help you identify whether you are in a toxic relationship and help you get out of it in this article and video, but as a special bonus to Sexy Confidence members, I also want to address how to fix a toxic relationship, if it’s even possible.

Your Coach,

P.S. Only members of my exclusive Sexy Confidence coaching program get access to part 2 of this article, so get on board. Subscribe now.

First, Signs of a Healthy Relationship

Let’s start by defining what a healthy relationship is because maybe you’ve never actually been in one to know.

A healthy relationship involves a mix of communication, respect, equity, care, effort, self- improvement, and fun. There are boundaries in a healthy, loving relationship, and certainly no abuse, verbal, physical, or sexual.

You know you’re in a healthy relationship because you feel good. You aren’t afraid of rocking the boat or causing an argument. You can rely on your partner as an equal. You trust him.

What a Toxic Relationship Looks Like

On the other hand, an unhealthy or toxic relationship, according to scientific studies, includes inequality between the partners, disrespect, lack of care, lack of fulfillment, and no boundaries. One partner may have mental health issues, and there may be abuse of one kind or another.

Does any of this sound eerily like what’s happening in the relationship you’re in? Read on to learn signs that you’re in a toxic relationship.

27 Signs You’re in a Toxic Relationship

via GIPHY

You may not agree with all of the following warning signs that your relationship is in trouble, but if several of them speak to you, it’s time to figure out what you’re going to do about it.

1. You Feel Drained

The relationship takes all your energy, rather than gives you purpose and something to look forward to. Think about it: when you think about your partner, does it fill you with joy…or just make you want to crawl into bed?

A healthy relationship should energize you rather than sap your energy.

2. You Don’t Trust Your Partner

Whether you’re checking his phone for signs he’s cheating or just can’t believe a word he says, you know in your gut that you can’t trust this guy.

Know that, in a healthy relationship, trust is essential. Pepper Schwartz, professor of sociology and certified sexologist, says that in a healthy relationship:

“Both partners have a deep trust and belief in the other person’s loyalty and veracity and are not jealous or suspicious. Healthy couples feel loved and they are not paranoid. They know their partner is trying to protect the relationship.”

3. You Are Under Constant Judgment

Is he calling you stupid for something you did? Does he constantly criticize what you say or what you wear?

This is simply unacceptable. In a healthy relationship, partners support one another.

4. There’s a Hostile Atmosphere When You’re With Your Partner

Whenever you’re together, you’re waiting for things to implode.

You can’t put your finger on it, but whenever you’re with this guy, the air seems to crackle with anger. You feel like you’re walking on eggshells around him. This might be even worse when he drinks.

This is absolutely a sign that you’re in a toxic relationship. You should never have to tiptoe around your partner out of fear that you’ll upset him. This isn’t Mr. Right. This is Mr. Run From!

5. You Cannot Rely On Your Partner

You can think of a dozen times when your boyfriend disappointed you.

That one time, he was supposed to pick you up from work, and he never showed up, forcing you to take an Uber home.

When you ask him to pick up your dry cleaning, he says he will…but always forgets.

Sure, some guys are forgetful, but more likely, he just doesn’t put a priority on your needs over his own, and he never will. You deserve better.

6. He Emits Negative Energy

Have you noticed how some people just give off a negative vibe? Usually, it makes you not want to be around them, but if you’re in a relationship with a negative person, you may be overlooking the obvious.

See how your friends react to him. If your positive friends don’t like him, then he’s probably not right for you. Friends try to see the best in our partners, but if they can’t, it should tell you something.

7. He Gives Off High Levels Of Narcissism

When you hear the word “narcissist,” you may think of someone who’s obsessed with his looks, but it’s actually a lot different. If you’re in a toxic relationship, there’s a good chance your guy is a narcissist. Darlene Lancer, a licensed marriage and family therapist, describes narcissists this way:

“Command of their feelings and of other people is all-important, because without control, they feel weak and humiliated. They’re drawn to someone who’s emotionally expressive and nurturing — qualities they lack.”

So consider: does your partner control you or the relationship? Does he lash out when he feels humiliated? Are you the more expressive of the two, and do you often feel the relationship is lopsided as a result?

Narcissists are easy to fall for. They put on a mask that makes them irresistible, but over time, that mask falls away and you’re left wondering where that guy you first fell for went.

8. He’s Disrespectful of You

Maybe he cuts you down in front of your friends. Maybe he rolls his eyes whenever you make a joke. Whatever he’s doing to disrespect you, it is not okay.

In a healthy relationship, partners respect one another at all times. This is a minimum standard you should have for yourself. If he’s not meeting it, move on. This is a toxic relationship.

9. Communication Isn’t Great

It frustrates you how he doesn’t communicate.

He takes days to respond to your texts, if he even bothers. He doesn’t keep you filled in with what’s going on in his life. Sometimes you don’t even feel like you’re in a relationship.

Everyone’s different, but for me, communication is so, so important in a happy relationship. If you aren’t getting it, you aren’t in the right relationship.

10. There’s Persistent Drama

Your friends sadly joke that your love life is like a soap opera. There’s always something dramatic happening, whether it’s your latest hot and heavy argument, something horrible he said to you, or even physical abuse.

And by the way, if your boyfriend is abusing you in any way, please seek help and develop a plan for getting out of the relationship. You are too precious to suffer from someone else’s emotional and mental issues.

A good relationship should be drama-free. Trust me.

11. Both of You Avoid Each Other

You’re at a party.

Cynthia: “Oh, did you not bring Tim to the party?”

You: “I did. He’s over there talking to Fred.”

You spend the entire party ignoring each other. People don’t even realize you’re together.

Red flag, anyone?

Certainly, there will be times in your relationship when you want some space, but if it’s becoming a regular thing, ask yourself why you’re even with this guy.

12. You Feel Trapped in the Relationship

You acknowledge that you’re in a toxic relationship, but you don’t feel like you can leave.

He’s threatening to spread lies about you or even come after you and harm you if you leave. So what can you do?

First of all, realize he’s probably bluffing. Leave him, and you’ll find out who your true friends are. If you feel unsafe, stay with a friend until things die down.

13. His Control Issues Have Become Routine

He has taken control of your life, and that’s not cool.

At first, you thought it was cute how he needed to be in control of certain situations, but things have gotten so out of hand that you can’t even choose the restaurant you two go to because he wants to do it.

This is a big warning sign of a toxic relationship. Couples should take turns having control of a situation, and it should never be one-sided.

14. There’s Lack of Support on Both Sides

You don’t want to support his lifestyle, because he’s living an unhealthy one. Maybe it involves substance abuse or reckless behavior.

He doesn’t want to support your lifestyle, because he’s selfish and uncaring.

Again…why are you still with this man? You want a guy who supports you in everything you do.

15. The Relationship Feels Stagnant

Once you reach a more established stage in your relationship, things will be a bit calmer than they were in the whirlwind beginning. But if things have felt stuck for some time, you need to question why.

Are you both making an effort to continue to nurture the relationship, or are you the only one trying? If that’s the case, realize you will never be able to change him or make him work harder in the relationship if he doesn’t want to.

16. Your Partner Brings out The Worst in You

Every argument feels like a boxing match.

You’ve never been a fighter, and guess what? You find yourself constantly fighting with him. You’re screaming obscenities in the middle of the street because he makes. you. so. damn. crazy.

This isn’t normal, especially if you don’t have a history of arguing like this. Don’t you want a partner who makes you better, not worse?

17. This Relationship is Lowering Your Standards

If the You from two years ago were to look at the relationship you’re in right now, what would she say? Would she be shocked?

Maybe you had higher standards then. You would never take someone putting you down or ignoring you. And here you are, meekly taking it.

Toxic relationships wear you down over time. Things seem great in the beginning, then slowly things get worse and worse, and you don’t even realize how you’ve let your standards slide. It’s time to remind yourself of everything you wanted in a partner and take action since you are clearly not getting it with this man.

18. You Feel Like You are Walking on Eggshells

I touched on the whole eggshells thing in #4, but let’s go deeper. Do you find yourself modifying your behavior to avoid nasty situations? Maybe you don’t hang out with your male (gay) friend anymore because you know your boyfriend will get unnecessarily jealous. Or maybe you avoid certain subjects because you know they’ll cause an argument.

Lady, you shouldn’t have to tiptoe around in your relationship. The benefit, in my mind, of a relationship is that you can be 1000% you, not some patched up version of what someone else wants.

19. Fights Become Routine

You can’t even think back to the last time you were together that you didn’t fight. Again, not normal.

20. You and Your Partner Keep Score of Everything

Him: “I paid for dinner last time. It’s your turn. You never pay!”

Don’t allow your relationship to become a scorecard of who’s winning because everyone loses. You and your boyfriend should do nice things for one another because you want to, not because you’re trying to one-up the other.

21. You Feel like You Can’t Do Anything Right

He criticizes how you cut your steak. How you pronounce certain words. How you dress.

You’re second-guessing everything you do, and it’s making you crazy. You’re losing your self-confidence, and that’s not okay.

22. You Feel that You Can’t Be Yourself Anymore

You don’t feel like your old self anymore.

Friends have commented that you don’t seem yourself these days, and that makes you sad. You used to have a dazzling personality, and now you feel like it’s become dull. You’re reluctant to admit it, but it’s due to your toxic relationship with this man.

23. He’s Constantly Passive Aggressive

Maybe you’re not sure you’re in a toxic relationship because he doesn’t outright verbally abuse you. But he does things passive-aggressively is just as bad because, while he fears direct conflict, he still wants to control or insult you in some way.

Maybe he gives you the silent treatment when he’s mad or “accidentally” forgets he’s supposed to go with you to your parents’ house for dinner. These are not accidents, dear.

24. He’s Off-the-Chart Jealous

You can’t even make eye contact with a male waiter without your boyfriend thinking you want him. His jealousy is making your relationship terrible, and you’re constantly working to reassure him that you only have eyes for him.

Just a note: people who cheat on their partners sometimes act jealous, so consider whether that might be the case.

25. You Constant Criticize Each Other

Sometimes toxic relationships go both ways; you’re giving as much of the negativity as you’re getting. Some people, like oil and water, just don’t go together, and while you may never have criticized a past partner, you find yourself falling into the habit with this guy.

Again, in a healthy relationship, there is no criticism. There is gentle guidance and plenty of open communication.

26. You or Your Partner Have Very Few Friends Outside of The Relationship

One sign of being in a toxic relationship is that your entire world centers around the relationship. You don’t really have friends outside of it. So naturally, you’re hesitant to end the relationship because then you’ll feel utterly alone.

Realize that when a partner is controlling, he doesn’t want you to have relationships outside of this one. He deliberately sets things up so that you rely on him and no one else. This is not healthy!

27. One or Both Partners has Low Self-Esteem

While you might assume that a man who criticizes you and controls you has high self-esteem, the opposite is usually true.

A man who feels the need to control you is so insecure that you’d want to be with him of your own accord that he takes measures to ensure you’ll stay. And if you have low self-esteem, you might be a target for an abusive partner.

Conclusion:

By now, you should have a pretty clear sense on whether or not you are in a toxic relationship. The question now is: what will you do about it?

I encourage you to not settle. You deserve everything you ever wanted in a re from Meet Positives SM Feed 3 https://ift.tt/2L12Wg8 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Meet Positives SM Feed 3

0 notes

fayecallasdatingblog · 6 years

Text

Toxic Relationships: 27 Signs You Might Be In a Bad Relationship

Being in a toxic relationship is like smoking cigarettes.

Sure, it might give you a quick head rush and make you feel good while you’re smoking, but all the while, it’s killing you on the inside.

It can be hard to see that you’re in a toxic relationship, but if you’re reading this article, I’d say there’s a good chance you are in one.

youtube

Your Coach,

P.S. Only members of my exclusive Sexy Confidence coaching program get access to part 2 of this article, so get on board. Subscribe now.

First, Signs of a Healthy Relationship

Let’s start by defining what a healthy relationship is because maybe you’ve never actually been in one to know.

You know you’re in a healthy relationship because you feel good. You aren’t afraid of rocking the boat or causing an argument. You can rely on your partner as an equal. You trust him.

What a Toxic Relationship Looks Like

Does any of this sound eerily like what’s happening in the relationship you’re in? Read on to learn signs that you’re in a toxic relationship.

27 Signs You’re in a Toxic Relationship

via GIPHY

You may not agree with all of the following warning signs that your relationship is in trouble, but if several of them speak to you, it’s time to figure out what you’re going to do about it.

1. You Feel Drained

A healthy relationship should energize you rather than sap your energy.

2. You Don’t Trust Your Partner

Whether you’re checking his phone for signs he’s cheating or just can’t believe a word he says, you know in your gut that you can’t trust this guy.

Know that, in a healthy relationship, trust is essential. Pepper Schwartz, professor of sociology and certified sexologist, says that in a healthy relationship:

3. You Are Under Constant Judgment

Is he calling you stupid for something you did? Does he constantly criticize what you say or what you wear?

This is simply unacceptable. In a healthy relationship, partners support one another.

4. There’s a Hostile Atmosphere When You’re With Your Partner

Whenever you’re together, you’re waiting for things to implode.

This is absolutely a sign that you’re in a toxic relationship. You should never have to tiptoe around your partner out of fear that you’ll upset him. This isn’t Mr. Right. This is Mr. Run From!

5. You Cannot Rely On Your Partner

You can think of a dozen times when your boyfriend disappointed you.

That one time, he was supposed to pick you up from work, and he never showed up, forcing you to take an Uber home.

When you ask him to pick up your dry cleaning, he says he will…but always forgets.

Sure, some guys are forgetful, but more likely, he just doesn’t put a priority on your needs over his own, and he never will. You deserve better.

6. He Emits Negative Energy

7. He Gives Off High Levels Of Narcissism

Narcissists are easy to fall for. They put on a mask that makes them irresistible, but over time, that mask falls away and you’re left wondering where that guy you first fell for went.

8. He’s Disrespectful of You

Maybe he cuts you down in front of your friends. Maybe he rolls his eyes whenever you make a joke. Whatever he’s doing to disrespect you, it is not okay.

In a healthy relationship, partners respect one another at all times. This is a minimum standard you should have for yourself. If he’s not meeting it, move on. This is a toxic relationship.

9. Communication Isn’t Great

It frustrates you how he doesn’t communicate.

He takes days to respond to your texts, if he even bothers. He doesn’t keep you filled in with what’s going on in his life. Sometimes you don’t even feel like you’re in a relationship.

Everyone’s different, but for me, communication is so, so important in a happy relationship. If you aren’t getting it, you aren’t in the right relationship.

10. There’s Persistent Drama

A good relationship should be drama-free. Trust me.

11. Both of You Avoid Each Other

You’re at a party.

Cynthia: “Oh, did you not bring Tim to the party?”

You: “I did. He’s over there talking to Fred.”

You spend the entire party ignoring each other. People don’t even realize you’re together.

Red flag, anyone?

Certainly, there will be times in your relationship when you want some space, but if it’s becoming a regular thing, ask yourself why you’re even with this guy.

12. You Feel Trapped in the Relationship

You acknowledge that you’re in a toxic relationship, but you don’t feel like you can leave.

He’s threatening to spread lies about you or even come after you and harm you if you leave. So what can you do?

First of all, realize he’s probably bluffing. Leave him, and you’ll find out who your true friends are. If you feel unsafe, stay with a friend until things die down.

13. His Control Issues Have Become Routine

He has taken control of your life, and that’s not cool.

This is a big warning sign of a toxic relationship. Couples should take turns having control of a situation, and it should never be one-sided.

14. There’s Lack of Support on Both Sides

You don’t want to support his lifestyle, because he’s living an unhealthy one. Maybe it involves substance abuse or reckless behavior.

He doesn’t want to support your lifestyle, because he’s selfish and uncaring.

Again…why are you still with this man? You want a guy who supports you in everything you do.

15. The Relationship Feels Stagnant

16. Your Partner Brings out The Worst in You

Every argument feels like a boxing match.

You’ve never been a fighter, and guess what? You find yourself constantly fighting with him. You’re screaming obscenities in the middle of the street because he makes. you. so. damn. crazy.

This isn’t normal, especially if you don’t have a history of arguing like this. Don’t you want a partner who makes you better, not worse?

17. This Relationship is Lowering Your Standards

If the You from two years ago were to look at the relationship you’re in right now, what would she say? Would she be shocked?

Maybe you had higher standards then. You would never take someone putting you down or ignoring you. And here you are, meekly taking it.

18. You Feel Like You are Walking on Eggshells

Lady, you shouldn’t have to tiptoe around in your relationship. The benefit, in my mind, of a relationship is that you can be 1000% you, not some patched up version of what someone else wants.

19. Fights Become Routine

You can’t even think back to the last time you were together that you didn’t fight. Again, not normal.

20. You and Your Partner Keep Score of Everything

Him: “I paid for dinner last time. It’s your turn. You never pay!”

21. You Feel like You Can’t Do Anything Right

He criticizes how you cut your steak. How you pronounce certain words. How you dress.

You’re second-guessing everything you do, and it’s making you crazy. You’re losing your self-confidence, and that’s not okay.

22. You Feel that You Can’t Be Yourself Anymore

You don’t feel like your old self anymore.

23. He’s Constantly Passive Aggressive

Maybe he gives you the silent treatment when he’s mad or “accidentally” forgets he’s supposed to go with you to your parents’ house for dinner. These are not accidents, dear.

24. He’s Off-the-Chart Jealous

Just a note: people who cheat on their partners sometimes act jealous, so consider whether that might be the case.

25. You Constant Criticize Each Other

Again, in a healthy relationship, there is no criticism. There is gentle guidance and plenty of open communication.

26. You or Your Partner Have Very Few Friends Outside of The Relationship

27. One or Both Partners has Low Self-Esteem

While you might assume that a man who criticizes you and controls you has high self-esteem, the opposite is usually true.

Conclusion:

By now, you should have a pretty clear sense on whether or not you are in a toxic relationship. The question now is: what will you do about it?

I encourage you to not settle. You deserve everything you ever wanted in a re from Meet Positives SM Feed https://ift.tt/2L12Wg8 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Meet Positives SM Feed

0 notes