functional corruption

Remember when painful emotions like fear, anger, and hate were seen as natural and as the appropriate reactions to bad things? Yeah, me neither. Because apparently at some point in cultural history there came along some Yoda-people, who started to shame these emotions as sins, and on the other hand you got Sith-people, who instrumentalised them as weapons to corrupt people. 
No one ever tells you “I hope you’re very angry, because this is outrageous.” You get told to be strong, to see the positive, to be brave. They shove “light and love” down your throat and no one ever even acknowledges that maybe your negative reaction is healthy and sane.
So you start feeling guilty and ashamed for natural things, for being human; you repress them, until they eat you up alive. And the best thing is that when you’ve turned into a monster, they’ll say: “Oh, there wasn’t enough love and light in them.
—  INFP thoughts

Before you ever again rely on Wikipedia for health information, watch Sharyl Attkisson’s University of Nevada TEDx talk “Astroturf and manipulation of media messages.”

So, I’ve been thinking. Naruto goes on and on about how Sasuke is ‘in the darkness’ (at least until he becomes a good little pawn of the system), and the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it wasn’t actually the other way around. Sasuke saw the system for what it was–a corrupt, abusive beast that could only function by being corrupt and abusive and might well fall apart if it ever stopped being those things–and he was the only one who saw it for what it was. He was the only one who saw that the system was intrinsically abusive, and that it needed to go. That doesn’t sound like someone who was ‘in the darkness.’ To me, Sasuke sounds like he was the only one who saw the light. It was everyone else in Konoha who was in darkness, the darkness of accepting a corrupt system of power as right and good and making life hell for anyone who didn’t toe the line. Konoha was in the darkness, and in forcing Sasuke to accept things as they were, they dragged him down into the dark with them.

Welcome to the MBTI community! Crash course in how to not make dumb Enneagram mistakes

Enneagram - the types.

Enneagram has 9 different types based on fundamental fears which makes them easier to define than functions.

1 - fears being corrupt or bad. Tends to be perfectionist/critical.

2 - fears being unloved. Tends to provide for others.

3 - fears being worthless. Tends to want (and strive for) recognition.

4 - fears having no identity. Tends to be very self-expressive.

5 - fears being incompetent. Tends to want to master intellectual pursuits.

6 - fears lack of guidance. Tends to be risk-averse, but see below.

7 - fears pain and deprivation. Tends to seek out pleasure.

8 -fears being controlled. Tends to seek out freedom and self-sufficiency.

9 - fears lack of harmony. Tends to promote mediation and cooperation.

There’s also a specific type of 6 called counter-phobic, who fear being afraid and may actively seek out risk. They often look kind of like 8s. The type of 6 above is sometimes called phobic.

6 is the only type with phobic/counterphobic types.

Enneagram - the wings

You have one wing, and it’s one of the numbers next to your main type. If you’re type 1 or 9, then one of your wings is 9 or 1 (respectively) - imagine the numbers going around in a circle. It means that your type leans a little towards the wing, so for example a 7w6 would seek out pleasure, as would a 7w8, but the 7w6 would do so with a little more caution and the 7w8 would do so with a little more agression.

You can’t have a wing that’s not next to your main type. They must be consecutive (or in the case of 1 or 9, adjacent on the circle) numbers.

You can’t have both wings.

Enneagram - the tritype

You can split the types up into three subgroups:

Gut: 8, 9, 1

Heart: 2, 3, 4

Head: 5, 6, 7.

You have one, and only one type within each group. Your main type is one of those types; pick the one from each of the other groups that fits you best.

You can’t have two types from the same group in your tritype.

An example:

Let’s say you’re the 7 from the previous section, and you’re 7w8. 7 is a head type so your tritype also needs one gut and one heart type.

Your Gut type might be 8. It might not be! It doesn’t have to match your wing necessarily though often it does. For the sake of this example let’s say it is 8, rather than 9 or 1 (also valid).

Your Heart type is 2, 3, or 4 It could be any of those, but let’s say it’s 3. This makes your type 738 (or 783). Your main type (often called your fix) is listed first, but the other two can be in either order. Often people order them based on what they think is stronger.

You can figure out the wings of your tritype types too. Same wing rules apply.

Enneagram - the instinctual variants.

Sx is sexual and is focused on one-on-one relationships (not necessarily actual sexual relationships).

Sp is self-preservation and is focused on basic needs and security.

So is social and is based on group/community dynamics.

Put these in the order in which you value them. Usually people just use the first two since the third is then apparent. They may refer to themselves or others as having a ‘blind spot’ based on that third, weakest variant. For example, let’s say you’re Sx/So/Sp. You’d write this as Sx/So, and be ‘Sp blind’ or have an ‘Sp blindspot’.

Enneagram - integration/disintegration

This just refers to an idea that your main type (fix) can look like another type under stress (disintegration) or when you are secure and well-developed (integration).

Check out the wikipedia page’s Enneagram table, or another Enneagram resource to get the integration/disintegration types for your type. As an example, an integrated 7 will look like a (healthy) 5, and a disintegrated 7 will look like an (unhealthy) 1.

redacted-metallum  asked:

You've mentioned previously that minicons and minibots are biologically distinct. Care to elaborate on this?

Time to finally tackle this!

To start with, Minibot isn’t so much an actual classification as it is a general term for any Cybertronian under a certain size class- it’s more colloquial but anybody under about Bumblebee’s height would be considered a minibot. Now, Minicons, who are something of a sub-species of the common Cybertronian, are all in the “Minibot” size range- so you could see it like this

((A brief aside on my explanation of the -bot and -con suffixes as translated from cybertronian - due to translation issues (TELETRAAN-1 IS TRYING SO HARD YOU GUYS BUT CYBERTRONIAN DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO ENGLISH WELL) the baseline is set at “Autobot” and “Decepticon” - the -bot suffix really is meant as a generic term to indicate Cybertronians in general, and Autobots is a term that in Cybertronian is roughly “The Followers of Autonomous” or “The Autonomous” because they were created by Autonomous Prime and true enough their general vibe was “you do you, whatever”.

For Decepticons, the -con suffix is a less generic suffix that would’ve indicated deliberately something lower-classed, generally used to indicate cold-constructed but also possible to be applied to, well, anybody who wasn’t considered a proper “person” under Functionism. It was considered an informal term but it quickly gained legal classification, and the Decepticon movement took that and ran with it, reclaiming it as a source of pride and defiance.

Minicons are given the -con suffix because under Functionism they were classed as “support” or “tools” and generally got the short end of the stick, but the designation of Minicon does not indicate Decepticon nor Autobot alliance, but rather biological frametype.))

Okay back to the actual question.

There’s actually a significant gray area between simply being a “Minibot” who is a general Cybertronian and a “Minicon”, because even on Cybertron things tend to be messy and despite functionism’s best efforts- individuals often wouldn’t fit into neat boxes to be sorted out.

So for someone to be classed as a Minicon they generally need to fill the following three qualifiers

  1. Significantly in the small-minibot size range. Minicons generally are under three meters tall in rootmode, and the smallest Cybertronians are Minicons (being maybe two or so feet tall). ((There are other species of Cybertronian life that are not considered Cybertronians that can get smaller but heck I need to keep this somewhat manageable))

  2. Multiple altmodes - Minicons have at least both a rootmode and an altmode, as well as an additional altmode designed to work in tandem with another mechanism- (which leads us to our third qualifier…)

  3. The ability to powerlink. Or powerlinx. Could be spelled either way I doubt the giant robots will care. Powerlinking is a capability (not to be confused with combining) that allows Cybertronians to bond together physically, boosting their power and/or giving them new or enhanced abilities.

Now, because functionism was a corrupt mess these classifications didn’t always apply- and could be determined also by social class and frametype on top of all this, but we’ll try to ignore that and go with these rules for now. After all, the Functionists and Loyalists are long gone, and can get slagged.

Here’s some examples we can work through-

Prowl and Flamewar are both minibots (Flamewar is probably standing on a box because she’s really only like 4.5 feet or so tall, and Prowl is a solid eight feet at least) who fall into the right size class, but neither of them has multiple altmodes, and neither of them has the capability to powerlink. They are not Minicons.

Rumble and Frenzy both fall into the right size category (being about a meter tall, each) and have multiple altmodes, being able to revert both to their altmodes as well as a deployer-form that links with Soundwave- however, they cannot powerlink. Rather, they are symbionts, and instead of forming a powerlink with Soundwave they connect as a form of gestalt bonding and to regain energy. They are not minicons (although they sometimes are mistakenly referred to as minicons by others- true symbionts are particularly rare and to other Cybertronians they may appear to be minicons.)

Leader-1 and Minimus Ambus are both small (each of them approximately a meter tall, like Rumble and Frenzy) and have multiple altmodes- Leader-1 is capable of becoming a small, mobile tank/cannon as well as a larger focused weapon that can be attached to or held by a larger mechanism, while Minimus Ambus is a quad-changer, hosting both a small hovering vehicle mode, a beastmode, and a compact mode that can attach to larger mechanisms or even fit inside a carrying compartment (he could also qualify as a symbiont, because in this mode he effectively becomes an additional organ). Both are also capable of powerlinking, combining energy with those they attach to in order to supercharge them, bonding with them. Leader-1 and Minimus Ambus are both “true” minicons.

(Of course, only Leader-1 would admit to being a Minicon freely, as Minimus Ambus was also part of a vastly different social class and structure pre-war, and was thusly not classified legally as a Minicon on this basis.l)

So, it’s sort of a collection of features that determine what a Minicon is. Leader-1 and Minimus Ambus certainly don’t look like each other, they have vastly different framtypes, but both have the rare, unique traits that set aside Minicons. Minicons were generally considered to be, like cold-constructed and other “lesser” classes, living tools to be used for much of Cybertronian history. As a result they have a rather secular, closed-off culture that was kept to themselves and a long history of subtlety and manipulation to get what they needed.


Powerlinking is different from gestalt bonding (wherein a group of Cybertronians all contribute to a ‘gestalt mind’ or a ‘gestalt space’ where they share emotions and communicate via their sparks) or combination (where multiple Cybertronians merge into a singular being composed of a mixture of the spark/personality of it’s components- which often results in a gestalt bond regardless) in that it’s an inequal link- generally the powerlinking individual (usually a minicon) uses their own spark and power to contribute to the mechanism they’re attached to, but does not receive the same benefits. Generally, the powerlinked individual is under the control of whomever they are attached to, making them something of an additional organ or componant with no control over the situation.

The Funtionist regime saw this as evidence that Minicons were meant to be used as tools because they were seen as easy to control- once a powerlink is formed it may linger and be difficult to break, particularly for inexperienced Minicons who can find the experience overwhelming or even somewhat addicting. However, with careful approach, a powerlink bond can be far more mutually beneficial and powerful, provided both subjects want to work in tandem.

Of course, this isn’t always the case. A particularly powerful minicon may be able to override their larger partner during a powerlink, becoming the individual in control- but I haven’t completely worked out all the details of any of this, yet, so it’s subject to be a bit messy and odd and it varies now and then. Basically, while we can view whether or not someone is a Minicon on a spectrum like this

It’s probably more like this, because some of these traits- additional altmodes that connect to other mechanisms and powerlinking, are not exclusive to minicons (although most powerlink-capable individuals are minicons)

Really just. Any discussion about frametype designations could probably use a scale like that.

And it drove the Functionists up the goddamn wall.

anonymous asked:

Bless you for the post about Jedi recruitment because I had just saw someone else's post a little while ago that implied the big bad Jedi would all but rip children from their parents' arm just because they have legal authority to and it makes me twitch so much like can you even imagine Yoda or Obi-wan thinking that's okay.

I mean, yes, true, I don’t think the Jedi Order relied on child abduction—for one, I imagine the outcry would have been enormous, and for all its mystic qualities, the Order is a political body. But I also wouldn’t praise their actual strategy, which was more like “approach people in their homes and strongly pressure/cajole/use whatever social pressures are available to convince parents to give up their child to the army and potentially never see them again”

Because I can absolutely imagine both Yoda and Obi-Wan thinking it’s perfectly natural—that it’s better, for the child as much as for the Jedi—that a family surrender this very young child to the Order’s care. After all, he or she will be serving a higher cause, the highest cause! They will develop their skills, with the brotherhood of the Jedi all around them. They will bring peace to the galaxy and balance to the Force.

And doesn’t that make it worth it? The uncertainty of families who don’t really wish to surrender their beloved children, but feel they must? The pinched smiles and tears when the new Jedi initiate wishes their family goodbye, hands shaking? Those first few nights at the temple, when the sobbing of new padawans winds through the halls? (Or, worse, those padawans who do not cry. For whom the Order is salvation, more family and security than they’ve ever known.)

But they all learn, don’t they? The sobbing subsides. And in the end, they all believe as Master Yoda and Master Kenobi do, because the alternative is the gutting realization that they have been victims of an immense cruelty—it was not worth it. They were taken by fanatics, taught to hold a sword and warp the skein of the universe, to feel nothing as they did, and it was for nothing. All this time.

Frozen MBTI

I was talking with a friend of mine, and she sent me a link to a bunch of typography charts and asked my thoughts on them.

I said I was really stubborn and I basically never agree with those charts.

I said I was so stubborn that I heard Queen Elsa was officially typed by Disney as an INTJ, and when I heard that I said 
“hmmm… nope.”

I actually have a very strong sense of what type Elsa is, and why she was typed as an INTJ, but I believe she is not.

She is an INFJ, with a corrupted feeling function.  She’s in an Ni-Ti loop.  This means she has the same primary function as an INTJ, and that she uses thinking more than feeling to process the world around her.
But unlike INTJ, this is not normal for her.  This comes from suppressing her feeling function, it comes from fear and depression and pain.

The most compelling evidence I have for my case is Olaf.
Nobody could explain why Olaf came to life when Elsa is only supposed to be able freeze things.
But I know why.

Olaf is Elsa’s severed Extroverted Feeling function.  
He is literally the part of her that wants badly to love everyone openly and unconditionally, and do whatever is best for them, without pain and without fear.

That’s why Olaf knows so much about love.  That’s why he came to life.
He is literally the part of Elsa she could never let herself be, and this is why he came about the moment she started to feel free.
They’re two parts of the same person.

The true epidemic here is not obesity; obesity is simply the most visible symptom of other, more troubling epidemics — including, but not limited to industry lobbying, Big Food predatory marketing, and misguided agricultural subsidies.

me, a small string bean of anger, raving about dismantling inhumane systems and policies right now cuz i don’t wanna fuckin live in this environment for the next several decades with no promise of it getting better.

“The drug industry controls medical education, medical research, and medical practice and medical laws.” - Dr. Andrew Saul

(quotation source: “Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Saul About Beta-Blockers,” YouTube)