#(which in and of itself is a problematic notion) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dostoyevsky-official · 3 months

Text

I will make a case for the notion, based on current knowledge of brain function and connectivity, that parcelling the brain into cognitive and affective regions is inherently problematic, and ultimately untenable for at least three reasons: first, brain regions viewed as ‘affective’ are also involved in cognition; second, brain regions viewed as ‘cognitive’ are also involved in emotion; and critically, third, cognition and emotion are integrated in the brain. In the past two decades, several researchers have emphasized that emotion and cognition systems interact in important ways. Indeed, I propose that emotion and cognition not only strongly interact in the brain, but that they are often integrated so that they jointly contribute to behaviour. [...] Anatomy is often used to suggest a separation between cognition and emotion. [...] In particular, lesion studies have been interpreted to show that specific areas support specific functions. Advances in our understanding of brain connectivity suggest that a given brain region is only a few synapses away from every other brain region. Indeed, it appears that the brain is configured according to a small-world topology in which the path length between nodes is small — typically, cortical areas are connected directly or by just one or two intermediate areas — and nodes are highly clustered. [...] In addition, the authors showed that the amygdala makes very widespread projections, connecting with all but 8 of the cortical areas they included in the analysis. They concluded that the amygdala “occupies a position at the very geometric centre of the topological map”, suggesting that this structure is one of the most highly connected regions of the brain. Overall, it appears that the amygdala, a core affective region, is at least as well situated to integrate and distribute information as certain prefrontal cortex territories. [...] The picture that emerges from connectivity data suggests a remarkable potential for integration of information. [...]An alternative way to conceptualize the mapping between a brain area and behaviour is illustrated in FIG. 4. A given brain area, A, is involved in multiple neural computations, NC. Note that this initial mapping is itself many-to-many, so that a given area (for example, A1) is involved in the computation of several functions (for example, NC1 and NC3), and a given computation (for example, NC3) might be implemented by several areas (for example, A1, A2 and A3). These neural computations collectively underlie behaviour. One can describe the space of behaviours using affective and cognitive axes. Thus, any behaviour is by definition both cognitive and affective. Importantly, the axes are not orthogonal, such that a behaviour that is changed along the affective dimension compared to a different behaviour, will also be changed along the cognitive dimension. In other words, behaviour cannot be cleanly separated into cognitive or emotional categories.

An important aspect of the present proposal is that individual brain areas do not work in isolation, but instead are part of networks. Therefore, most neural computations should not be thought of as implemented by an individual area, but rather by the interaction of multiple areas. [...] As stated by Gray and colleagues, “at some point of processing, functional specialization is lost, and emotion and cognition conjointly and equally contribute to the control of thought and behaviour.” [...] In other words, whereas many behaviours might be reasonably well characterized in terms of cognitive–emotional interactions such that emotion and cognition are partly separable, often true integration of emotion and cognition takes place, strongly blurring the distinction between the two. [...] The viewpoint presented in this article suggests that behaviour is a product of the orchestration of many brain areas; the aggregate function of these brain areas leads to emotion and cognition. [...] In the end, whereas there is some value to carving up the brain in terms of emotion and cognition, the understanding of complex, embodied behaviour necessitates comprehending the strong interactions between brain areas.

On the Relationship Between Emotion and Cognition

123 notes · View notes

sonik-kun · 4 months

Text

Reminder that WWX did use a homophobic slur (cutsleeve) before he found out he was, in fact, a "cutsleeve" himself.

I'd also argue that him taking advantage of MXY's body and the rumours associated with him by acting as a "stereotypical gay" to get out of situations was a form of homophobia in itself.

He assumed this was how crazy, gay people act - like sexual deviants. He used that stereotype on top of the rumours about MXY just to get out of sticky situations and avoid being captured.

Whilst this isn't aggressive homophobia, nor would I consider him a raging homophobe myself, he still took advantage of the world view he was raised in, which, in modern terms, was problematic in itself.

Think the harmful, stereotypical, predatory gay trope in anime that a lot of anime fans have taken issue with. That's the stereotype WWX was trying to perpetuate and brush off as a silly joke which is bordering that harmful stereotype territory mentioned above. And yet I don't see the moral "holier than thou" crowd talking about that in their analysis on "fictional characters in an ancient Chinese setting."

(Note before I get jumped on: I don't think WWX was being cruel or malicious when he did this. Nor do I think he purposely intended to sully poor MXY's image further. And I ofc don't think that WWX is a terrible person for doing so either. The guy was desperate and needed to pull tricks to avoid capture. But that still doesn't make things right by modern standards. Even if said stereotype was used to goad a load of "homophobes." Would also like to add that even after coming out, WWX didn't really challenge the societal standard or think ill of anyone who thought like that. It's not like he toured the CW with LWJ, promoting gay rights. He'd be very extraordinary for doing that and brave, too. But he didn't. Instead, he just got up to sexy times with his husband daily and lazed about living the good life. Which is valid of him, tbh, giving the shit he went through. But my point still stands. The social norm persists.)

Also, bare in mind, WWX was heavily in denial about his own sexuality at first and struggled to come to terms with it in the beginning due to the societal norms back then, anyway.

Homophobia was the norm. Stop denying that when you know most of the characters found it bizarre.

By their standards being gay was, unfortunate as it is, unusual and to them, perhaps even immoral in its own right.

By modern standards, we know now that it is wrong. And the moral consensus is that being gay is normal and should not be vilified (even then, not all cultures today have reached that consensus and LGBT rights still have a long way to go).

With this in mind and the notion of what morality meant to people back then, you mustn't hold the characters to modern standards because that was simply the world view. What was "right" back then.

You cannot say with certainty that you wouldn't be homophobic back then, in a world where people called it strange and immoral. As much as I'd like to believe that I would be one of the few who find it wrong to treat gay people poorly, most of us probably would find homosexuality strange because that was the moral consensus of that time. As such, it is unfair to hold characters like JC, JL, and JGY to modern standards for that reason. That's the point we've all been trying to make here.

(Even then, JC and JL both watched as WWX left with his hubby into the sunset and didn't speak illy of their relationship again, nor consider them social outcasts like the Jins and Mos treated MXY. It's almost as if people can change their world views entirely (or to some extent) after things become normalised. Hmm. 🧐

Furthermore, MXTX herself said that JC wasn't a bad person. She wouldn't say that if he's the "aggressive homophobe, incapable of change" like you all seem to imply he is.)

You all make this point about historical context when us JC fans criticise WWX for his clear breach of bodily autonomy with the core transfer and his own war crimes. You should apply that logic to the period typical homophobia too. Because as I have said before, you cannot say for certain that the characters would be homophobic had this taken place in a society where being gay was the norm whilst homophobia was frowned upon. Let's use some logic and context when talking about characters from an ancient time period, shall we?

#canon jiang cheng #jiang wanyin #jiang cheng #mo dao zu shi #mdzs #so sick of this tired ass argument smh #stop holding ancient characters by modern standards #to us modern folk they're ALL problematic in their own way 😂#get over it

79 notes · View notes

david-talks-sw · 1 year

Text

Luke Skywalker in 'The Last Jedi' (1/2)

Luke in The Last Jedi... love it or hate it, it's a difficult subject.

I personally stand somewhere in the middle. I don't think Luke was "ruined"... I'd argue that, from a purely in-universe perspective, his subplot actually tracks with what was previously established in the original films.

There are issues, but I think they are mainly found on an out-of-universe/structural level (which I'll get into in post 2/2). For now, let's take a deep dive and unpack why this portrayal isn't all that problematic.

The most commonly-heard argument is that:

"They ruined Luke's character! He would never go into exile or abandon his sister and friends!"

Simply put, Luke used to be:

an optimist

so brave he'd risk his life to save his friends,

aspired to become a Jedi.

Whereas, in The Last Jedi, he's:

jaded and depressed,

hides/abandons his sister and friends, like a coward,

says the Jedi need to die?!

Now the fact is... Luke is 24 years older when he goes into exile, 30 years older in The Last Jedi. People change, with age.

In Luke's case, he matured from an impatient kid who'd rashly run to save his friends, like in Empire Strikes Back, to a grown-up who makes hard choices and restrains himself from doing that, even though he desperately wants to.

Luke tells himself this is a self-sacrifice, this is for the greater good.

"Because he’s the last Jedi and a symbol of that it then becomes this self-sacrifice, he has take himself out of it, when he knows his friends are dying, when the thing he’d most like to do is get back in the fight." - Rian Johnson, The Empire Film Podcast, 2018

And Rian Johnson didn't want Luke to come across as a coward, so he also gave Luke an argument that initially seems to make sense:

The Jedi way is flawed and inevitably leads to arrogance. Proof: the Sith originally came from Jedi. His own new order is no exception to that rule, even if he thought it was (in his arrogance, he believed his own legend).

So if he leaves and stays in exile? No more Jedi, no more Jedi-turned-darksiders that can mess up the galaxy.

The Force will keep trying to balance itself and a new, worthier source will appear (in the form of Rey).

But while his reasoning that "the Jedi are inevitably arrogant" seems sound and reasonable... it's wrong.

Just like Dooku's reasoning that "the Jedi are corrupt" seems sound, but is ultimately wrong.

Just like Anakin's rationalization that "the Jedi are evil" seems sound nope, that one doesn't even seem sound, it's just plain wrong.

Where is it wrong, in Luke's case?

Well, he's rationalizing his actions by blaming the Jedi religion, instead of admitting his own failure.

"The notion of, 'Nope, toss this all away and find something new,' is not really a valid choice, I think. Ultimately, Luke's exile and his justifications for it are all covering over his guilt over Kylo." - Rian Johnson, The Art of The Last Jedi, 2017

"In his own way, [Luke is] trying to disconnect, he’s trying to throw away the past, he’s saying 'Let’s kill [the Jedi] religion. It’s the thing that’s messing us up, thins thing right here, let’s kill it.’ And the truth is, it’s a personal failure. It’s not religion, it’s his own human nature that’s betrayed him." - Rian Johnson, The Empire Film Podcast, 2018

He fucked up, plain and simple.

But it's not because “he’s a Jedi and that made him arrogant and the Jedi mentality is flawed”, as he claims early on in the movie.

He failed because he's flawed. Luke is human and had a moment of weakness where he was scared shitless and acted on instinct.

Yoda's spirit helps him realize this, and he fixes his mistake by allowing Leia and the resistance to save themselves. And as he does it, he acknowledges the importance of the Jedi and their teachings.

And it's also why, in The Rise of Skywalker, he has the maturity to admit that he wasn't staying on the island out of some self-sacrificial gesture, as he kept telling himself. Truth is, he was afraid. Afraid he'd screw up again.

Do the movies go about this in an emotionally-satisfying way? That's debatable. But, on paper, I don't think Luke's behavior in The Last Jedi is too much of a shark-jump considering how

THE ORIGINAL IDEA CAME FROM GEORGE LUCAS!

In the couple of months after the Disney sale, Lucas developed the Sequels with Michael Arndt in late 2012/early 2013, and concept art was made by artists like Christian Alzmann.

Note: the image on the left got a “Fabouloso” stamp of approval from Lucas!

Lucas’ sequels would feature a Luke Skywalker who was a figure like the jaded, reclusive Colonel Kurtz in the movie Apocalypse Now (which, fun fact, Lucas helped write and was originally set to direct).

The reason why Luke was in self-imposed exile wasn’t specified, all we know is that he was:

hiding from the world in a cave,

haunted by the betrayal of one of his students,

and spiritually in a dark place.

Other concept artists, like James Clyne, tried to illustrate the First Jedi Temple and some of the designs were approved by Lucas, such as the one below.

Eventually, Kira the female Jedi-wannabe protagonist (who eventually became Rey) would seek him out so he can train her.

This Luke would be a much more prominent part of Episode VII (instead of only appearing at the end) but still died at the end of Episode VIII.

For sources and more information about George Lucas’ plans for the Sequel Trilogy, read this post.

The only part that wasn't detailed by Lucas were the specifics of why he went into exile. But all in all, this sounds pretty similar to what we got in The Last Jedi.

"Luke would never try to kill Ben!”

I agree. And he didn’t try to kill Ben. He stopped himself.

And this version of the event?

This didn’t happen.

What Kylo tells Rey is his version of the story. And he thinks he’s telling the truth... but his recollection of the event is warped as this was obviously a very traumatic event for him.

"I don't think he's lying actually. In my mind, that was his experience. [...] I think that it's probably twisted a little bit by Kylo's own anger and his own prejudices against Luke, but I feel like he's actually telling her the truth of his experience." - Rian Johnson, Star Wars: The Last Jedi commentary, 2017

The narrative frames the third version of the story as the one that’s objectively how events went down. Because Rey believes him, and Rey is both the protagonist and a stand-in for the audience.

Now, if you think Luke’s word is unreliable and you have an easier time trusting Kylo’s version of the story, go to town.

But I think that if you actually believe would Luke would never try to kill Ben, you’d take Luke's second retelling of the story at face value.

I know I do.

“Okay, but he would never consider killing a child, like Ben. He saw the good in Darth Vader!”

First off, Luke refers to Ben as "a scared boy" because, he's a middle-aged man. But objectively, Ben was 23 years old.

But also, I mean... with Vader, Luke actually had the luxury ignorance.

Do you think would have truly gone on that Second Death Star if he had actually witnessed Vader:

choke his Padmé,

kill Obi-Wan,

actively try to kill Ahsoka,

murder Jedi younglings,

betray and hunt down his other Jedi brothers and sisters,

and cold-bloodedly kill countless innocents, one by one?

There’s a difference between watching him kill Ben Kenobi (who still ‘lived’ as a ghost and talked to him seconds later) and hearing a couple of rebel pilots get blasted in the trench run, and actually seeing all the horrors he’s committed.

Don't get me wrong, Luke knows Vader is evil, absolutely. But if he had seen this side of Vader, the needlessly cruel side...

... I'm not sure he'd have been as compassionate.

Proof: Obi-Wan, someone who deeply loved Anakin (to the point where he could never bring himself to kill him), someone that genuinely wishes that Luke can redeem him... also feels that, realistically, attempting to do so would be pointless.

And hell, even without really seeing all the massacres Vader committed, the second the latter threatened his sister, Luke went berserk and almost killed him!

So the question becomes:

“What could make Luke - trained Jedi Master, long-time optimist and overall compassionate to a fault - consider killing Ben?”

All we’re told is that he looked into Ben’s mind and saw darkness and the destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything he loves.

The specifics are left to our imagination. They could include:

the sight of Kylo slaughtering his parents and Chewie with a smile on his blood-smeared face,

the smell of Han's burning flesh in the air,

the wails of Chewbacca as he's run through by Kylo,

the faint sound of Leia's tears hitting the ground,

the destruction of the New Republic's citizens and planets.

Whatever it may have been, it was intense. Because Force-induced visions are vivid as hell, as has been shown throughout the franchise.

It's not like watching something on a TV, you're there, all your senses are affected in an extremely powerful way.

And the vision Luke experienced scared him so much that even shortly after it, when looking at a sleeping young man, all he sees is that evil monster from the vision. So he tremblingly draws his saber.

But it's evident that Luke wasn't thinking clearly or rationally.

His base emotions had taken the wheel, he was being tempted by the Dark Side.

"He doesn’t give in to the Dark Side, it’s a moment of temptation to the Dark Side. It reminds me very much of when Vader is tempting Luke, when Luke is underneath the stairs in [Return of the] Jedi, lit with that very beautiful half-and-half, the duality of these two sides of him being pulled. And that’s really what that moment is for me, it’s a moment of temptation to the Dark Side for Luke." - Rian Johnson, IGN, 2017

And yet despite seeing all that... Luke catches himself.

It's not the first time that Luke almost does something horrible to a family member and catches himself. Again, 24 years prior, he almost murdered his own father in a fit of rage.

The scene in Ben's hut intentionally parallels that outburst he has in Return of the Jedi.

A terrible future is presented before Luke.

He reacts instinctively, is tempted by the Dark Side.

He snaps out of it.

Even the angle and framing of the shot is designed to match:

tumblr_video

"Some of these parallels are just “it’s a close-up of the same character” but this one was very intentional. It’s why I had him look down at his mechanical hand holding the saber." - Rian Johnson, Twitter, 2019

The only real difference is that, in Return of the Jedi, Luke only comes to his senses after a frenzied onslaught during which he actively tried to kill his own Dad.

24 years later, despite having witnessed that terrible future even more vividly than he did on the Second Death Star, he catches himself merely seconds later. Instead of going on a whole rampage, he stops the moment the lightsaber turns on.

I'd call that "progress".

"But Luke should've learned his lesson and known better than to give in to the Dark Side!"

Resisting the temptation of the Dark Side is by no means a one-and-done thing. It's not a power-up that you get, it's a constant struggle.

"I think it disrespects the character of Luke by treating him not as a true mythic hero overcoming recurring wounds & flaws, but as a video game character who has achieved a binary, permanent power-up." - Rian Johnson, Twitter, 2019

Dave Filoni says so too.

"In the end, it’s about fundamentally becoming selfless, moreso than selfish. It seems so simple, but it’s so hard to do. And when you’re tempted by the dark side, you don’t overcome it once in life and then you’re good. It’s a constant." - Dave Filoni, Rebels Remembered, 2019

Hell, even George Lucas stated something along those lines:

"The Sith practice the dark side and are way out of balance. The Jedi aren’t as much out of balance because they’re the light side of the Force. They still have the bad side of the Force in them, but they keep it in check. It’s always there, so it can always erupt if you let your guard down." - George Lucas, The Star Wars Archives: 1999-2005, 2020

Learning the lesson once doesn't mean you've learned it forever. Especially with the Dark Side, which poses a never-ending battle.

In-universe examples: Anakin learned to let go of his attachments during the “Padawan Lost” arc of TCW.

A year and a half later, he’s butchering kids because he can’t let go of his attachments.

And during wartime, Yoda found himself repressing his darker instincts and ignoring their existence. Thus, when he had to face them, he struggled to acknowledge and control them.

So considering Luke didn't go "rampage mode" with Ben, as he did when he tried to kill Vader, I think he deserves some credit.

Finally, I've heard this insane argument many times, as a response to the above points:

"Yeah but Luke wasn't actually trying to kill Vader! He was holding back, he was trying to keep him alive!"

And, uh... no. He wasn't.

He lost his shit, folks. And almost killed Vader.

Like, right here?

⬆️ If Vader hadn’t moved his saber to intercept Luke’s blade, Luke would’ve stabbed Vader in the face.

⬆️ If Vader hadn’t held his sword up in time, SWISH, there goes the top of his helmet AT LEAST, if not the rest of his head.

⬆️ If Vader hadn’t dodged he’d be chopped in two.

⬆️ If Vader’s arm gave out slightly sooner, if his blade faltered just a little lower, if he loosened his grip on his saber a bit, Vader would be cleaved in two.

My point is that if you swing at someone with a lightsaber? They’ll get chopped. And if you aim for the head or the chest? You’re trying to kill them.

Before Luke got a grip, throughout that whole rampage, the only thing that kept Vader alive was his own skill.

Otherwise, Luke would’ve murdered him in a fit of rage.

If Luke was holding back, then the theme of "resisting the Dark Side" completely falls apart.

There's no indication that he was restraining himself, in he script.

And just look at the imagery.

Luke is surrounded by darkness, symbolizing how he's being seduced by the Dark Side, he's being tempted to give in to his anger towards the man who hurt his friends and took his hand.

Then Vader threatens Leia.

And the next time we see Luke, he's silhouetted, his face is all black.

Luke was originally trying to hold back and talk Vader down, but fails to control his instincts and gives in to fear, to anger, to the Dark Side... and goes all out.

He swings at his father furiously and keeps swinging, until he cuts off Vader's hand... and he is about to deliver the final blow…

… when he sees Vader’s mechanical hand and realizes that by giving in to his anger, that path will inevitably lead him to become exactly like this half-machine half-man laying at his feet. That’s where the path to power leads.

And so he makes a decision:

He’s a Jedi. Like his father before him. His compassion for Anakin is stronger than his hate for Vader.

That's the narrative intent.

It has to be.

Because if he had been "holding back" throughout that entire bit, then the stakes are lowered immeasurably, John Williams' saddening score is misplaced, the lightsaber choreography is misleading, etc.

For the above-listed reasons, I think Luke's portrayal in The Last Jedi doesn't really contradict anything in the previously-established lore. It works, it's the typical "old cowboy needs to get back in the saddle" trope. Frankly, I can defend this subject all day long... so where's the problem?

The problem comes in at an out-of-universe level. While it's not inconsistent... it's also not satisfying.

The thing is, if you...

... take one of the most brave and optimistic characters in the franchise, then open the film saying "well, now he's jaded and in hiding", without giving us context on how he became that way...

... take a character whose arc was specifically about controlling his emotions, then show him be ruled by those emotions without providing context for what made him do that...

... then that kills the suspension of disbelief, for a lot of fans.

And, as such, they'll have a much harder time going along with what you're saying.

Because "show, don't tell" is one of the most basic principles in visual storytelling. And we weren't shown:

"Ben being increasingly violent during training",

"Luke sitting Ben down and having a talk with him, only to be ignored" or

"the horrors Luke saw in Ben's head".

I have no doubt that those things happened, in-universe.

But if we're talking about a movie-going experience, many were left emotionally-unsatisfied.

Because all that stuff was in there... but only subtextually. It was up to the fans to imagine on the details. Normally, I'd argue that's what Star Wars is all about: allowing fans to dream and think outside the box. But in this specific case, I think many fans would've rather had a more complete and explicit story. Because it's Luke Skywalker.

And yet... even these structural and writing issues had a logic behind them, and if you ask me... there was no other direction that this story could be taken in.

We'll explore this in more detail in part 2/2.

#Luke Skywalker #The Last Jedi #Rian Johnson #Star Wars episode VIII #star wars #jedi order #meta #long post #Ahch-To #in defense of the jedi #episode 8 #Ben Solo #Kylo Ren #Mark Hamill #star wars sequel trilogy

246 notes · View notes

xclowniex · 9 days

Note

One of the most disappointing things about the past few years is how much it's exposed how much of a self-centered joke the online left has exposed itself to be.

I joined the left overtime as a reaction to the likes of Trump getting power, and his horrific desire to bring about his own dictatorship over America. I for quite a long time thought a lot of the problem stemmed from centrist types not taking his threat seriously enough (which was partially true in some ways), which only fueled my shift to the left more and more as I saw the end result of the pandemic and the lackluster reaction from the people who most supported the status quo in regards to many things.

I thought in many ways that would be the end of that; that progressivism was what society needed, and that we had to do everything in our power to pull society away from the problematic and deeply flawed status quo, and ESPECIALLY away from the likes of Trump and the Fascist GOP.

But then Biden got elected, and I started seeing the cracks.

The griping, the moaning, and self-righteousness just started popping up from the left. At first I didn't think too much of it, because Biden wasn't my first choice either, but I accepted the fact that it was better him than Trump, and frankly it was much easier to get things done under him than under a dictatorial asshole and egomaniac with too much power and support.

But the self-righteousness just would not stop coming from the left, mixed together with the realization that for every progressive who genuinely tried to make things better, there seemed to be far more whom only cared about their own image and brand of being "better than thou" without any actual substance, never mind the ones who actively seemed to go out of their way to support outright authoritarian regimes like Putin out of some notion it'd lead to Communism, despite the far right literally also wanting Putin to have more power for FASCISM.

It felt like people just flat out were falling into the same kind of conspiracy stuff as QAnon, where somehow they were loathed for their conspiratorial thinking, and yet somehow it became fine when "OUR SIDE" was dipping into that same kind of rhetoric and thinking. And for all that people constantly bayed for blood and for taking drastic measures, I never once saw them ever DO anything of the sort. I just started becoming warier and more thinking that people were just full of hot air, that for all of their talk none of them would ever willingly choose to fight for real because they didn't have any real courage, just a bunch of slogans and hot air.

And then Ukraine happened. And then I/P happened.

Honestly, those two things just fucking pissed me off, disillusioned me immensely, because it was like the mask just flew off. All of sudden, so called progressives were praising authoritarian behavior so long as it was under the pretense of socialism and communism. All of a sudden they started throwing around hateful slurs and propaganda like it was nobody's business. Actively and literally suggesting that we allow society to fall, for democracy to fall so that a fascist could destroy their enemies and push them towards their own ideology, despite the reality that THAT kind of thing has NEVER WORKED out for the people who are already suffering and broken.

It made me realize that a lot of so called "leftists" didn't care in the slightest about actually building towards a better world, only in wiping out the people they viewed as an obstacle to an easy utopia where they didn't have to care about other people as people. That everyone else was just their pawn, their prop for their own twisted egos of being against the eeeeeevil establishment, all while deciding to be just as monstrous as the evil they oppose.

I've honestly never felt so disappointed in my entire life, because I genuinely thought that people valued the idea of a better tomorrow, that even if having to work with the likes of Biden kinda sucked, that we'd have learned from the magical thinking of the Trump Cult and QAnon and recognized that progress would be a long, difficult, but necessary step towards a truly better future. That we would eventually replace the Bidens of the world with a better President who would slowly move things forward, and then replaced with their better successor who moved things forward as well, and so on and so forth. It'd be slow, but it'd be substantial, something we could work with.

Instead, it seems like a lot of leftists just wanted a left-wing version of Trump, where all their enemies are eliminated and they perch themselves atop their ivory towers to sneer down at the stupid liberal and conservative masses for not bowing to their greatness. Or they just burn everything and everyone else down while they skedaddle to the safety and comfort of their privileged lives to laugh and jeer at everyone for not submitting to their ideological zealotry, or just to escape the fallout of their heinous actions.

i 100% agree.

I feel like a lot of leftists (including myself back when i was a teen tbh) never worked through the right wing ideology they grew up with and saw values they thought were neat (are still are good things) such as queer rights and liberation, liberations for indigenous peoples, ending racism, etc etc etc, and instead of genuinely holding those values, they just used the same right wing authoritarian logic they claim to despise except backing that logic is leftist progressive ideas.

For example, leftists are supposed to be anti fascism yet, they want their politcal enemies to die or whilst they don't actively want a political enemy to die, they will gladly celebrate their death.

And like, there is a difference between celebrating the death of someone who has actually done harm due to their politics vs celebrating the death of someone who just holds opposing political ideas.

I also agree that there is a sense of being holier than thou from the left. There seems to be a pissing contest of who can be the most progressive to the point where it swings back around to being right wing either fully or to a point.

Whilst I still hold leftist and progressive values, I have definitely shifted away from calling myself a leftist as I do not want to associate with leftists who hold leftists values yet excecute them with right wing tactics. Maybe at some point in the future I will go back to proudly calling myself a leftist, but for now I am a bit ashamed of how quickly leftist values exit the room when talking about jews or other minorities.

#antisemitism #leftist antisemitism #politics #ask clownie

41 notes · View notes

amourduloup · 3 months

Note

Sorry if you've already talked about this before, but what do you think about the notion that horror is generally bad because it has a misogyny problem, and that exploitation / r&r films are problematic and the ppl who watch them are suspicious? i don't really know how to explain what i mean too well but i know you usually have very nuanced takes about this kind of thing 🤍

i think i understand what you mean, no worries 🖤

honestly i don't think horror has a greater misogyny problem than any other film genre, though how the problem presents itself may be different. it's maybe more blatant within horror but not necessarily worse. movies have a misogyny problem across all genres, i don't think horror is special in that. horror films do inspire some strong reactions though, so i can understand why it prompts more discussion in that vein.

rape & revenge is a particular case, and it's difficult to discuss. i have a lot of thoughts about it, but i find it hard to put it down in writing because they're not very cohesive. i actually did a little research and asked around for material about r&r because i wanted to give an informed opinion but i didn't find much. it'd be easier for me to discuss particular movies anyway, because i don't think i've explored the genre deeply enough.

there are some &r movies i really really love and i know some people watch them because they find the degradation of women titillating -- that upsets me but it doesn't stop me from enjoying or admiring the movie itself. some r&r movies are, in my opinion, really interesting and engaging and i'd go so far as to call them beautiful and thoughtful. of course for each of those you'll probably find a greater number of misogynistic drivel -- but i can't affirm that for sure because so much of my experience has been guided by what other women have watched, enjoyed and recommended, so i've probably avoided whatever didn't have much to offer. but then that's always really subjective -- for example, i don't care for i spit on your grave but my mom sort of loves it. i don't think her opinion is any less valid than mine, and i find opinions differ a lot when it comes to r&r.

i do have a question that i'd like to pose to you but also anyone else reading this, which is -- what you think of when you think of rape & revenge? do you consider only exploitation movies or do you also consider titles like the virgin spring or kuroneko? because of course there's a lot to be discussed about exploitation films, and how some directors managed to make genuinely interesting works while trying to remain commercial and please a certain audience. like, there are things in r&r exploitation films that i could do without but i can still admire the final result. but then sometimes i think of like, thriller: a cruel picture and how the pornographic scenes impact the movie in a way that i personally find interesting because it makes it all the more brutal, and the director really managed to make it all very non-erotic and even cold and distant... sort of going through the motions in a way that imo fits perfectly with what's going on.

but there's just so much to discuss about exploitation and about r&r specifically, a lot of my thoughts are not very cohesive or well informed. i'm curious to know how others feel about it, especially other women, and i'd love to discuss it more. but it's hard to give a solid opinion because i can see the matter through many different angles. like, of course the fact that r&r often targets a male audience while exploiting the suffering and degradation of women is a problem and reflective of a bigger one. but many r&r movies have genuine value and, more importantly, have real value to a lot women.

#idk i could go on and on without ever giving a final opinion ksksks i think there are many sides to this #and mostly i'm interested in women's varied opinions on these movies but like #i can say i've taken a lot from some r&r movies which remain personal favorites #asks

34 notes · View notes

awakentheeldritchabomination · 1 month

Text

The Thing About Redesigns, Rewrites, and Reimagines…

(Part I: Broader Discourse)

To those of you who’ve been keeping tabs or maybe seen my posts floating around the tag, you might recall me mentioning that I felt a bit of hesitancy toward the prospect of joining in on the recent wave of redesign/rewrite content. In the more likely scenario that you haven’t or do not know what the crap I’m talking about, that’s fine lol. Understandable. It was a little thing I had written into my first rewrite/redesign post about Charlie. In a short aside, I explained that it was because I’d felt “bad about tinkering with someone else’s work like this”, and then I’d left it at that. So… yeah. Why am I bringing it up now?

Well, I don’t think I need to tell you that this fandom is… a lot. Y’know people have been talking…discourse is being had… heated, moral arguments are being hurled left and right. And in light of all the growing, reactionary accusations, I…found myself starting to feel bad again.

My initial issue, the reason why I didn’t immediately jump to sharing my ideas was that, for all her faults, I empathize with Viv as a creator and didn’t want to feel like I was disrespecting her, her characters, and her vision by reworking it to suit my own. I had frustrations and criticisms, but I never wanted to make it seem like I was trying to ‘fix’ her work or her style. I really didn’t want to be one of those pretentious dipsh*ts (the kind that take a piece of art, digest it through their own preferences and biases, then spit it back in the artist’s face with a, “There. I made it better”). In the end, I went through with it because I had a small hyperfixation and a tendency to project my own issues onto characters I love (I’m sure some of y'all can relate). And also, I was having fun. But… then more discourse poured in, and I saw all the concerns I expressed reflected in the arguments presented by other fans and artists.

And well… That made me feel like I was doing something wrong, like perpetuating and becoming the exact problems I had wanted to fight against. So, I took a step back. I reevaluated.

Now, I have thoughts (shocker!).

And they are conflicted.

On one hand I agree with the idea that redesigns/rewrites are not inherently bad or disrespectful things when it comes to productions like Hazbin since Viv is not a small creator with no power. She and her team have ultimate authority over the show’s events, and those plans will not be derailed by what is basically some random tumblr artist’s fanart/fanfiction.

In regards to the critical side of things, that kinda comes with consuming and digesting the messages and presentation of a work of art. Ideally, it should get people to discuss in this capacity, especially when it deals with such sensitive subject matter as Hazbin does (and especially when it is executed with evidently problematic notions which do bleed into the designs at times).

Still, I do think this trend can be disrespectful if the intention and presentation are made with an aggressive holier-than-thou attitude which explicitly seeks to one-up the creator. Though I understand where it comes from, I think that can be just straight, undiluted maliciousness with a generous helping of pretentious, self-appointed superiority. And I don’t think it’s necessary to pick apart the style itself. You don’t have to like it, of course, but I feel like stating your preference for one way of drawing over another and asserting it as if it were some objective truth antagonizes the entire point of individual artistic expression and personal taste. Criticize the lack of diversity (something which, I’d like to add, is not actually unique to Hazbin) and potentially problematic aspects, but not the style. Even then, it’s important to be constructive not destructive.

That being said, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me (especially if anyone who’s a die-hard fan finds this) Whether you do or not is on you, and that’s okay.

This is more a snippet of my thoughts than a fully developed rant. I just wanted to share where I’m at right now. There will be a part 2 to this expanding some of my feelings while also outlining where I might go from here because things are going on in my head, and I don’t actually know whether I will continue or not with this project. Right now, it feels like it’s drifting toward a more original direction (Charlie feels like an entirely different yet vaguely similar character and dang it I’m attached…It’s kinda weird lol) so….anyway—I digress.

Thank you for reading.

#hazbin hotel critical #hazbin hotel criticism #hazbin hotel redesign #hazbin hotel rewrite #hazbin rewrite

14 notes · View notes

liskantope · 9 months

Text

Back in late 2020 I made a post which mentioned as a side comment the impression I get from a lot of the more aggressive SJ people that writing/saying a lot (e.g. writing long, nuanced, qualifying, and/or perhaps defensive-sounding responses) is seen as evidence in and of itself of being wrong in the argument, specifically the type of wrong that comes from a position of privilege (I thought a little later I wrote a short post focusing only on this, but I can't seem to find it now). The example in the above-linked post is in the strangely-proportioned screenshot, where someone who is being attacked for not bowing down to the Correct political opinions keeps responding with lengthy, articulate, nuanced comments (which include some acknowledgment of her own weaknesses) and is met only more vehement attacks declaring checkmate explicitly on the grounds that her comments are long. The end of the exchange happens when she leaves a comment raising her eyebrows at being attacked for long-windedness, and the entirety of the response is "...you and your privilege". It's a finale that's stuck with me.

I was reminded of this today when an unexpected spurt of activity showed up on my Tumblr: an activist with whom I got into a contentious exchange well over two years ago for some reason chose now to abruptly reblog a several of my lengthy responses with pithy remarks (okay, plus one which includes a link to her own independent blog post about it which I don't think I'd seen before), and a minor flurry of likes and replies followed. I don't care to reblog any of this now, or even link to it, because my getting into that debate is something I'm really not proud of: the topic is not a hill I want to die on, and I dislike my awkward defensiveness and repeated apologies and semi-retractions. If I'm going to spend time and energy arguing something really controversial, I would rather it be a discussion where I can be really incisive and not catch myself arguing carelessly and sloppily and feel the repeated need to step back and clutter everything with caveats and apologies. But, if you are curious, I was defending a YouTuber I respect from being cancelled for being Problematic, and this exchange happened in spring of 2021.

The one new bit of substantive information for me coming from today's activity is the link to a separate blog post written at the time, which further confirms that there's no point in me continuing to defend that YouTuber to this activist: apparently among the list of things that makes this YouTuber's case worse and confirms their guilt are (1) publishing an earlier video which made all of the exact right points but which (surprise, surprise) got noticed by more people than a written article by a lower-profile person from the Relevant Marginalized Group making essentially the same points, (2) acknowledging that the Relevant Social Justice Cause is a good one and including a link to a fundraiser, and (3) momentarily sighing with a slight look of exasperation when first bringing up the accusation of being Problematic in a video. (Sorry I'm continuing to be vague here.)

Continuing to argue with this activist would be a waste of time, since our rhetorical values and norms are clearly too far apart for us ever to reach each other. Looking at it makes me grateful to have found a part of Tumblr that does share my basic notions of how discussions should work.

But what strikes me most of all is how my lengthiness itself is somehow treated as evidence of my guilt or wrongness or privilege or something. One of my lengthy reblogs got met today with a single sentence mocking it as a "dissertation" and managing to weirdly characterize my thesis without explanation, while another later one got met with "Have you considered just.... never talking again? Because you are not good at it." Again, these little zingers were fired off probably within a few minutes earlier today, in response to things I wrote back in spring of 2021.

That's the exact same kind of back-of-the-hand dismissal that I mentioned above having witnessed done to someone else (with the "...you and your privilege" comment). It reads like "This person talks too much, that's how you know they're in the wrong, so no need to address any of their points, if I smack them with a one-sentence response saying 'Haha that just further confirms you're wrong!' then I win."

And it's like, usually I consider my ability at cognitive empathy to be quite good, but it's hard for me to figure out what the other party is actually thinking in a situation like this: I can sort of get my head around not respecting nuance in certain selective situations and thinking the ability to feel nuance is a sign of privilege or something, but I can't quite figure out how they justify these one-sentence blanket dismissals on the grounds that the other person's comments are too long without imagining that they must be aware on some level that they're just being domineering-in-an-internet-way and deliberately going for a cheap and empty slam-dunk. This isn't very charitable, but honestly I have a hard time understanding such people's motives any other way.

#vagueposting #discourse #social justice

31 notes · View notes

ciaran · 9 months

Text

cw: foucault, discussions of underage sex, fandom

happened to read foucault's essay on erotics, and the whole schema of greek pederasty and its complications, concerns, discourses, what have you. it's very interesting and not just bc the greeks hated the power of the prostate.

a lot of the latter part of the essay talks about how the greeks felt, more or less, that even though it was socially acceptable for a man to fuck a boy, the boy couldn't enjoy it, and if he enjoyed it too much and sought it out then his future reputation was at stake/ruined already + the man had to give the boy gifts (financial gifts being frowned upon because they prostituted the boy; gifts of guidance, teaching, and status being more acceptable and desirable) in order to earn his favor in order to fuck him and the boy could neither give in too easily nor hold out for too long. but it wasn't a mutually pleasurable act, it was a given to the older lover when he was considered to have earned it and it was a transient, age-based position; an adult male free citizen who was known to bottom for pleasure was considered shameful and incapable of leading. but it was okay to want boys, to desire beauty, to think of them as attractive, as long as one did not take from them by force or dishonor them.

the interesting thing to me about this is the way it intersects and entwines with modern fandom's notions of gay sex. obviously, fandom loves gay sex and there's no doubt about that. the thing is that in my experience, most fandom these days heavily centers bottoms and bottom subjectivity; to a lesser extent submissive subjectivity. it is ambivalent in most cases about top interiority and entirely uninterested in dominants except as facilitators of pleasure, pain, or catharsis for the sub/bottom.

of course, it's unfair to generalize and many people find their tastes departing from that described here for many reasons. nevertheless, it seems to me to be broadly true that in a group of people broadly motivated by exploring m/m intimacy, there isn't that much about tops: about wanting to top or dom, about love that expresses itself via control, guidance, and mastery over the beloved, about actively seeking out and thrilling in having power over another person. when these things do show up, they're frequently coded as abusive or outright only exist in abusive characters, which makes sense to a degree because these traits can also manifest in abusive ways.

but submissives and bottoms can also be abusive while fully and unequivocally being subs / bottoms, and most people are really uninterested in exploring that. this makes sense; nobody wants to imagine a beloved character as abusive, and very few people identify such types of predation in villainous characters, because villainy is the domain of the controlling, the sadistic, the power-seeking - it is never the domain of the masochist, the one whose power lies in passivity, who can make things happen without asking for them to happen, simply by wanting and providing themselves as an incentive.

and again, yes, associating bottom and submitting w passivity is problematic but works for our purposes because the essay i'm referring to also does the same thing. the link is not a permanent fixture so much as an association that people often lean into and that therefore shows up in the conversation.

all of this is to say that i don't think that fandom, which is dominated by afabs and trans people and rather fewer cis men, is so interested in bottoms as the subject of pleasure.

while the associative link between submitting, bottoming, passivity, and femininity is frequently complicated (queered, even) by these same demographics, and while many members of them have different relationships to these associations, the links persist for a reason; they're extant in society and they preoccupy us sexually. but i do think that there's a reason why the greeks considered bottoming and enjoying the act of bottoming nearly shameful even though cis gay penetrative sexual activity basically necessitates someone bottoming at all times...and i think that that reason is the other side of the coin of why modern queer fandom is broadly disengaged from topping as an enjoyable and desirable activity for their favorite characters even though they would verbally acknowledge that good sex should be mutually pleasurable due to modern sexual ethics.

in both cases, i think it's about shame. the greeks considered bottoming shameful because they thought a lot about honor and status and leadership, and the roles that a free citizen with good qualities could hope to occupy in the governance of the city, and they felt like a man who enjoyed submitting sexually (a man who enjoyed being the object of another's pleasure) could not be trusted to not submit in other senses as well even if the alternative was better for him and for those he had power over. but the sexual ethics of fandom - which is very queer, full of afabs, full of trans people - consider topping shameful because we think about status and leadership and power from the other direction, as inherently untrustworthy and corrupt, and we dislike people who seek out power consciously and cultivate favors in order to gain that power. it's shameful to want too much and take too much, to have control over other people and be comfortable with that, it's shameful to refuse to be vulnerable in the way that bottoming demands vulnerability (because topping, by implication, has no vulnerability attached).

that's one explanation and i don't wholly buy it. my other explanation would be interest: the greeks were concerned with a social life that revolved in no insignificant part around the power they expected to wield as free citizens, and therefore they were very anxious about the maintenance of their own power and they were concerned by the possible loss of power for the young men they desired. fandom, on the other hand, is concerned with an intimate life that centers the emotions and relationships of its characters, and therefore is interested in anything that brings those emotions to the forefront: again, vulnerability and weakness and pain and pleasure.

the third and most simple explanation is that the difference is anatomical: cis men are more likely to think bottoming is shameful because the primary instrument and act of pleasure for them centers around penetration, and being accessory to someone else's pleasure and enjoying it is shameful. women are more likely to think that topping is shameful because their primary acts of pleasure are ones of receiving, and rather than being accessory to someone else's pleasure they inhabit a paradigm where reception is indulgent, decadent, being spoiled and taking without giving. even if you think of topping as giving and bottoming as taking, taking is construed as selfish and giving is construed as generous. so, someone's favorite character bottoming is about that character getting to be selfish.

i don't like this explanation because it resorts to gender essentialism, and i really don't like any of these explanations and i'm dubious about the entire analogy i'm drawing, but hey. my blog, my long meandering posts that make no point at all. if u have thoughts feel free to send me an ask or a dm or something, this topic is very interesting to me.

#notes #long post #i didnt talk about characterization. who has the time #fandom

18 notes · View notes

emsuemsu · 6 months

Text

@hprecfest day 3: podfic

Way Down We Go by @xiaq 🩵 109,767 words, draco/harry

Podfic in Spotify & ao3 by @etl-echo-audiobooks 🩵 around 14-15 hours

The war was over. Or at least that’s what the papers said. They’d been saying it, for months, as if people needed reminding. Maybe they did. *** In which Harry and Draco both run away from their pasts and conveniently choose to hide in the same tiny American town. It's super. EDIT: Obviously we're already operating on the notion that there are several problematic aspects of Rowling's books, but just in case it wasn't clear from my rather heavy-handed narrative adjustments--I do not support TERF extraordinaire JK Rowling; however, I refuse to let her shitty worldviews ruin my nostalgia or my love of the HP fandom I've grown up with. Just to make that clear.

Now my podfic history can be counted with one hand, with one finger, and it is this. I've been listening to this at the gym, and I'm on chapter 10 right now. I could be much further but as it happens to be I haven't been to the gym in a while so.. As far as what comes to the story itself, it's really good and intriguing. The southern small town vibes are vibing. I know it's gotten a lot of praise and I guess I need to hit the gym more often so I can finally finish it. I can't believe I'm at a point in my life where the only motivation to hit the gym is to listen to Harry Potter fanfiction. Not complaining though. The podfic is really good as well, I like the pacing and the narrators voice is pleasant. They do voices and different accents too, which I know is a subject that divides audiobook listeners, I personally really don't mind it, I think it's fun.

#hprecfest2023 #drarry #drarry fic rec #podfic #my rec

19 notes · View notes

jeannereames · 1 year

Note

Dr. Reames, do you think Alexandros really had megalomania?

Alexander and Megalomania

So many, many problems bubble up the minute one asks, “Was Alexander a megalomaniac?”

First, what does one mean by “megalomania”?

You might think that should be obvious. It’s not. It is, however, a good example of non-clinicians (historians or others) dabbling in pop-psychology, which I wish to hell they wouldn’t for reasons I outline in the first four pages of my article “The Mourning of Alexander” from Syllecta Classica back in 2000. The same thing leads people to decide Alexander “went crazy with grief” when Hephaistion died (he didn’t), or that he suffered from an Oedipus Complex (he didn’t), or even that he was a narcissist (he wasn’t).

Second, megalomania is not, itself, a diagnosis. It tends to be understood as narcissism, typically with manic elements, and/or part of a paranoid diagnosis.

Specific diagnostic criteria exist for narcissism (See below). But these criteria (unsurprisingly) are written for the modern world. That’s the second big problem.

His world and ours are quite different.

Additionally, the criteria are typically written for Joe Blow Average Person, and standard tests such as the MMPI* are notoriously problematic. As an older teacher of mine once pointed out, one of the MMPI questions then to indicate narcissism, “Do you think everyone is looking at you when you enter a room?” For most of us, the sensible answer is, “No.” But if you’re, say, Taylor Swift, the logical answer is, “Probably.”

If you’re Alexandros Philippou Makedonon, the answer is a definite, “Yes.”

Of course that’s just one question and one question does not produce a diagnosis, but you begin to see the problem.

Alexander was the KING around whom an entire court and army revolved. One of the modern short-hand descriptions of a narcissist (like, say, Trump) is that he acts as if he thinks he’s a king.

If you are the king, can that even apply?

Third, Alexander lived in a society that genuinely believed the gods got involved, at least occasionally, in the lives of mortals, even sometimes had children with mortals. Sure, a number of the intelligentsia elite questioned those notions, even made fun of them. And yes, Alexander was a student of Aristotle.

But he was also a child of a fairly Traditional, conservative, and religious culture. Macedonians believed their kings were descended from Herakles. They also believed their kings had a sacred duty to mediate between the gods and their subjects, on behalf of those subjects, via daily sacrifice as well as conducting multiple ceremonies and festivals throughout the year, as king.

Alexander took that responsibility so seriously, he continued to make sacrifices—after he could do little else—until he literally couldn’t get out of bed or be cognizant enough to perform them.

He believed he was special because his people believed he was special, as a Temenid/Argead, and he heard that from the time he could toddle.

Nor was modesty or humility a virtue in ancient Greece or Macedonia. That’s a pretty post-Christian notion. Hubris was a real fear, for which reason boasting needed to be moderated—and Alexander was critiqued for being too boastful even in antiquity—but we must take care with how we believe they “ought” to think or act. Furthermore, critique of Alexander’s hubris comes largely from later writers under Rome, who had somewhat different notions of proper behavior. For them, especially the Stoics, one topos about Alexander was the mad tyrant, who was a slave to his passions, so they exaggerated what he did do, and made up other stuff whole cloth.

Fourth, we can’t trust some of our evidence, especially when it comes to anecdotal stories, which a lot of folks try to utilize in order to make various diagnoses. Are these stories things he actually did, things people claimed he did, or just things somebody thought he ought to have done or said? If you don’t believe that could happen, I invite you to run a quick Google search on “Alexander the Great + quotes.” The whole lion/sheep quote found EVERYdamnwhere? He never said it. Not in any ancient source. But it’s become so embedded that I had a fight with the scriptwriters for the documentary on which I was historical consultant because they tried to use it. I think it still wound up in the final because they cared more that he “ought” to have said it than that he did. (poetic license)

You see the problem there, right? What you think he “ought” to have said may not be at all what he said, or even what somebody else thinks he ought to have said.

There was no little disagreement, even in antiquity, about what Alexander was really like.

For that very reason, we must be wary of the moralizing, editorializing, and thematic goals of the ancient historians writing about him. By Roman imperial times, Alexander had become an object lesson as much as a real historical figure. Where IS the “real” Alexander behind all of that?

So, with all these caveats, what does the DSM V list as diagnostic criteria? And keep in mind, one must have over half (e.g., 5+ of the 9). I’m going to strike through and put in green those criteria I don’t think can be supported. I’ll put in blue criteria that seem to be true, but can be explained by both his status and cultural expectations. I’ll put in red things that seem to be true. And I’ll put in purple things we have no way of actually knowing. After each, I give a short explanation.

Also, let me say that I’m considering Alexander post-Gaugamela only, after his phenomenal successes.

A grandiose sense of self-importance: e.g., exaggerates achievements, expects to be recognized as superior without actually completing the achievements (Dude totally did most everything he claimed to have done, then went looking to top that.)

Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (I’m really of mixed mind here, as, again, his position in society and the success of his father almost required him to attempt amazing stuff. Because, of course. But compared to other Macedonian kings, he did seem to have a big Romantic bone.)

Believing that they are "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people or institutions (He’s a king—of course he hung out with other courtiers, and as time went on, demands on his time increased to the point that access to the king had to be limited; he still interacted, at least sometimes, with the average soldier.)

Requiring excessive admiration (Does seem to have been true, especially when drunk)

A sense of entitlement: unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations (Again, he’s a king and a military general; of course he expects people to take his orders)

Being interpersonally exploitative; taking advantage of others to achieve their own ends (While in many ways he doesn’t fulfill this, I’m still tagging it because he did exploit his army to achieve fame for himself, and got angry when they called him on it at various points. So that’s not just a modern reading of him.)

Lacking empathy unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others (He seemed to show unusual sympathy for others even when he didn’t have to, although their relative status mattered.)

Often being envious of others or believing that others are envious of them (Expressing envy/competition as a form of admiration was a cultural “thing” in ancient Greece, so it’s half purple, half blue. It’s hard to say if he were any worse than one would expect given his successes.)

Showing arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes (If Plutarch can be believed, he adjusted his expectations for his audience and what they needed a king to be…except when he was drunk, then he got arrogant.)

So, we’re left with three probably/possibly accurate criteria. Another three that can be explained just by who he was, and what he could expect from others because of who he was. At least one we can't really know, and two more that don't apply.

One of the “don't apply”—a lack of empathy—is important to a diagnosis of narcissism, btw. If he has a few, but not that one…I’m gonna go with “not a narcissist.” Especially when the three he does display can be explained otherwise.

It’s much easier to understand Alexander as a product of ancient Greco-Macedonian culture and religion, as well as a victim of his own unbelievable success.

We need to STOP trying to hang modern psychological terms on him. Or at least, not until somebody invents a time-machine and can whisk him from the past, plop him on a clinician’s couch, and ask him a bunch of diagnostic questions—properly moderated for who he was and what he accomplished.

—————

*MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Indicator, one of several standardized tools employed to help diagnose clients/patients. Issues with it have been raised many times, ranging from socio-economic, to cultural/racial/sexist, to its uselessness with certain select populations, and the limited pool of the original sample group. In short, it has limited usage and should never replace analysis by trained clinicians. It might could serve as a starting place.

#Alexander the Great #ancient Greece #ancient Macedonia #modern psychology and ancient figures #narcissism #megalomania #stop trying to psychoanalyze dead people #especially people who've been dead a really long time in very difference societies #asks

27 notes · View notes

stop-making-investment-jokes · 4 months

Text

okay I’ve seen soooo many investment jokes recently and I thought the fandom was mainly over this by now. if you can’t even bother to read this, clearly tiktok’s snappy short form content videos have ruined your brain’s attention span.

one of the primary issues within grishaverse fandom spaces is the excessive overdone jokes about inej being kaz’s investment. the reason why claiming a brown girl was ~romantically~ bought by someone with the expectation of making them money is bad should not be so hard to recognise and understand but I guess fandom culture really is that shitty, so

1) the joke is undeniably dehumanising and objectifying in general, but with inej’s history of being sex trafficked as a child (being continuously raped, beaten and having her identity and humanity stripped away) having the fandom make a joke both about kaz profiting off her as well as reducing her to a funny side joke about kaz’s “bad endearment terms” is especially distasteful. furthermore, the jokes perpetuate harmful lightheartedness about individuals who have survived exploitation. this lightheartedness contributes to the stigmatisation, misunderstanding and lack of empathy about real-world issues related to human trafficking and human exploitation and the severity of it. it’s essential to recognize that these jokes can deeply reinforce damaging notions and that yes, your “stupid funny text post” calling inej an investment is consequential and it is “that deep.”

2) if you genuinely think that kaz called inej an investment as a term of affection you have a terrible reading comprehension and terrible understanding of the contextual factors within this scene and should probably get off booktok. as well as severely discrediting both inej and kaz as characters.

while carrying inej, who is currently bleeding out in his arms, seconds after nearly witnessing her kill herself and trying to keep her awake and conversing with him, kaz says a shitty joke about protecting his investments to intentionally annoy her. this was not meant to be romantic or cute and I’m certain that it was the furthest thing on his might at that moment. while it didn’t appear to bother her at first, this caused inej severe emotional distress while she was kidnapped and nearly tortured in the next book, seeing as she thought she was nothing to kaz but an investment and that he wouldn’t come and save her. this is, evidently, challenged and explored in the book with kaz acknowledging what he said was unacceptable and reassuring inej that he would always come for her and that she is important and respected as a person. it was still necessary to the plot of the book for this all to occur but in no way is it a thing to romanticise.

I…should not have had to say this but yeah.

3) the ingrained misogynistic trend of treating women and girls as anything other than human beings in fandom spaces is perceptible in almost every aspect of their fandom characterisations. think of the way internet people with internalised sexism refer to their female characters with short, overused, female-oriented phrases like “mother” “girlboss” or “knife wife” rather then any kind of meaningful take like the thought and nuance in which they extend to their male faves, or any other similar example. this itself is problematic enough with the way we talk about women and girls (as well as infantilising trans men and gender non conforming people), but characters like inej or lucy carlyle from lockwood and co are constantly and repeatedly called assets and investments and objects on top of that and it’s not normal.

anyway please please stop making investment jokes about inej ghafa. it’s horrible and dehumanising. I’m so tired.

#stop making investment jokes #inej is not an object #inej ghafa #kaz brekker #kanej #kaz x inej #six of crows #crooked kingdom #grishaverse #leigh bardugo #anti tiktok #anti booktok #prostitution tw #rape tw #sex trafficking tw

5 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 9 months

Text

News Flash ⚡

Paper discussing the cultural exclusion criteria

From distress to disease: a critique of the medicalisation of possession in DSM-5

A paper out of New Delhi, India, discusses the application of the cultural exclusion to instances of possession in Kerala, South India. To do this, it clearly explains the cultural exclusion, and it should be required reading for everyone.

Important quotes below the cut

Despite DSM-5’s recognition that not all possession states are pathological, the categorisation of possession-form DID is problematic as the DSM-5 reduces possession to a binary of culturally acceptable and pathological possession. This reductionist and unidimensional understanding of possession differs from the anthropologists’ observations of the ambivalent, porous and malleable nature of possession.

The DSM-5 has made some changes to the previous possession and trance disorder and categories possession under DID, emphasising that culturally appropriate possession states can be distinguished from possession-form DID (APA 2013, 295). ... Despite introducing the classification of culturally acceptable possession states, the problem of universalising and standardising possession states and experiences are far from resolved as possession states are now posited in a binary of pathological versus culturally acceptable states. This formulation still does not consider the cultural basis on which possession was constituted. ... In other words, the DSM-5 categorisation provides a singular, static and linear understanding of possession with cultural factors seen as only impacting the aforementioned understanding (forms, identities, places of manifestation. etc.). It does not however, provide scope for an alternative categorisation itself. To engage with these ideas further, it is essential to first understand classification of possession in the DSM-5.

The DSM-5 distinguishes between culturally accepted possession and possession-form DID stating, ‘Possession-form DID can be distinguished from culturally accepted possession states in that former is involuntary, distressing, uncontrollable and often recurrent or persistent, involves conflict between the individual and his or her surrounding family, social, or work milieu; and is manifested at times and in places that violate the norms of the culture or religion’ (APA 2013, 295). Through this distinction the DSM differentiates between possession as a disorder and possession as culturally acceptable, emphasising that the former is involuntary, distressing and uncontrollable. However, as the experiences of possessed individuals and their families at the Chottanikkara temple illustrate, such a distinction is problematic for a number of reasons, primarily because the various types of possession may appear similar at first. The ‘acceptable possession states’ (APA 2013, 295) thus are not initially distinct from the presumed pathological ones either in the time or place that they occur, or in the control over one’s manifestation.

This brings us to the second point of contention with the DSM categorisation, namely, the notion of cultural acceptance, wherein the DSM specifically terms possession in the non-DID form as culturally acceptable possession. ... The cultural acceptance of different kinds of possession is significant for it allows possessed individuals to heal within a temple space where there is an acceptance of possession.

Recognising the multiplicity of possession indicates that the distinctions made between voluntary and involuntary possession, distressing and non-distressing forms of possession are limiting in that the distinctions may not be present, at least in the initial phase of manifestation, and very often may not be clearly demarcated throughout the course of healing.

The final point of contention with the DSM categorisation of possession is the association of possession-form DID with ‘typical behaviours and actions’. In other words, it is possible that the individual does not manifest his/her possession and may exhibit no signs typically seen at the temple. Given the emphasis on the manifestation, would such a condition of non-manifestation/lack of typical behaviours be seen as possession-form DID or would it be seen as culturally acceptable? While the DSM does not engage with this question, it is significant in terms of healing from possession.

#A SASSY NEWS FLASH #syscourse #resources #cultural exclusion #it's not for endos #DID #OSDD

14 notes · View notes

dumbnerdyfart · 4 months

Text

Is Starbucks really sending money to Israel?

I understand that so many people have been concerned over the welfare of Palestinian citizens and whether or not specific companies are supporting the wrong cause, but has anyone actually checked for credibility? I always see people claiming that Starbucks has specifically sent money to the Israeli Government but they never have proof to support those claims.

If you take a few moments to look up whether or not this is true there's a lot of evidence that actually supports the opposite.

In an article dating back to 2014 by "Starbucks Stories", neither Howard Shultz (Former Company President) or the company itself have claimed or been proven to have spent any money regarding political climate or warfare.

Upon being asked: "Is it true that Starbucks or Howard Schultz provides financial support to Israel?" the reply was,

"No. This is absolutely untrue. Rumors that Starbucks or Howard provides financial support to the Israeli government and/or the Israeli Army are unequivocally false. Starbucks is a publicly held company and as such, is required to disclose any corporate giving each year through a proxy statement."

Additionally any rise of hate towards the company allegedly stems from a now-deleted "X" post and the fact the company had sued its union for publicly standing with Palestine. I personally do not find this as a means to cause an uprise and boycott, though, because the company has stated that they are not affiliated with anything political nor do they interact with issues of that nature. Realistically, the Starbucks Union posting of their stance on a government issue was most likely a breach of contract or company policy regarding their disdain for "political matters".

Sara Kelly, executive vice president for the company said:

"We strongly disagree with the views expressed by Workers United, including its local affiliates, union organizers and those who identify as members of 'Starbucks Workers United' -- none of these groups speak for Starbucks Coffee Company and do not represent our company's views, positions, or beliefs,"

Again, this isn't necessarily a means to provoke a boycott. If she were to openly speak out for or against any government issue, especially as a world-wide company, this could cause many problems, such as loosing money and buissiness partners, which may be selfish to the public eye but financial disputes between companies and keeping the company afloat is probably more important than responding to the general public's accusations.

Also, the company is ran by so many different people all of whom share their own beliefs.

Sarah Kelly also stated:

“As a leadership team, we want to again express our deepest sympathy for those who have been killed, wounded, displaced and impacted following the heinous acts of terror, escalating violence and hate against the innocent in Israel and Gaza this week. Starbucks unequivocally condemns acts of hate, terrorism and violence,”

Starbucks stands against violence and with the innocent people being harmed. The boycott should be called off, as the evidence stating the company does not support Israel heavily outweighs what does say they support Israel.

I think that the boycott should be called off under the notion "innocent until proven guilty" and that people should stop attacking others for buying from the company; also don't join the bandwagon and believe everything you see on TikTok...

I wold write a more in-depth debunk but class is almost over. And, I feel like I may sound like a very problematic person but if I'm going to be honest I felt like I had to clear the air around this controversy as a freshly-turned 16-year-old who needs a job (there aren't very many choices for me). I personally only want for the bloodshed to stop and do not side with either or any government.

SOURCES

https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2014/facts-about-starbucks-in-the-middle-east/

https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/08/news/companies/starbucks-israel/index.html

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/13/business/starbucks-israel-palestine-workers/index.html

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/companies-starbucks-mcdonalds-face-controversy-amid-israel-hamas/story?id=104219615

#politics #starbucks #israel #palestine #discussion

3 notes · View notes

whoreviewswho · 3 months

Text

Wokeness, Responsibility and if RTD is problematic - The Regeneration Question and Davros with Legs

Is Russell T. Davies a problematic figure? Is he too woke or not aware enough? Is he doing something wrong to illicit negative responses from the progressives as well as the conservatives? Is it something in the programme, something in the marketing or is he doing nothing particularly bad at all? Well, perhaps you and I, faithful reader, can come to some sort of conclusion. Let's find out together as we take a dive into the controversial choices behind RTD2 and the mind of the man behind them.

At the end of 2022's The Power of the Doctor, Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor regenerates into her fourteenth body, the same as her tenth incarnation as played by David Tennant. Taken on face value, the scene is innocuous enough. Just a standard regeneration with the surprise appearance of the most popular (sorry Tom) Doctor Who ever for our next story instead of the expected Ncuti Gatwa.

Except, there was something else unusual - the Doctor's clothes regenerated with her. With the sole exception of the very first regeneration (which can be excused as a relic from before the 'rules' were decided upon), this is without precedent* and was clearly supposed to mean something. After all, Russell thinks. He is a clever man and he would never do something as bold as this without there being a reason.

Well, yes. There was a reason but a lot of fans were dismayed to learn that the reason was not built into the narrative but a consequence of real life. In DWM 584, these comments from Davies were published;

“I was certain that I didn’t want David to appear in Jodie’s costume. I think the notion of men dressing in ‘women’s clothes’, the notion of drag, is very delicate. I’m a huge fan of that culture and the dignity of that, it’s truly a valuable thing. But it has to be done with immense thought and respect. With respect to Jodie and her Doctor, I think it can look like mockery when a straight man wears her clothes. To put a great big six-foot Scotsman into them looks like we’re taking the mickey. Also, I guarantee you it’s the only photograph some of the papers would print for the rest of time. If they can play with gender in a sarcastic or critical way, they will.”

Unsurprisingly, this choice became a not insignificant talking point in the fandom in the weeks following. A particularly articulate thread was posted by tess owen’s #1 fan || (i still love you yaz dw), @_mag_lex, on November 10, 2022 summarised the discussion well when she said;

"I don’t understand how DT wearing 13’s outfit is a mockery of drag, given that it’s deliberately and definitively gender-neutral. Anyone who watches and cares about the show understands that. I also don’t understand the logic of pandering to bigots rather than catering to fans [....] You’re telling me that Doctor Who is now scared to push boundaries. That’s what this says to me. But sci fi is all about pushing boundaries. Opening minds. Why are we limited by things like this? I’m so sad."

The stance from RTD does not seem in and of itself confused. He made the decision to avoid showing a man in clothes designed for a woman based on a potential, and what he saw as a likely, media reaction. The mention of tabloids and newspapers is revealing, of course. He is a boomer. Terminology aside, though, I would agree that depicting a man in women's clothes opens the door to ridicule from the anti-woke crowd in a way that not showing it wouldn't. And, yes, they are women's clothes. With all due respect to everybody who claims otherwise, I don't think the refute that Jodie's costume is designed to be genderless really holds any water. The costume designed by Ray Holman and inspired by Jodie Whittaker's suggestion is not inherently feminine but the shape and cut and final choices were made with her, a cis woman, in mind as the wearer.

Now, what does hold some amount of water is the context of the rest of the episode. Approximately 44 minutes before David Tennant appears in his all new costume, Sacha Dhawan's Master can be seen wearing Whittaker's complete costume and he continues to for several minutes following. It is at this juncture where our second comment from Hagan feels appropriate;

"[In reference to David Tennant wearing Jodie Whittaker's costume] Dude's heart's in the right place but his head's in the fucking clouds half the time." - November 10, 2022

What many have noted, Hagan included, is that RTD inadvertently suggests here that the Master, the villain, being seen in clothes intended for someone other than of his assigned gender is perfectly acceptable but to see our leading hero in this way is something to avoid. Without the full context of the quote, we appear to have RTD shying away from doing something opposed to UK's cultural and societal norms regarding gender rather than being openly proud of the juxtaposition; we have just witnessed a gender transition which is another day in the office for our hero.

Then again, if one never came across RTD's comments in the first place, would there be as much reason to be bothered by the decision at all? Certainly, there is the valid feeling of disappointment that would have come from many fans about never seeing Whittaker's male successor in her clothes but, prior to the statement, I saw less of that online than I did excitement. Most viewers seemed to reasonably assume from the way the scene plays out that the choice to regenerate the clothes would have some bearing on the plot in future events. It stands to reason that the Doctor regenerating their clothes and regaining an old face are related. Well, we know now that they were not, at least not on-screen.

They are related in the real world but, alas, in a very perfunctory way. As I am sure RTD was well aware, the clip of Jodie turning back into David was a very popular moment and even named TV Moment of the Year at the Edinburgh TV Awards. Most significantly, the costume from the previous era was not the one seen all over the media.

So, knowing that the costume change would not be addressed in his scripts, RTD addressed it himself in what some might call a flagrant display of moral hubris. Again, the sentiment of 'let's not give queerphobes ammunition' is in no way a problematic one but the optics of forever binding that decision to an episode that makes no display at all of the villain dressed in women's clothes are not so great and a little baffling. It is almost as if RTD had no idea what even went on in the story he was picking up from. As others such as Hagan have pointed out, there is also the notable matter of the Master as written by RTD who was last seen wearing women's clothes in multiple instances during The End of Time. While it his unfair to say his choices in 2009 and choices in 2022 directly reflect each other, it still contributes to an awkward feeling and some bad optics.

RTD refused to give ammunition to queerphobes so he handed the fans a loaded gun and asked them to point it at him. It sounds almost noble but was it truly necessary? He could have said nothing for a much lesser reaction. In that case, nobody would have questioned his equating the art of drag performance with just men in women's clothes. This is the first of several examples in what I am attesting to be 'pre-emptive damage control'; cases of RTD identifying where audiences might have a problem and then going well out of his way to ensure that they don't at the very real risk of drawing attention to problems that may not have even been there in the first place. Or, at least, not in the way that he is envisioning. I am not refuting the suggestion that media outlets would have made jokes out of Tennant in a woman's clothes. That seems like a very real possibility. For RTD, it seems that the potential harm from that outweighed any potential strength that could be gained from depicting it in the first place. Is the best outcome for queer Doctor Who fans the one where the show seems to take no pride in depicting aspects of queer culture or make any attempt to own that choice at all?

A similar situation occurred a little over twelve months later with the premiere of, of all things, a Children in Need sketch. On November 17 2024, Destination: Skaro was broadcast in the UK and, eight days out from RTD2 kicking off proper, it was audience's first glimpse into what might be in store with David Tennant's Fourteenth Doctor and perhaps the general flavour of the era. At time of writing, the latter seems a little too soon to say though the nature of the short obviously lends it to being more comedic than a typic Who episode. Something that did become clear though was that the outspoken, socially-conscious thinking that informed the previous year's regeneration scene showed no signs of disappearing.

Destination: Skaro surprised fans with the unexpected return of Julian Bleach in the role of Davros. The scene took place on the titular planet during the early stages of Dalek development and saw the Doctor accidentally influence the Daleks' design. The short was immediately notable for depicting Davros as fully-abled, not wheelchair bound or in any way disfigured. Prior to any statement from RTD regarding the choice, fans like myself appeared to conclude that this scene must be intended to take place prior to all of Davros' other appearances. Hs debut, Genesis of the Daleks, makes it clear that his chair is a life-support system and the Daleks seen there are all fully designed. So this is a prequel to the 1975 story. Easy enough to accept. But, then, RTD said this in an episode of Doctor Who Unleashed:

"We had long conversations about bringing Davros back, because he's a fantastic character, [but] time and society and culture and taste has moved on. And there's a problem with the Davros of old in that he's a wheelchair user, who is evil. And I had problems with that. And a lot of us on the production team had problems with that, of associating disability with evil. And trust me, there's a very long tradition of this... I say, this is how we see Davros now, this is what he looks like. This is 2023. This is our lens. This is our eye. Things used to be black and white, they're not in black and white anymore, and Davros used to look like that and he looks like this now, and that we are absolutely standing by."

In my opinion, there is little to object to here. Associating disability with villainy is a longstanding, harmful trope of genre fiction and something that Doctor Who has indulged in innumerable times throughout its history. Given that this short was airing within a charity event for disadvantaged youth, the optics of the decision make a lot of sense. It was a good call for RTD to contribute to the conversation about disability in a positive way. For the most part, this alls seemed to go down quite well. What some fans objected to was what was said toward the end of his comments, specifically the suggestion that this is how Davros will be portrayed moving forward.

This was met with a polarised reaction in fans, including those who are wheelchair users. YouTuber Tharries, notable among many things for being one of RTD's inspirations to depict the TARDIS as having a ramp in The Giggle, posted his reaction on November 18, 2023;

"As a disabled Doctor who fan I've always felt somewhat conflicted on Davros as a character, much as I love him he does contribute to the longstanding disabled evil man trope so to see @russelldavies63 address that meant a lot."

Tharries remains an outspoken fan of RTD and strong advocate for disability representation in the show. On the other side, were fans such as Rob Keeley who remarked on November 19, 2023;

"I've been a wheelchair user all my life and a #DoctorWho fan since the 1993 Genesis of the Daleks repeat. I don't find #Davros offensive - he's a great character. What's offensive is treating all disabled people as the same, assuming we all automatically identify with one another."

Mind you, it is probably also worth repeating Keely's review of The Star Beast from November 26 that same year for a more complete context of the man's views;

"True there was nothing very new, I still hate casual bad language in Who and the woke resolution was rubbish, but it still felt like Doctor Who more than anything in a long time."

A common outcry of detractors was that a link was never made between Davros' evil qualities and his being disabled. Dav McKenzie writing for The Spoilist on November 2023 provides an articulate quote mounting this defence but, amusingly, fails to attribute it to anybody;

"Say goodbye to Davros, one of Doctor Who’s most enduring foes. RTD has decided Davros boils down to discrimination against the disabled. He is a war-scarred cripple who is a megalomaniacal genius. His disability does not define or even restrict him as he is one of the most dangerous Doctor Who villains ever. Thanks to RTD though Davros has no injuries and is not in a wheelchair any longer. Goodbye, Davros. We had a good 40 years."

This particular line of defence never sat well with me. It was only in 2015, after all, that we saw Davros as a fully-abled child with no signs of fascist or psychotic tendencies. That depiction leaves one with little room to refute that his path to evil is in entirely unrelated to his disability.

It remains difficult to find a consensus on fan opinion at the best of times but this particular situation seems to remain a huge unknown quantity. Perhaps it will become clearer when Davros next returns to the show, if RTD even intends to do that. What was clear was that Davies wanted to make a statement about disability representation in his Doctor Who, spearhead these values with a new take on Davros right before then debut of new supporting character, Shirley.

And, again, I feel that the same question needs to be asked; would this have been a lot better received if RTD let the work speak for itself? Did he have to make such a definitive statement in Unleashed when we could see in the work that he was making that he had a strong, intelligent disabled character and no longer leaned on disability for villainy? Yes, the statements are inviting conversation and critical thinking which is always good but is RTD just virtue signalling or actually inciting change? Or is he doing both?

To be continued in part two; Rose Noble and Trans Identities in RTD2

*Tom's boots not withstanding

3 notes · View notes