Avatar

The random ramblings of someone you don't know yet

@basicandmundane / basicandmundane.tumblr.com

Marianne / 35 / Europe I am me. I'm mostly a fandom blog with diverse tastes, but I reblog all sorts and post whatever the hell I feel like. Like my pets!

As someone recently diagnosed with ADHD as an adult, one thing that’s been helping me grapple with the intense shame I have over all my “wasted potential” is accepting that potential doesn’t exist and never did.

This sounds so harsh, but please bare with me.

I procrastinated a lot growing up. I still procrastinate today, but less so. And yet, I got good grades. I could write an A+ paper that “knocked [my professor]’s socks off” in the hour before class and print it with sweat running down my face.

I was so used to hearing from teachers and family that if I just didn’t procrastinate and worked all the time, I could do anything! I had all this potential I wasn’t living up to!

And that’s true, as far as it goes, but that’s like saying if Usain Bolt just kept going he could be the fastest marathon runner in the world. Why does he stop at the end of the race??

If ANYONE could make their top speed/most productive setting the one they used all the time, anyone could do anything. But you can’t. Your top speed is not a speed you’re able to sustain.

Now, I’ve found that I do need to work on not procrastinating. Not because the product is better, even, but because it’s better for my mental health and physical health to not have a full, sweating, panicked breakdown over every task even if the task itself turns out excellently. It’s a shitty way to live! You feel bad ALL the time! And I don’t deserve to live like that anymore.

So all of this to say, I’m not wasting a ton of potential. I don’t have an ocean of productivity and accomplishments inside of me that I could easily, effortlessly access if I just sat down 8 hours a day and worked. There’s no fucking way. That’s not real. It’s an illusion. It’s fine not to live up to an illusion.

And if you have ADHD, I mean this from the bottom of my heart: you do not have limitless potential confounded by your laziness. You have the good potential of a good person, and you can access it with practice and work, but do not accept the story that you are choosing not to be all that you are or can be. You are just a human person.

getting over the fear of being bad is so fucking hard… like, it’s literally a super power if you can start something and say ‘it doesn’t matter if it’s bad, it just matters that it exists’

‘bad’ is so terrifying, ‘bad’ is wrecking, and the ability to apply self-compassion to things deemed ‘bad’ is beyond amazing, to understand not everything in life will be ‘good’ and that’s okay

essays, art, novels, school, relationships, anyone out there starting things when they are terrified of the arbitrary metric of the result… I am so fucking proud of you, you are so brave and strong

keep starting new things, even if ‘bad’ is a possibility 

Wheel of Time Musing: The Problem of the Seanchan

I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the Seanchan and how the show can best address them. One of the interesting things about the Seanchan as a culture is that they’ve always been meant more or less to personify Empire: their a blending of basically every imperial power in history (mostly strongly Modern America, Victorian Britain, Renaissance Turkey, and Medieval China, but their are strong elements of post Republic Rome, Meji Japan, and Byzantium), and that comes with all the good and all the bad of the Empire. One of the most effecting parts of Path of Daggers, after being introduced to the Seanchan as this monstrous evil empire, and becoming personally and viscerally acquainted with the price of that empire in human suffering is that….we see inside the heads of a bunch of normal Seanchan citizens, who are either unaware or so desentized to the horrors that they can’t conceive of them as wrong.Most of the characters whose heads we see in side don’t care that much about the Empire’s expansit policies, or the horror of the damane/sul’dam system. Their just going about their lives, frustrated by their coworkers, and interested in seeing the sites of new cities, and sometimes even thinking about dogs back home that their missing. Their is a level of painful nuance that speaks to how well Jordan understood both systems and people, and I’m not sure how you bring that to screen especially when your already juggling so many balls. At least, not without simplifying characters and ideas.

I think a lot about that scene at the end of The Great Hunt, where Turak’s servants upon his death, rather then drawing their daggers and attacking Rand, instead take their own lives, reciting the motto of their caste: ‘from birth till death in service to the Blood’. Jordan understood how powerful cultural brainwashing can be, how painful and difficult unlearning it can be: we see this with the hard road Egeanin takes in the series, one in which she backslides often. It’s a hard topic to tackle, but it would be really worth exploring.

Thoughts of some of the big differences between books and the Wheel of Time show.

Book spoilers ho!

The Aes Sedai seem both less knowledgeable and powerful as an organization then on the books. The world in general seems to just know less. There's been no mention of the War of Power or the Bore. The Aes Sedai seem to have less understanding of the One Power. Even the Ogier seem to just know less. Also the lack of understanding of the Prophecies of the Dragon.

Maybe in this turning of the Wheel the Black Ajah and Ishmael were a lot more effective at just destroying information. Moiraine specifically mentions Dark Friends breaking into the White Tower's library and destroying stuff. Which is just an astonishing thing to have happen.

So that's what I'm going with right now. Ishmael used Destroy History Books and it was Super Effective!

This would make a lot of sense actually

Ok ok I know a lot of book readers are bummed about Lanaeve getting together so soon because it means there not as much of a slow burn and not enough angst and such... but I just want to say- they only “got together” when fully believing by hey would both die the next day. They thought this was their last night, WHICH MEANS they are not really together together. And when they survive their certain death, that is going to put them in an exceedingly difficult position.

These two are ridiculously duty bound. The scene between them makes that abundantly clear- their lives belong to their charges, to Moiraine, or to the Emonds Fielders. Warder, King, Wisdom, Healer... they set aside their duties for one night, believing it was the last chance they would ever have to do so. And look what happened! Lan failed to protect Moiraine, and Nynaeve failed to protect Rand. Their charges, people they feel wholly responsible for, ran off on a suicide mission with no warning and no backup. And that is absolutely going to drive them both to cling even harder to their duty than they were before! They will both see that night as a moment of weakness that mustn’t be repeated, and each will feel they must pull away from the other... However much it hurts them both.

Yes they may have kissed, they may have shared a night, but this slow burn is not even close to over yet. We have so so much angst coming our way, so many forces of the universe just itching to rip these two apart before they can find their way back together. So buckle up babes, it’s gonna be a long ride yet!

Can we praise the people involved with the Blood Snow fight sequence? Because it was so easy to watch and understand. Well lit, well shot, great stunts, great stunt actors, fantastically edited! Bravo all around

On the issue of the ‘q slur’...

So, yesterday, I got into a rather stupid internet argument with someone who was peddling what seemed to me to be a rather insidious narrative about slur-reclamation. Someone in the ensuing notes raised a point which I thought was interesting, and worrying, and probably needed to be addressed in it’s own post. So here we go:

The word ‘queer’ itself seems to be especially touchy for many, so let me begin to address this by way of analogy.

Instead of talking about “queer”, let’s start by talking about “Jew” - a word which I believe is very similar in its usage in some significant ways.

Now, the word “Jew” has been used as a derogatory term for literally hundreds of years. It is used both as a noun (eg. “That guy ripped me off - what a dirty Jew”) and as a verb (eg. “That guy really Jew-ed me”). These usages are deeply, fundamentally, horrifically offensive, and should be used under no circumstances, ever. And yet, I myself have heard both, even as recently as this past year, even in an urban location with plenty of Jews, in a social situation where people should have known better. In short – the word “Jew”, as it is used by certain antisemites, is – quite unambiguously – a slur. Not a dead slur, not a former slur – and active, living slur that most Jews will at some point in their life encounter in a context where the term is being used to denigrate them and their religion. 

Now here’s the thing, though: I’m a Jew. I call myself a Jew. I prefer that all non-Jews call me a Jew – so do most Jews I know. “Jew” is the correct term for someone who is part of the religion of Judaism, the same way that “Muslim” is the correct term for someone who is part of the religion of Islam, and “Christian” is the correct term for someone who is part of the religion of Christianity. 

In fact, almost all of the terms that non-Jews use to avoid saying “Jew” (eg. “a member of the Jewish persuasion”, “a follower of the Jewish faith”, “coming from a Jewish family”, “identifying as part of the Jewish religion”, etc) are deeply offensive, because these terms imply to us that the speaker sees the term “Jew” (and by extension, what that term stands for) as a dirty word.

“BUT WAIT” – I hear you say – “didn’t you just say that Jew is used as a slur?!?”

Yes. Yes, I did. And also, it is fundamentally offensive not to call us that, because it is our name and our identity.

Let me back up a little bit, and bring you into the world of one of those 2000s PSAs about not using “that’s so gay”. Think of some word that is your identity – something which you consider to be a fundamental and intrinsic part of yourself. It could be “female” or “male”, or “Black” or “white”, “tall” or “short”, “Atheist” or “Mormon” or “Evangelical” – you name it.

Now imagine that people started using that term as a slur.

“What a female thing to do!” they might say. “That teacher doesn’t know anything, he’s so female!”

Or maybe, “Yikes, look at that idiot who’s driving like an atheist. It’s so embarrassing!”

Or perhaps, “Oh gross, that music is so Black, turn it off!”

Now, what would you say if the same groups of people who had been saying those things for years turned around and avoided using those words to describe anything other than an insult?

“Oh, so I see you’re a member of the female persuasion!”

“Is he… a follower of the atheist beliefs? Like does he identify as part of the community of atheist-aligned individuals?”

“So, as a Black-ish identified person yourself – excuse me, as a person who comes from a Black-ish family…”

Here’s the fundamental problem with treating all words that are used as slurs the same, without any regard for how they are used and how they developed – not all slurs are the same.

No one, and I mean no one (except maybe for a small handful of angsty teens who are deliberately making a point of being edgy) self-identifies as a kike. In contrast, essentially all Jews self-identify as Jews. And when non-Jews get weird about that identity on the grounds that “Jew is used as a slur”, despite the fact that it is the name that the Jewish community as a whole resoundingly identifies with, what they are basically saying is that they think that the slur usage is more important than the Jewish community self-identification usage. They are saying, in essence, “we think that your name should be a slur.” 

Now, at the top I said that the word “Jew” and the word “queer” had some significant similarities in terms of their usage, and I think that’s pretty apparent if you look at what people in those communities are saying about those terms. When American Jews were being actively threatened by neo-Nazis in the 70s, the slogan of choice was “For every Jew a .22!″. When the American Queer community was marching in the 90s in protest of systemic anti-queer violence, the slogan of choice was “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” Clearly, these are terms that are used by the communities themselves, in reference to themselves. Clearly, these terms are more than simply slurs.

But while there are useful similarities between how the terms “Jew” and “Queer” are used by bigots and by their own communities, I’d also like to point out that there is pretty substantial and important difference:

Unlike for “queer”, there is no organized group of Jewish antisemites who are using the catchphrase “Jew is a slur!” in order to selectively silence and disenfranchise Jews who are part of minority groups within Judaism. 

This is the real rub with the term queer – no one was campaigning about it being a slur until less than a decade ago. No one was saying that you needed to warn for the word queer when queer people were establishing the academic discipline of queer studies. No one was ‘think of the children”-ing the umbrella term when queer activists were literally marching for their lives. Go back to even 2010 and the term “q slur” would have been basically unparseable – if I saw someone tag something “q slur”, like most queer people I would have wracked my brains trying to figure out what slur even started with q, and if I learned that it was supposed to be “queer”, my default assumption would be that the post was made by a well-meaning but extremely clueless straight person.

I literally remember this shift – and I remember who started it. Exclusionists didn’t like the fact that queer was an umbrella term. Terfs (or radfems as they like to be called now) didn’t like that queer history included trans history; biphobes and aphobes didn’t like that the queer community was also a community to bisexuals and asexuals. And so what could they possibly say, to drive people away from the term that was protecting the sorts of queer people that they wanted to exclude?

Well, naturally, they turned to “queer is a slur.”

And here’s the thing – queer is a slur, just like Jew is a slur, and no one is denying that. And that fact makes “queer is a slur so don’t use it” a very convincing argument on the surface: 1) queer is still often used as a slur, and 2) you shouldn’t ever use slurs without carefully tagging and warning people about them (and better yet, you should never use them at all), and so therefore 3) you need to tag for “the q slur” and you need to warn people not to call the community “the queer community” or it’s members “queer people” or its study “queer studies” – because it’s a slur!

But the crucial step that’s missing here is exactly the same one above, for the word “Jew” – and that step is that not all slurs are the same. When a term is both used as a slur and used as a self-identity term, then favoring the slur meaning instead of the identity meaning is picking the side of the slur-users over the disadvantaged group! 

If you say or tag “q slur” you are sending the message, whether you realize it or not, that people who use “queer” as a slur are more right about its meaning than those who use it as their identity. Tagging for “queer” is one thing. People can filter for “queer” if it triggers them, just like people can filter for anything else. Not everyone has to personally use the term queer, or like the term queer. But there is no circumstance where the term “q slur” does not indicate that you think queer is more of a slur than of an accurate description of a community.

If I, as a Jew, ever came across a post where someone had warned for innocent, positive, non-antisemitic content relating to Judaism with the tag “J slur”, I would be incensed. So would any Jew. The act of tagging a post “J slur” is in and of itself antisemitic and offensive.

Queer people are allowed to feel the same about “q slur”. It is not a neutral warning term – it is an attack on our identity.

This entire post really resonated with me. Especially the part where you say:

“When a term is both used as a slur and used as a self-identity term, then favoring the slur meaning instead of the identity meaning is picking the side of the slur-users over the disadvantaged group!

If you say or tag “q slur” you are sending the message, whether you realize it or not, that people who use “queer” as a slur are more right about its meaning than those who use it as their identity.