Hark, a Dashing Draig

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek yet entirely relevant essay-length ramblings by an irkable cymru draig.

[its-a-lark-blog]

Nu-Starlord: The Quintessential Gabungan Anomaly

One thing that strikes me about gabungans (which is the most gloriously apt, accurate, and artful descriptor of extraverted herd creatures I've ever had the fortune to hear) is how self-centric they are. I mean, I know I've discussed this. Gabungans affiliated with the Straight herd are honour-bound to hate an almost innate hatred for those whose primary herd affiliation is Gay. Gabungans. You know how they are. Herds and wars. Herds and wars.

Still, the depths the gabungan obsession with herd affiliation are fascinating. In what they'll do, for example, to save face within their herd and how easily hacked gabungans are if you can leverage their social status. I spoke about this prior with the invention of "cringe culture," a tool whose purpose is to manipulate gabungans.

The point of this is that the gabungan self-obsession runs deep.

And yes, I really must call them that because at this point I identify so little with them that I feel they're actually of a different species. I feel genuinely alien in comparison to them. I'm sorry, but I'm not a gabungan herd creature and I need a way to declare that. I'm not into hierarchical herd structures or social status.

So, let's look at Guardians of the Galaxy. This is going to be fun.

First of all, I could touch on Rocket Raccoon. In the original Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning envisioning of Guardians, Rocket wasn't a sociopathic, ableist shitlord. D 'n A don't strike me as gabungans, though, so that's not too surprising. They actually have some interesting ideas, notably on immortality for example. While I don't necessarily agree with their findings, I respect their original thought.

So why's Rocket an ableist, sociopathic shitlord now? The same reason why Wally West bacme black. So that their glorious peach-skinned overlords could help them become more complete people. It is, perhaps, bizarre to draw a correlation between the New 52's black Wally West and Rocket Racoon, but the similarities in some ways are startling. It's uncanny, yet at the same time it's so hypertypically gabungan.

I mean, I know as an autistic, the word "neurotypical" is thrown around. It's because gabungans are so predictable. See, Wally West cannot be a complete person without the perfectly peach guiding hand of Barry Aryan (The Whitest Flash), his Grand Mentor. The same is true for Rocket Raccoon, Peter Quill is helping this sorry, pathetic being to live up to those grandiose White standards of his.

You know, White herd. Loves the Straight herd, usually hates the Gay herd, despises the Black herd, loathes the Mexican herd, and is generally against anything that doesn't share an 80 per cent level of verisimilitude with tehm. The most utterly gabungan of gabungans. Those of the White herd are basically a gabungan's gabungan. That's why other gabungan herds try to get in good with tehm and try to be affiliated.

Essentially, I feel like an alien observing and cataloguing my findings on the topic of gabungans, here. I don't like what I see.

Anyway, Rocket Raccoon is an interesting topic. As is Wally West. That's not what we're going to talk about, though.

So, we have Nu-Peter Quill. A gabungan who affiliates with the White and Straight herds. As I mentioned -- a gabungan's gabungan. What's so fascinating about him? His music. This is so telling of how gabungan herds think.

See, I could understand if this were a Lost in Space scenario. It is not. Quill has been exposed to vibrant, brilliant alien cultures who could surely stand up to earth's entertainment industry, right? As someone who isn't a gabungan, I would think that Peter Quill would've ditched his tapedeck long ago, he'd appreciate the sheer diversity on offer. As such, he'd have a device from one of these worlds whose capacity went so far beyond just playing music.

Perhaps it could weave emotions, creating crescendos of feeling, even overlay reality with hallucinogenic affects without actually being dangerous. We are dealing with alien cultures.

Peter might've kept a few terran songs around for nostalgia's sake, but by and large he'd be immersed in the brilliance of all of these alien cultures. Sadly, Peter Quill is a gabungan. As such, his xenophobic quotients are off the charts; He's basically a terran supremacist, he believes humans are innately superior to all others, despite the alien advancements he's witnessed with his very own senses. As such, he's kept his mixtape -- an artefact of his gloriously superior gabungan species.

Of course, old Peter Quill wasn't a gabungan. He had plenty of appreciation for other alien species; He wasn't even a shade of the xenophobic human supremacist that Nu-Quill is. And don't tell me that Nu-Quill isn't. As I've pointed out, he's a gabungan who clings to his mixtape as an obsession, a way to proclaim his allegiance to superior beings.

It wouldn't have been hard to give Quill an entertainment device and some accompanying pieces from the cultures he'd visited. The effort should've been made. Instead, no, just going to fall back into the usually comfortable gabungan patterns. He has a tapedeck filled with '80s music, awww... it's so cute! Actually, it's so incredibly creepy it makes my skin crawl.

I don't like it! It's just so quintessentially gabungan. It’s one of the many, many reasons I was never the biggest fan of Gabungans of the Galaxy.

If I were writing Quill, I would've replaced the mixtape. I would've had him show off the brilliant pieces of orchestral beauty he'd acquired from his adventures across the galaxy. But oooooh, nooo, strange alien foreigners and their strange, alien music! Noooo! Gabungans dislike foreigners and their foreign ways enough already. To have that in a film? Unthinkable!

This is why I dislike gabungans. It's also why gabungans haven't been contacted by aliens. Gabungans are just too self-obsessed, and being the dominant species on earth? It's just too dangerous to even bother with. That's why every hopeful sign of aliens is merely some natural phenomenon. In their arrogance, gabungans think this means that their glorious species is the only one to exist. No, gabungans, they're just giving you the cold shoulder.

And frankly, if gabungans weren't so full of themselves they'd notice a divergent species rising on earth; Autism. Autism doesn't have any of the mental shackles that gabungans seem to be weighed down by. I've brought this up before -- but if gabungans were to look at a picture of peach-skinned gabungans with weapons versus a dragon, they'd think it a scene of heroism.

Really? How do you determine that? Was there some fantasy CSI on the scene that did the forensics to help establish the guilt of the dragon? Hm? And I don't see detectives helping to piece together what really happened, either. So how do you know it's a scene of heroism? It could just as easily be a depiction of home invasion, where gabungan bandits hope to murder an innocent and steal their shit. Which is a very gabungan thing to want.

This is what I mean, gabungans have so very little in the way of Universal awareness. This is why it's so painful for me whenever I have to listen to a gabungan tell me that I lack any kind of awareness. I'm listening to a self-obsessed troglodyte living in a fantasy world where they're the ultimate species in all of reality informing me that I'm lacking in awareness. Really?

Gabungans will do as gabungans will do. The thing is si that I genuinely feel at this point that gabungans are mixing up herdlike behaviour with awareness. I'm perfectly aware of your herds, I just want no part of them! I'm tired of the hierarchical status-play of gabungans.

To my mind, there are different kinds of intelligences, different sorts of awareness, different expressions of creativity and people aren't allowed to discover these as only those recognised by the leading gabungan herds are accepted. That's why our world is pretty much fucked at this point, isn't it? Gabungans rule over all with their excessive numbers. We can't tell them that they're screwing up our earth and dooming us all. We’re unable to communicate with gabungans, we’re not manipulative enough.

As I discussed prior, it's incredibly difficult for an autistic person to talk to a gabungan because gabungans value manipulative behaviour above all else.

Consider:

Autistic: Hi, I would like to share a theory with you. Gabungan: Alright. Autistic: I’m unaware of what you know about field X, are you versed? Gabungan: Yes, I'm educated in that. I have a bachelors. [Whilst this is true, they barely scraped by but still use it for social status. It’s not really their field at all.] Autistic: And of subset Y, you are versed in that? Should I think that you need no explanation? Gabungan: No. I know all about it. [The gabungan doesn't actually know anything about subset Y, but they tell you they do because they don't want to lose face -- social status. It’s like a subconscious abstract of copyright law, if they don’t continually profess absolute understanding, they believe they lose their bachelors degree.] Autistic: Okay, here's my theory. [The theory is shared.] Gabungan: I couldn't make heads nor tails of that! It sounded like a bunch of garbage! Autistic: It's just a simple extension of subset Y. You said you're versed in that, correct? Did I misunderstand? I’m sorry if I did. Gabungan: I understand subject Y just fine you flippant bastard! That's not subset Y where I come from! Autistic: Okay! I mean, science is nothing more than theories backed by evidence which adds probabilistic weight to any given notion helping us to glean an understanding of the reality around us. If your understanding is different than mine and it's backed by evidence, then I want you to tell me about it! I'm genuinely interested. [There's no sarcasm here, the intent is genuine.] Gabungan: Fuck off.

What did the autistic person do wrong? Nothing! It's just that an autistic person cannot properly converse with a gabungan because gabungans value manipulation over all else. So you have to be manipulative to talk to a gabungan.

Here’s an example of how it goes with manipulation:

Gabungan A: I hear you're an authority on field X! Gabungan B: Well, I don't like to brag... Gabungan A: Nonsense! I've read your work. [Though not really, and will stumble if questioned.] I can only assume that you have a better understanding of subset Y than I do. Could you explain the basics of it to me? [This is asked to make the other feel superior even though it’s known they have no understanding.] Gabungan B: Well, I appreciate your kind words, but that's not my specialisation, I'm a little rusty if I'm honest... Gabungan A: Alright! I understand. Well, I have some small understanding of it which might help. [Even though they just claimed they didn't.] I can use that to give you a refresher. Would that be okay? Gabungan B: Oh, uh... Yeah! Sure. I'd like that. [They’ve talked themselves into a corner, so this is all they can reply with.] Gabungan A: And I have this little theory I'd like to share with you too. I'll walk you through it as I give you the refresher. You’re the expert, so I just want your opinion. [They don’t want the ‘expert’s opinion, they just want to be sure that their theory is heard by them.] Gabungan B: Oh! Okay, sure!

I mean, this seems "friendly," right? Except there's a lot of lying, deception, and manipulation going on. Lying and manipulation are innately cruel and unkind. Truly autistic people, having an innate leaning toward and preference for empathy and ethics find this unpalatable, so they can't lie to the gabungan in order to talk to them.

This is the kind of experience I have when trying to show gabungans -- using scientific proof -- that their binary notions (and gabungans are very binary, 1 vs. 0, it’s all about hierarchy) of gender aren't supported by science or nature, or that the very misguided concept of the mostly male/mostly female brain (which can differ from their body) is nothing more than pseudo-scientific twaddle intended to manipulate and fool gabungans. It's just transmisogynistic propaganda that, very unfortunately, a lot of Trans herd gabungans believe.

Why's it propaganda? It convinced the gabungans of the Trans herd that they're special, and that there's a magically special reason behind their feelings that sets them apart and makes them unique snowflakes who deserve special attention. It's what's often weaponised against Otherkin to denigrate them.

Except there is no magical unicorn for the Trans herd to worship. Does that mean that we shouldn't care about their plight? No. No it does not. ANY sapient being -- ANY SAPIENT BEING -- who's been forced to suffer against their will should be helped. In a good world -- which is often contradictory to a gabungan world -- no one would ever have to suffer. We'd care for people and try to help them just for that reason alone. Gabungans claim to be like this but actually purport hierarchical care and dismissal of those not on the hierarchy.

Trans herd gabungans don't need the magical unicorn of mostly male/female brains. It's just transmisogynistic brain rot. All they need is that they're sapient beings who suffer, who shouldn’t need to suffer. For THAT reason they should be helped, there should be no reason why that shouldn't be enough.

That's why Otherkin have tried to find allies with trans people. Sadly, only non-gabungan trans people actually ally with Otherkin. This is because those of us who aren't gabungans realise that basic sapient rights are important, that's all that matters. So those who've been forced to suffer -- no matter what their status, creed, walk of life, or other arbitrary factor -- should be helped.

Sadly, gabungans of the Trans herd believe that this magical unicorn they have -- a transmisogynistic one, I'll remind you -- is their ticket to better treatment. Why? Gabungans are hierarchical! It's always that a gabungan's herd is better or worse than another gabungan's herd. This is how it is for gabungans. So they’ve got to elevate their herd at the expense of others.

Gabungans are all about whose herd is better, whose herd is worse, and whose herd deserves what.

It shouldn't ever be about who IS better, but who can DO better. What I wish gabungans could understand is that if they could wake up every morning, asking how they could help others and what they could do to make the world a better place instead of why their herd allegiances are better than others? We could be living in a utopia.

I hotly contest the idea that humans cannot appreciate a utopia. I put forth that gabungan herds -- due to their hierarchical and warlike nature -- cannot appreciate a utopia. Those of us who aren’t gabungans? We aren’t so obsessed with hierarchy and war, we could give it a shot. We appreciate diversity. Funnily enough, we even want the gabungans around, we just don’t want to suffer or ultimately be destroyed due to their wanton desires.

See that? I don’t hate gabungans, I’m just tired of being targeted by gabungans because I’m herdless. I don’t want a herd, gabungans. In fact, I’d want you to see how much the world could improve if not for your sadly hierarchical obsessions. I like do better more than be better.

I’m not a superior being. I am a being who tries to do better. I don’t want to be a superior being! That’s contrary to what I want.

With a utopia, I don't think those who aren't gabungans would have any difficulty whatsoever. Remember that the primary opposition to utopia is hierarchy. Truly, if gabungans could leave their hierarchies and wars behind, we'd be happy to welcome them into our utopia, too. They could help us make it work.

This doesn’t have a lot to do with Nu-Quill, it seems, but I’ll get to that. It all ties into the same concept of gabungans hierarchy and self-obsession. I’ll bring it all in, but ultimately he’s a great way to illustrate how obsession with affiliated herds does indeed impair awareness.

Consider:

"I'm of the Human herd! I'm of the White herd! I'm of the Straight herd! This means I'm superior to all non-human herds! I'm also superior to the Black herd, the Gay herd, the Trans herd, and a number of other herds. It's why I'm on top! My herds are best!"

Why are gabungans like this?

Where does gabungan come from? It comes from the cave person utterance of "Unga bunga!" since the screeching and shit-flinging of gabungan herds isn't exactly the image of an evolved species they'd like for us to believe in.

If I were an alien, I'd look upon the gabungans and think on how angry they'd be that I don't have hands to shake or backs to pat. I'd realise that I'd have to parade around as something recognisable to gabungans in order to be accepted by them, which would do nothing to welcome them onto the galactic stage where only a handful of species might look like gabungans. If I were an alien race, I'd actually be subtly, carefully sabotaging gabungans and setting them back so that humankind never made it to space until the gabungan threat eradicated or fixed itself.

I imagine that there are aliens watching with trepidation to see what happens next. Frankly, they probably feel sorry for those of us who're stuck with the gabungans, beyond their help. I'd sure go for some alien help, that's for sure. There's no love lost between gabgungans and those who aren't, after all.

I mean, consider, gabungans are always trying to "cure" autists even if it means giving them brain damage and eradicating their identity. I worry they'll eventually get smart enough to figure out how, and that'll just be that.

What next, gabungans? Will you want to "cure" black people by making them white due to their 'disruptive' behaviour? Most crimes are black, after all, eh gabungans? That’s what White herd gabungans believe, after all.

See: The Alt-Right.

Sigh.

Sorry, sore point. Autism doesn't need a "cure." Autism is a type of brain. Talking about "curing" autism is like saying it's okay to "cure" black people. It's not okay. It's perverse and fucked up. I swear some gabungan scientists must be operating on a sexual fetish by this point. Do they get off on thinking of "curing" autistic people by destroying their brains? It's really messed up.

Gabungans. I just don't know how to deal with you.

Why do you have to be the way you are? You should've left tribal herds behind a long time ago, like the rest of us did. I'm so sick of watching gabungan herds ruin the world.

And yet, as someone who isn't a gabungan I stand against billions. Aside from wiping them all out (not an option), or "curing" them (also not an option), what can I do?

I can talk. I suppose. Not that that ever seems to do any good.

I'm just sitting here wondering how long other galactic civilisations will leave this hanging until they feel they have to intervene. What I can say is that there are non-gabungans on this planet who'd suffer a lot less if we were separated from the gabungans and allowed to go our own way.

Unlike Nu-Quill, we'd actually appreciate that.

[its-a-lark-blog]

Cringe: The New Manipulation Tool

It's amazing how good groups like the Alt-Right are at propagandising people. Using herd behaviour to condition responses in more extraverted groups who tend to not question things.

So, with a meme, you can load it with a message. This is then quickly shared amongst extraverted herds -- it's a joke, it's funny! Except it has that message, and whilst laughing at the joke they internalise this viral mesage and just believe it without ever questioning it because accepting the providence of the herd is of greater importance than self-determination.

Extraverts are finally (at long last) becoming savvy to the viral nature of memes, and how they can be used to manipulate herds of extraverts to believing whatever the person sharing the meme wants. I mean, the meme is really nothing more than a contemporary form of actual propaganda when it isn't just a joke. And the vast majority of the time, it isn't just a joke.

So, their new tool? Cringe.

Extraverts are so self-conscious due to herd behavioural conditioning that they'll crumple under peer pressure easily if they think that the herd is judging them. Enter 'cringe,' the weaponised idea that your extraverted herd is judging you. So even if you empathise with a group that'st he target of 'cringe,' you're also a target of cringe.

You'll become a laughingstock! You'll lose social status in whatever herds you align with! There's nothing worse than losing face for an extravert, so the extravert will actually condition themselves to hate whatever the target of 'cringe' is. Extraverts -- largely due to this toxic herdthink -- are depressingly easy to brainwash.

This is honestly why I'm more partial to introverts and autistic people. They tend to use introspection to arrive at their conclusions and they aren't very self-conscious. As a result, they're far less judgemental and they're unlikely to judge against an entire group as a unified herd. Largely because introverts don't organise into herds as they're not herd creatures. Introverts prefer limited social interactions, making them more like pack animals.

And there's often debate and discourse in the pack, usually with people able to appreciate one another's diversity. "Oh, that's really an important thing to you? Okay, you do you. I'll support you, even if I don't understand/agree, I want you to be happy." Extraverts don't really think like this, they're driven to succeed within whichever herds they align with, so they'll step on others for even an iota of increased oscial status. To denigrate a group of people they know nothing about for increased status? It's not even a consideration! Who cares about their feelings!

And by joining in on 'cringe,' extraverts feel elevated above those in the herd who're the target or those who ally with the target. This is especially hard, for example, for the extravert who has an introverted friend who's a target for 'cringe.' They'll lose social status over this and this puts strain on the relationship. This is why I've never befriended a sole extravert over the course of my life, nor do I plan to start.

Anyone in the herd is far, far, far too ready to backstab, betray, and throw others under the bus if it means an increase in social status for them. You can see the most extreme version of this in corporate structures where this almost literally happens, sometimes.

Still, if you've ever been influenced by 'cringe?' Congratulations! You've been brainwashed, in the most pitifully easy way! Good for you, I suppose. Is it pleasurable to be so openly hackable?

Is it okay that I'm not fond of herd animals?

They're so cringy.

Point made?

[its-a-lark-blog]

Otherkin: Reiteration

The Wild at Heart quest from The Witcher 3 returned to my mind recently and I've been preoccupied with it, so I wanted to take another run at this in the hopes of improving understanding.

So, deep breath! Long sigh. Dammit. Deep breath.

I've mentioned before on this blog that I wasn't privileged enough to warrant a happy childhood by any measure of the imagination. For the most part, if you could name a kind of abuse, I was familiar with it. I'd been mocked and belitled, sure, hasn't everyone? I'd also been beaten to within an inch of my life, raped, locked in a room and forgotten about for a couple of days, and worse.

I was driven so out of my mind I even added self-harm to the list as it was all I knew. I was actually born with a deformity, but between some fairly regular mistreatments and my own efforts to do the same, I came out of it worse. Why? Why does any child? Pure and unadulterated madness. I couldn't understand any of it, I didn't know whether it was simply that I wasn't worthy in some way and I didn't deserve life, on other days it was because the pain was simply too much and I just wanted for it to end.

I went from being with physically abusive parents by being adopted by a grandmother who was really good at emotional blackmail and manipulation, she could really get inside one's head with the most grotesque of lies and threats. You see, if I wasn't the very best slave, then I'd be sent to an insane asylum, she'd call the men in white suits to take me somewhere very dark, cold, and evil.

Throughout all of this I developed a particularly healthy paranoia, mistrust, and dislike of humanity along with a degree of self-loathing over looking like them. Not misanthropy, mind you, as there's nothing that bothers me more than suffering and I wouldn't ever want to see anyone suffer, especially not as I had. That's how you can tell if a person has really suffered, by the way; If the person in question truly knows what that pain is like, they'd never wish it on anyone.

After all this, you'd have to expect that I'd have PTSD. I do. I also have generalised anxiety disorder, thanks to them. I can get some pretty bad panic attacks from time to time, too. Turns out I'm autistic as well. And what do people do when they know someone is fairly different than them? They mock, belittle, and undermine them as much as possible in order to remove from them any sense of agency they might still yet have.

At this point, I was as disillusioned and disenfranchised with my sordid species as anyone could be. Rightly so, I'd think? I just wanted a way out. I desperately wanted a way out.

Initially I wanted to be a dog. I imprinted on dogs, after all. I always found they were kind, tolerant, and beautiful in ways that no human had been or could ever be. They didn't judge, they didn't have hatreds over hte most arbitrary factors. They didn't despise you over being disfigured or disabled. A dog would always love you, no matter what kind of person you are. A dog's love is unconditional. A dog's love is eternal. I understood that, if nothing else.

I imprinted on them as they effortlessly triumphed and prospered in every area where humanity had failed me. A dog is good. A dog is kind. A dog is something more special than I think anyone realises. So I imprinted on them, dogs were my ideal. I wanted to be so much like them I couldn't bear it. I found that my mannerisms, nature, even my body language became more dog-like over time without me ever consciously realising it (I've been told this, many times).

So I imprinted very heavily on dogs. Next were wolves, there was a power to wolves. Their wildness allowed them to be so completely free from the pains of humanity. So free of it all. I found empowerment in the ideal of the wolf, but there was a nagging sensation behind it all. No matter how much I longed, I still had my sapience. I couldn't truly ever be like them, no matter how much my heart longed.

Eventually, I landed squarely on werewolf. Why? Well, as I got older I found it hard to be around people as I'd occasionally have some event or factor trigger an episode. I'd lose myself to my madness. So eventually I just resigned myself to the truth.

I would be alone. I couldn't ever be around people. All thy seemed to know was hate, anyway. I took the only other option I had left, I took to the life of a hermit, away from humanity.

I dipped a digit in every so often to see if I could find anywhere that would allow for me. After many years of failure I found a partner and I've stuck by them loyally ever since. They've been understanding, for the most part, but they still don't always comprehend what happens to my mind when I experience a panic attack. And that, naturally, makes me feel like a monster with something inside me I can't control.

Werewolves are "ugly." People think I'm ugly, too! I look at werewolves and I don't think they're ugly at all, I can see a genuie, real beauty to them that I can't easily explain. To me, they look like kindly protectors who've just known the pain that I have. Werewolves are "scary," werewolves are "monsters." That's how I've been made to feel whenever I'm having one of my episodes. So, if I'm ugly, scary, and a monster...

I ended up identifying with werewolves. That identification only got stronger over time -- and the stronger it got, the more I found that any I chose to interact with hated me. I guess I was as strange as ever, as "scary" as ever, but I'd found a sense of empowerment, a refuge to escape to, a fantasy of doing so. The idea that I could become something else, to escape my humanity and enjoy the company of those who're like me? That's powerful. You wouldn't get it.

And I know that you wouldn't because humans are herd creatures who cycle through friends and generally don't develop lifelong connections in the way that I have with my partner. We've been together almost eight years, now, but we've spent almost every day together as I don't work (I can't be around people, remember?). We've spent more time together already than most do in their lifetimes, and our love is as strong as ever.

That's not a very human thing to do, is it? To actually love just one person, and not abandon them for petty, arbitrary reasons in order to run off and find the latest, shiny new thing.

It's very lupine, though. Wolves do that all the time.

There's a lot of ways in which I don't feel like I fit in with the "ideals" of human society, such as they are. I'm not into herds and fighting for supremacy with other herds over arbitrary factors. White skins vs. black skin, gay vs. straight gay, trans-exclusionary feminists, otherkin-exclusionary trans, et cetera. It's tiresome.

I mean, ultimately, I still recognise that I'm human and I have to satisfy my sapience. So I'll still engage in entertainment made for humans, but I always find myself wishing for animal characters or to be allowed the chance to read, watch, or play as something I can identify as. I use the furry mod for Stardew Valley, in Skyrim I'm a permanent werewolf (which no one cares about, since apparently even Nirn can't outdo our reality when it comes to bigotry and that's a little sad), I enjoyed Being Human when it was on the air (the UK version, anyway, as the other one was fairly terrible).

The thing is, though, is that I'm hardwired at this point. What makes me happy is remembering characters like Rouen and Zylo frm Shining Force. Though today it's more difficult being an otherkin than ever as people are focusing hard on their supremacy, which even includes human supremacy. As such, no non-human characters for a despised outcast like myself to enjoy. I'm not allowed any level of happiness, you see.

My sadness is mandated by humanity. At least, that's the way it feels, sometimes. It really is. Again, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Honestly, how could you? How could you actually? Really?

I'll get randy for werewolves, too. Obviously. I mean, we're all sexually attracted to the species we identify with. Right? Of course I'd want to take a werewolf's bone. It bloody stands to reason. I'd actually be a lot more worried about my sanity if I didn't. This, at least, is internally consistent and coherent. Even if it's something not a lot of people may agree with. I love werewolves, and I'd feel so safe and at ease around them. I'd obviously also feel love, affection, and attraction.

And sometimes, aside from my partner and my dog, I can't bring myself to care much if I'm alive or dead. If I met a werewolf, it'd go one of three ways.

1.) They'd be feral and I'd be shredded alive, which wouldn't be one of the better ways to go and I'd thank them for it;

2.) They'd be sapient but I wouldn't be worthy of them or they mightn't be able to share, in which case I'd probably lose my mind for good;

3.) I'd end up as a werewolf myself and it would be one of the most freeing, erotic, beautiful experiences of my life.

I don't actually expect to meet a werewolf, mind you.

As a pragmatic realist, the highest probability is that they simply aren't real. I mean, I'd want to believe they're real, but I still have my sanity. I've not fallen so far that I could be described as having clinical lycanthropy, yet. Though... If I'm being honest, there are days when I could see that as being more of a blessing and a boon than anything else. You know? No. No, of course not. Sorry.

So I amble on by with this. I engage in entertainment with non-human characters because it gives me strength, it empowers me to face yet another day of me being me, and not a werewolf. It gives me the inner fire I need to be strong for my partner, to encase what little I have left of my sanity in a titanium suit of armour.

Though I still long for this, this escape, this way out, this means of no longer being me. I hunger for it. It's most at the core of my sense of being and identity than anything else. This is who I am.

So when people tell me that species dysphoria isn't real? It hurts. It hurts and it just feels like humans being abusive and terrible, like they have always been. At least, to me. It deepens the feelings of negativity I have about humanity and strengthens my identity with werewolves, their anger empowers my resolve and dream and desire to finally escape humanity... One day.

If you could see fit to stop telling me that species dysphoria isn't real, though? I'd appreciate being hurt a little less. I can only possibly have so much of a profound distaste for humanity, just as I can only stand to bear the burden of so much self-loathing for being one of you. If you'd been less terrible of a species, I wouldn't be so desperate to escape you. That's not happening, though.

You have to be herds. You have to have your arbitrary hatreds. You have to fight amongst yourselves. You even have to fight others who'd be your friends and allies if you could stop hurting them. That's your nature. But it's not mine. It's never been mine.

I don't hate any of you. I don't hate based on any arbitrary factor. Why would I want to cause others to suffer like that?

I'm just so, so tired.

Not to play for pity, but it's absolutely true to refer to myself as the tired old wolf that everyone loves to kick. You can have a go, too, you know. If you'd like. I'm sure there's a spot somewhere around my ribcage where I'm not permanently bruised and scarred. At least, on a metaphorical level. Though in truth I have plenty enough real ones, too. I'm sorry.

I don't know why I keep apologising. All of my life I feel like I should apologise for the monster I apparently am, but perhaps it is finally time I stopped doing that. Perhaps. I just worry that if I stopped I'd give in and lose that last shred of having any care for the species at all. I fear how I'd feel about humanity, then. I apologise because I'm scared of what I'd become if I gave in and let myself go all the way toward whatever all the pain and abuse has had me become.

There might be a day in the future, though. One day. Before I die. When we have the ability to alter our bodies, perhaps even to take on artificial ones. With our nerves wired to neurons or our minds copied, however it might work. One day, humanity might allow me that, and maybe then, once I've escaped my humanity, I can forgive.

We'll see. I'll more than likely be dead long before that, though.

I'm sorry. I guess I'm asking not only for myself but for every person out there who's been through this. There are young otherkin who will just be taking their first steps down this road; They shouldn't have to travel down it as far as I have. Help them embrace their identity so they'll be able to forgive you. Please.

That's about all I have to say. So I'm going to wrap this up.

I'm going to go to bed, soon. I'm hoping to dream of being a good boy for the father wolf who sired my rebirth into something amazing, so far detached from the vile plague of suffering known as humanity. Sad and Freudian? No doubt. Still, thoughts of rolling my newly shaped head against the mottled skin of his hide... I find happiness in this.

How I long to be unchained. To say it, it's corny, cringy, and ridiculous but it helps me. Whenever I think of breaking the chains of reality, there's comfort in that.

Sorry.

It'd be nice, though, just to be mocked and belittled a little less. You know I can't change who I am and, aside from the panic attacks, I very much don't want to. I find some small degree of peace and happiness with my lupine identity, so why not let me have this? All I want is less hate, especially from those I'd want to think of as comrades-in-arms, allies through suffering.

I'm not an enemy of anyone. Not trans people or any group. I'm a friend if you'd let me be. I've always spoken up for you, anyway, I've always supported you even while you were putting otherkin down. I guess I'm a loyal dog. Even if you kick me.

Sorry.

I feel safe revealing this, honestly. I doubt anyone’ll ever read it. People have a shorter attention span than a gnat, these days. So no one’ll ever really spot me pouring my heart out, here.

G'Night, Internet.

[its-a-lark-blog]

Species Dysphoria, Sexual Identity, & Emotional Needs

I don't quite understand how so many humans can have their sexuality so entirely wrong. It is, admittedly, a topic I've had to think about a lot as I've had to examine my identity more than the vast majority of people, but still. I suppose that is what it comes down to at the end of the day, though, isn't it? If you never have to ever actually examine your identity, then you never learn anything regarding it.

Ultimately? There is no sexual need. That's a silly idea. What there is, however, is emotional need. There isn't any real intellectual need for that matter, either. All need comes from base emotion, on some level, whether you're consciously aware of it or not. An emotional need can, over time, express itself as a sexual desire.

This is especially true of kinks and fetishes. Every kink, every fetish you have, whether you're aware of it or not, has some basis in emotional need.

Let's reach into the barrel and pick out a bizarre one at random: Hypnofetishism. This is a fun one to examine. The hypnofetishist is very much into BDSM slave/pet play, along with triggers. They enjoy inductions, and letting go. Why? If you were to research it, you'd find it comes from an emotional need. They have, deep in their psyche, an overwpoering need to give up their free will.

Why? Why would anyone want to do that? For some, it makes sense. Free will, for some, is more of a curse and a burden, they'd rather give themselves to a powerful person they trust and be their pet as opposed to having their own agency. They find this world exhausting, they just want to be able to 'turn off' and enjoy bliss in the company of someone they can trust completely. As you might have guessed, it's also an emotional need in regards to trust, to have someone one can trust to that degree.

That some furries or otherkin express things sexually? Of course they do! You'd have to be a blithering sot to not expect that since it all comes from a place of emotional need! As I mentinoed, with otherkin, the need is to shed one's skin and become another species entirely that's closer to what one identifies as. Thus, the emotional need for, say, lycanthropy would be strong. This emotional need expresses itself in many ways, including sexually.

When you have a deep, emotional connection to a partner, you express that connection sexually as well because that's just how it works. It's nothing to be reviled.

I get that some people would rather make assumptions. That's a very easy thing to do. To fall back on prejudice and hatred rather is very lazy, and very easy, which is a very human way to behave. Learning requires effort, after all, and how many humans actually enjoy learning more than what they have to? Not many!

Thus, out of prejudice, the assumption is made that a person who's sexually compelled by lycanthropy wants to bonk your dog. A rather obvious difference, for anyone with a functionally aware mind, is that dogs don't possess human-level sapience and therefore it'd be unethical to include them in any sexual act. And that's even if this had anything to do with dogs at all.

You see, for the vast, vast, vast majority, there's no attraction to creatures which don't have at least human-level sapience at all. So the attraction is to beings like werewolves, as opposed to animals, and that's not bestiality to anyone who has even the most basic understanding of the word.

Still, humans will be humans. Humans will take the lazy approach, humans will want things easy, humans won't ever bother to take a long, hard look at their own identity, and humans will reach poor assumptions because of all of the above. Which is tiresome.

I wish that more people actually understood that all sexual desire is an expression of emotional need. All of it. Every bit of it.

Which makes you realise how fucked up it is that straight men will go looking at porn when they already have a monogamous sexual life partner. It's far more fucked up than being attracted to a werewolf, I'll tell you that, since that's eventually going to leave someone emotionally destroyed.

Humans (by which I might mean neurotypicals, or I might mean extraverts), by and large, aren't exactly the best at understanding either emotions or sexuality. Which is where the misunderstandings of furry and otherkin sexuality come from. The poor things don't even realise it's an emotional act when they're doing it, which just blows my mind.

How can you not even understand that that is emotional?

[its-a-lark-blog]

Animal Identity & Video Games

I ask you, please, don't dismiss this as trolling. I promise you it isn't. All I can ask is that you at least try to give it a fair read.

There are a non-trivial number of broken people out there who don't identify as human. I covered this recently in talking about otherkin. The question I'd ask: Is that really such a bad thing? We've been petty enough to disinclude minorities before based upon skin colour, gender, or other factors... So could we be inclusive of those who find the presnce of anthropomorphic characters comforting?

I don't know where the hate came from that lead to a reduction of diversity. Do you recall the '90s? There were all manner of creatures, myriad in their represnetation, all handled in a positive light that didn't exclude people who enjoyed that sort of thing. I don't understand why but as time went on, I saw less, and less, and less video games that were willing to represent animal characters.

It got to a point where we couldn't even have friendly, wise, six-limbed dragons. They had to be feral, evil, angry, rabid, amputated body horror creatures thrashing around on their bellies because they'd had their forelegs amputated. The new four-limbed approach to dragons was here to stay and it makes me sad. They aren't characters any longer, just monsters.

There's this conceit, or is it deceit, or is ti both? Anyway, there's this strange desire to push humankind -- especially when they're white -- as glorious and good. They need monsters to fight. It's unthinkable that we could have a video game where the players were good natured, family-oriented, lovely werewolves and the 'monsters' were just prejudiced white humans.

This removal of all anthro characters over time has left me feeling excluded, unwanted, and unwelcome. The few games that still cater to me are few and far between, enough that I could count them on one hand most likely. It's a sad state of affairs. In the '90s and early '00s, those who identified with animal or non-human personas found comfort in anthropomorphic characters in video games. They could play as an anthro and feel represented, welcomed, and permitted. There's a very different feel to video games today.

So emotionally damaged people like myself who can't identify as human aren't permitted to play these games, as they have a human guarding the gates, so to speak. If there are no anthro characters present, it just results in a feeling of being unwanted. Sure, I can and occasionally do play video games with just human characters, yet I admit those are few and far between. I'm always looking for any adventure that welcomes me first and foremost.

There are some games that are beginning to welcome me and mine in again. Yoku's Island Express comes to mind as being one of the most recent. It's at least an insect. As an adult, though, I tend to wish for video games with a strong narative, fleshed out characters, and depth.

I still remember how Fallout 2 made me feel. I loved the talking deathclaws. I identified with them. We'd both been tortured and hurt by humans, so I fit right in. I mean, I'm not non-human myself, but for my own comfort and sanity I identify that way. It's not something I'd ever expect you to understand.

Unless you've had those experiences... I suppose you really can't, can you? That doesn't mean that you can't sympathise, though. And instead of mocking, you could perhaps show mercy and invite us back in?

Anyway, Fallout 2. I remember how Avellone ordained that the talking deathclaws must die. It wasn't necessary. He just felt like it. I felt as though he hated me, for some reason. It felt strangely personal, as though he secretly wished that anyone such as myself hadn't ever existed. It was hurtful. So the reaction was a mutual hatred for him. I've gotten over it, but it still hurt.

I still felt excluded, unwanted, cast aside... Rejected.

I was fortunate though. In the '90s and the early '00s, I had video games which were inclusive of me, and welcoming to me. It was quite lovely and I miss those days. I'm not just being an old fart, here, I'm just pointing out how objectively almost all anthro characters have been systematically removed from video games.

What I'm thinking to myself is... How are kids in my position dealing with it, today? I hope they find old video games, frankly. All they'll feel with modern video games is that they're unwanted in the most absolute sense. It's only going to create a larger divide between them and those humans who identify as, well, human.

Can't we have anthro characters again? And not presented as being less intelligent, more tribal, more dumb, and/or more warlike than the human characters, but every bit as able of having all the depth a human can. Maybe even do so in a positive light that fully includes the anthro characters in the narrative? Perhaps we could show youngsters, in these video games, that the distinction between good and bad isn't based on species. It's kind of twisted to tell them that what they identify as is evil, it'll only serve to mess them up more.

So I'm asking for inclusion. I'm asking... I guess I'm asking that when you're developing your next game, just have a thought about including an anthropomorphic species in the mix, okay? And perhaps have just one non-human playable character.

And, yes, largely go with cats, dogs, horses, and dragons.

I see people feeling vexed over why those who identify as non-human tend to go with a certain subset of animals. It's imprinting. It's my opinion that it happens in all animals, including humans. People keep cats, dogs, reptiles, and horses as pets. It stands to reason that if their childhood wasn't particularly happy then they likely imprinted on whichever species their pet was.

Why? Their pet -- whichever species it was -- would've been the shining light of their youth. Any moments of happiness and joy would've been found there. That makes a lot of sense if you think about it, which is -- as I mentioned -- covered in my rambling tirade about otherkin.

I just don't want to feel excluded any more, really. That's all. I feel more that now than I ever have. And because of that I worry about the other kids, today, who've imprinted on animals yet have absolutely no outlet for this. What're they going to do? How bad is it going to turn out to be for them?

You could do something about this. YOU could. You could make lives better, you could allow people to be happier, you could help them feel included, you could help them heal.

Whether you do or not? That's up to you. All I can do is ask.

Please consider it?

[its-a-lark-blog]

Shining Resonance Re:viled

I feel betrayed by SEGA and it's a genuinely sad thing.

There are two reasons, primarily. Both of them can be summed up in one word: Otaku.

Japan's obsession with and belief that the only money to be made is from the otaku culture is toxic. It's resulted in games which are almost entirely about objectified, white, human women. I've sworn off much of Japanese gaming due to this fell interest, there's nothing there for me any more.

The Shining IP, though, really? That cuts to the quick.

You see, the Shining IP was always a safe space for those who liked kemono characters. What does that mean? It's effectively the Japanese word for anthropomorphised animal characters. There were werewolves, dragons, hamsters, and steampunk armadillos! Glorious stuff.

It's a little unsettling to me though that we seem to be on a march toward undilluted self-obsession. When the rito were revealed for Breath of the Wild, there wer emany sub par artists who chose to whitewash the rito. Confusing? Yes, very. Essentially, they'd take a character that isn't even a human being and replace them with a white human being who's supposedly still that character whilst lacking the self awareness to realise that their status as a non-human was integral to their character.

It's funny. I see white people complain about 'white replacement' and I laugh it off. There are so many white people and white characters that you'd never have to worry about them going away. Worse, white people are intent on whitewashing the few characters who aren't white. This obsession is so amazingly unhealthy that it even extends to non-human characters. White people hav an over-estimated sense of their own worth, by un unfathomably giant margin.

Otaku culture also desires this. This white-washing of characters, even non-human characters, is as prevalent in the East as it is in the West. So I see both sides replacing interesting non-human characters with boring white blokes or women that no one actually cares about. It's not like they're doing it to ever make them a minority. No. Never. Always white. White, white, white.

That's why it makes me a little ill. You see, white people do have their heads so far up their arse that they're incredibly out of touch with the world around them, but even in the echo chambers found inside their own anuses, they still know it's not okay to replace minorities with white characters any more. That used to be a thing, you know? You'd have white kids who'd draw black characters they liked as white.

Sadly, it still happens around the fringes. For example, Wally West, a redhead (a group of people who've experienced no small amount of systemic prejudice), was replaced by DC comics. Thankfully they've fixed that now but it was still a very, very ugly thing for them to do, especially since they replaced a redhead with a black person to try and avoid guilt.

You've just got to keep those ugly redheads out of DC comics, right DC? I'm so glad they got their heads out of their arses on that count, at least.

With otaku culture, we see women who were competent being replaced by submissive women who need daddy figures and who're submissively sexualised to appeal to the otaku. I couldn't get over the flute fellating in Shining Resonance Re:frain. I was aghast. This isn't my Shining series! Indubitably a lot of people won't understand my complaint, as the majority won't be old enough to remember. Going back a long way, though, the Shining series has had strong, independent, intelligent women.

The importance of having women with agency in video games cannot be questioned. Shining was always a good kid when it came to that. Sadly, the latest title? Flute fellating. Fucking flute fellating.

And that's not all.

As I've mentioned, there's been a strong push to remove all anthropomorphised characters from video games. It's hard to miss. In the '90s and early '00s there were playable anthro characters everywhere. The truth is is that there are people who don't identify as human, they suffer, they're looking for an outlet of escapism to help them deal with depression. If you're looking to cause a spike in suicide rates, taking their coping mechanisms away is a good way to do it.

That's humanity for you, though.

"Glad those weirdos who aren't like me are dead."

I can't even begin to explain why that's so, so wrong. Why the supremacist attitudes just serve to cement the separation people who don't identify as human feel. I explained this in my last post about otherkin. The truth is, though? There are VULNERABLE people who don't identify as human who could use YOUR help. If you're a game developer, you could help these people just by adding a non-human character so these youngsters don't feel as though they're excluded and hated.

That was something you could always count on the Shining series to do, even if it had less than in the SHining Force days, there would still be a werewolf, a dragon, or something else present. At least one playable character. In Re:frain, though, we have beautiful, white people whose design is informed by Aryan ideologies who fellate flutes.

Great. Lovely. Smashing.

Et tu, SEGA?

Can I have my Shining series back, please? Pretty please? With all of its strong, independent women and non-human characters intact? The Shining games were always such a bastion for people who suffered this way, to take that away just to appeal to the otaku audience? That's really hurt how I feel about SEGA.

And I've been an ardent SEGA fan since SEGA first existed.

This is a low blow.

And I just feel sad, depressed, and generally unwanted. Humanity makes it very clear that it doesn't want people who aren't like it. This also includes any person who doesn't identify as human. The silent preference would be for suicide and I'm getting really tired of being unable to avoid that feeling. I just don't understand why humanity is so supremacist and fucked up.

I just wanted my kemono characters. The Shining games were one of the last, few places where they could be had. I really can't explain hw this makes me feel. Shining Force had such diversity. It had short people, tall people, fat people, werewolves, dragons, men and women of all shapes, types, and walks of life. And now it's just fucking Aryan white kids felltaing flutes.

Let's just remove the kinds of characters I love from all of the things that I love. It makes more space for white people, though, right? As if there weren't enough Aryan-inspired white people already. And I just feel like the more spaces that non-human characters whom I can relate to are removed from? The more I find I really can't stomach humans. The white ones, especially.

Why is it so wrong to want non-human characters? Why does humanity so thoroughly despise anything unlike itself?

[its-a-lark-blog]

(Art by Carlos Amaral.)

Otherkin; As in, Not Your Kin

Cor, look at that sexy beast! Anyway, I wanted to write this as a message to non-otherkin to explain both why we're here, why there'll always be more of us, and why we aren't going anywhere. This is aimed at trans folk especially who wrongly believe that we exist to torment them.

Buckle up, it'll be a ride.

An emotional one, probably.

This is a tricky topic to talk about. I think the problem is is how does one talk about deep-seated, emotional pain without foolishly inviting the melon collies?

It's a pickle.

The thing is is that I absolutely do have to touch on something that I know will make most people uncomfortable in order to move forward. You see, as a disabled person who's both physically scarred and deformed, I've known nothing but the hatred of humanity for the apparently grotesque sin of my birth.

Your privilege, in this case, is that you'll never know what it feels like to live day to day with a crushing burden of guilt over actually having been born, and choosing to stay alive. As I covered in my prior tirade about vaccines and cures, humans don't really like that which isn't like them -- they respond unreasonably with fear or hatred.

Therefore, if I am the target of this, then surely I'm not human?

I believe that imprinting is a thing humans do. However, if the only home you've known is broken and your parents have only one of two modes -- absent, or abusive -- then you're unlikely to imprint upon them. I imprinted upon dogs. You see, my youngest self found that dogs were patient, kind, and loving. I didn't feel all this rampant hatred that wracked the minds of others, so am I a dog?

I don't have any illusions about my otherkin status. I don't think I have a special soul, I don't believe there's anything to it beyond my disocnnect with humanity.

Just as a trans person identifies with a different gender, I identify with a different species. I know -- for a fact -- that for some trans people, the reason they're the way they are is due to self-loathing of their own gender for one reason or another. It's not that different, really. It's just that I loathe my species. Humanity isn't particularly special.

This might sound like misanthropy, but that's an incorrect appellation. That would require that I hate people. I don't. In fact, I bear people no ill will. I'm an emotional baby who'd never want anyone to suffer, I'd cry. The difference is that I'm not sold on the laughably overestimated illusion of our greatness.

In fact, I look at humanity and I don't see greatness. I see people behaving in tribal ways. There's greed and supremacy to be seen wherever one looks. We're systematically destroying our world because humans only relate to humans, so if an animal's habitat is crushed underfoot, what does it matter? I have mused, in the past, that if you could put a smiling human face and skin on a tree, without making it some kind of body horror, then people would care about trees being felled.

Humans are so, so self-obsessed. Our species has its head so far up its own arse it can't see anything else. It has its head so, so far up its own arse that it actively hates anything that isn't like it or doesn't worship it. There's a hierarchy to humanity, and that hierarchy always reads 'how similar to the ones in charge are you?'

For black people, it's that they weren't white enough so they had to endure slavery; For women, it's that they don't 'man up' enough, so they're met with institutionalised sexism. The thing is is tha tthere's supremacy in every facet of humanity. Every part of it. Everywhere.

A white person hates a black person for being black; A straight person hates a gay person for being gay; A gay person hates a trans person for being trans; A straight man hates a feminist for being feminist; A feminist hates a trans person for being trans; A trans person hates an otherkin for being otherkin; And so on, and so on, ad nauseum.

It's fucking ridiculous and terrible.

In order to achieve happiness you have to destroy someone else's life? I know trans people hate otherkin most of all, so it's they who're most invested in destroying our lives to benefit themselves. And that's how it goes, isn't it? It's all about supremacy and greed, look at for your own herd, and just fuck everyone else. They can go to hell. Right?

I don't like humanity. I don't buy the spiel we're selling. I'm really not impressed, humanity. I'm really, truly not impressed.

This is why if I were handed a box with a button on it that I knew where if I pressed it it would exterminate human life without causing any suffering whatsoever? My mind would be flooded, overloaded to breaking point with very sound, logical, well reasoned arguments as to why I should push it. There would be very, very few dissenting voices. One of the few questions would be whether it'd also include the rejects forced to endure human form as well, as they don't deserve it. Only actual humans possess enough hatred to deserve that.

Why would I sanction that? Humans are awful. Let's be honest, if they ever made it to space there'd be campaigns of genocide against any species that wasn't advanced enough to fight them off, and they'd be stupid enough to pick fights with those more powerful than them as well just because they don't look, act, and/or sound like they do.

Humanity is awful. I've known that since day one.

I was born into this world forced to feel guilt for my very existence, from day one. I wasn't the perfect child, I wasn't what they wanted, I wasn't 'them' enough for my parents. I was too deformed and ugly to fit into society. I was a 'monster' just because of how I was born and the hardships I'd endured. It's worse because some of the welts on my hide are from the hatreds I've known.

And I'm just not impressed. I don't see the vaunted kindness, I'm not seeing the open-mindedness, I don't very often witness the awareness. Now, don't get me wrong, I think that humans are very clever creatures. They're certainly architects and builders, they can imagine and create things and that's worthy of praise, to be sure. There are, however, factors which are much more important for a sapient species to be truly considered advanced.

And humanity doesn't yet possess them.

It's an astounding feat of narcissism that we believe that just because no one has bothered to reveal themselves to us, that we must therefore be alone in the Universe. Only a human could come up with an idea so solipsistic. It could just be that aliens aren't impressed with this world of self-obsessed narcissists. Just perhaps, maybe.

I mean, if I were an alien, I wouldn't bother. And I do feel like an outsider. I think humanity can be, for the most part, untenably terrible and monstrous.

So, consider the child who's imprinted on dogs, reviled by humanity for his disability. A story any truly disabled child can attest to. Some more than others. You grow through this sea of hatred, it's all you've known, humans never saw fit to welcome you as one of their own. So you're an outsider, you don't belong to the herd. You're othered.

Throughout my youth, I looked upon horror and 'monsters' with very different eyes. I knew monsters to be peach skinned, human shaped things. So if I saw a hairy beast with claws, I knew it had to be like me -- it was a creature that these awful things had hurt so terribly, and it was just trying to survive.

I felt a kinship with it.

Whenever I saw a dragon beset by a group of four of these peach-skinned creatures? I didn't see four 'heroes' who'd set out to lay low some fell beast. No, no no no. What reason would I have to believe that? It's not like there's any form of fantasy forensics to try to ascertain guilt, is there? No, it's nothing more than home invasion.

You have these four evil, greedy bandits who'd lie through their teeth to justify breaking into someone's house and stealing all their shit. I felt more and more for the dragon. Anything that humans would respond to with fear and hatred? I, in turn, would feel an increasingly strong bond with and connection to. As time marched on, that feeling of becoming more distant from any human identity had grew.

And here I am. Humans are monsters. They disgust me. I feel self-loathing over being stuck in a human body. Why? Isn't that obvious? All of my life other, 'normal' humans have made it clear that I'm not like them. I've been made to feel unwelcome and othered.

They've told me I'm not like them, rather vehemently. I've felt that I'm not like them. I don't identify as human. I identify as that which humanity hates. That's what I am.

I am the creature you made me.

If I am that which humans hate, I will call myself werewolf. I find the aesthetic attractive, both beautifully and in a physical sense. I'm sexually aroused by werewolves, not by humans. It's the way my mind is now wired. This is who I am. This IS who I am. I'm sorry that only stokes the fires of your hatred more, though considering that that's all I've ever known... You'll forgive me if I don't care much, eh?

The thought of being a werewolf and being with a werewolf provides me with comfort. I feel safe. They scare away the disgusting monsters called 'human.' Moreover, these undeniably wondrous creatures can undo the curse called 'human' and unlock the truth within. This, of course, humans call a curse. I call it freedom.

I don't know if werewolves actually exist, mind you. Speaking probablistically they likely don't. The narrative is there, though, and by any means I had I would choose to become like them over the evil homunculi who call themselves 'human.'

You see, I don't hate like a human. I don't hate feminists, gay people, trans people, or anyone. I don't have a hierarchy of that which is more similar to me or not. I don't want to be superior and actively avoid that entitlement in any way I can.

The end result of all this is that I feel genuinely detached from humanity. To them, I am a monster. To me, they are the monsters.

The difference? I've never beaten, tortured, broken, or scarred anyone. I wouldn't. I couldn't. Like I said, I'd cry. All I know from humans is that they're these bipedal creatures who're in an unending war of supremacy, they always want to strive to be so superior to one another, so much better, no matter whom they've crushed to get there.

I'll just be over here, being a werewolf, identifying as a werewolf, and not having any truck with that.

And here's the thing? I'm hated for embracing this, too! It's truly remarkable. I'm told that I'm a joke, a troll, that none of my feelings are relevant. I'm told that I'm a construct invented to torture trans people despite probably being older and thus having suffered longer than any of the trans people I was supposedly invented to torment.

This is the thing with humanity. You'll even weaponise myself and other otherkin to hurt your own. It's incredible. You're so fucked up. You're so completely fucked up.

And you wonder why aliens haven't taken notice of us.

It's because of all of the HATE.

Like I said, I'll just be over here, not hating. All your hatred does, really, is just convince me of how utterly correct I am to not identify with humanity in the first place. It serves to illustrate how correct I am about how you're fuelled by hatred first and foremost before anything else. And that I -- and any sane person -- would have every reason to not identify as human.

No one who's free of hate should identify as human.

And that's all otherkin is. It's being hated so much, by so many people, you come out the other side as something else entirely. Not something better, not something worse, just something that's different. Something other.

And that's why the world has otherkin. Because you're so narcissistically self-obsesed. Becasue you hate.

And as long as you hate, there'll be people who'll end up so detached from humanity they'll have no choice but to be otherkin. That's just how that works.

And detached as I am. I choose werewolf. It's a construct I identify with. A creature that doesn't hate, that's immeasurably compassionate and kind to their own, and is feared by humans. Speaking of? It always amused me so much that folks believed that otherkin werewolves picked werewolves because of the 'beauty and nobility of wolves' or whatever else. In my case, I picked them solely because I like dogs and you hate 'em, and there's kinship in that which is hated by you. Today, you hate them now more than ever due to the furry-/otherkin-connections they might have, which means my kinship with them is stronger with them than it's ever been.

And no, I don't hate you. I just wish you'd stop hating. Until you do? I'll just be over here in my non-human club for non-humans where we can be free of the hate. Because that's what we are, right? Non-human. You told us so. At length.

What else were we supposed to think? We're your most despised rejects. We were never a part of your glorious species to begin with. So we might as well be werewolves, dragons, or elves. And that... that really opens your mind to all of the possibilities. Once you're outside of the human bubble, you learn you can love anything. Anything. There's something special about that that you'll never understand.

I love werewolves. I'm a werewolf otherkin. I'd be a werewolf any day over a human. I'm aesthetically attracted to their feral beauty. I'm sexually attracted to these hairy were beasts with mottled skin, bulging veins, and giant claws and fangs. I'm emotionally attracted to them as protectors who'd keep me safe from hateful humans. They're great!

It's a laugh, really, because I guess werewolves sort of an expression of my disabilities. Of my autism, the shakes, my PTSD, my physical deformity and scarring. I guess it's just me coming to terms with how it's okay to be me, even if I'm despised for that. It allows me to be comfortable with myself and to find strength in that. That you'd hate me for that or you'd want to take that away for petty reasons? That you wouldn't want me or any other person to identify this way in order to find happiness, stability, and peace?

Well, that's kind of sad.

And honestly? The hatred you'd feel for my love of werewolves (aesthetically, emotionally, and especially sexually) just serves to make me stronger. It only serves to strengthen the bond I feel with non-human creatures. So... Bring it, I s'pose!

Being an otherkin is rad. So... Fuck your hatred, I'm a werewolf!

Let me leave you with one, closing thought: If I woke up tomorrow and I was a giant insect, I'd shrug it off. No worse off, right? Just another form of life. Besides, compound eyes are quite lovely, I think, and I'd be able to fly! Whereas most humans would likely commit suicide as an act of final, narcissistic defiance.

"Oh no, I'm not beautiful any more! Goodbye, cruel world!"

Humans. Sigh. I don't identify with you any more. Your self-obsessed narcissism leading to the exclusion of any and all that don't share a certain prerequisite verisimilitude with you has made you an insufferably insouciant, unempathetic, and belligerent species.

There's nothing to like. At least, not from the outside. From the inside it must seem lovely, where everyone who meets that prerequisite quota is looking out for one another. Still, mine is an outside perspective. Humanity's repugnant self-obsession has made it an ugly species.

Let's be honest, the only 'care' you have for those unlike you is a selfish expression of your desire to 'cure' them to make them more like you. That's not a kindness, that's a hatred.

Good to be otherkin.

Addendum

I guess this is why I feel so strongly about six-limbed dragons as well. I secondarily identify there but it's more, I think, that I'd want dragon friends. I think the world would be a more amazing place if giant shadows were cast from large wings on high, knowing that there are these giant, truly magnificent creatures watching out for you.

Except we're not allowed to have that, are we? To make a dragon four-limbed? It takes away their hands (which are on their forelegs) and their minds. They're now feral, slavering monsters fit for glorious humans to slaughter. We're not allowed to have them as our friends.

I don't know. It's like humans are so uncomfortable that we relate to non-human sapience that they want to take that away however they can. Dragons had been on this constant track of progression toward being the gentle protector that we know and love, you can see that with instances like Draco in Dragonheart.

Can't have that, though, can we?

If it's not a human it has to be a monster, a true evil. This narcissism where we're not allowed to have our non-human friends just because it makes self-obsessed people a little bit uncomfortable is unsettling to me and just drives home how unwelcome humanity makes the 'rejects' like myself feel.

So what happens to our six-limbed friends? They're amputated, we get to watch them writhe around on their bellies like dogs who've had their forelegs removed. I know people say it's for realism, that they look like bats, et cetera. I also believe we all know how that's completely untrue. I've worked at a bat sanctuary, I've seen bats walk and run.

If you don't believe me, look up 'bat walking' and 'bat running' on Google. I'll belabour this until I'm blue in the face becasue as someone who's lived with this bizarre prejudice for a long time, I know what it's really about. It's about people being generally uncomfortable with non-human sapience, as it might 'upstage' them and show them up by being kinder, more patient, and sweeter than they are.

You don't have to worry about that with amputated body horror dragons though, right? Yeah, you get to be comfortable now, at the expense of those of us who miss our dragon friends.

Is it any wonder I don't identify with humans, for the most part?

[its-a-lark-blog]

Cures & Vaccines

There is a strange dilemma brought about by cure and vaccine alike. One poorly understood by humankind because, in general, humankind isn't the best suited species to understanding anything, let alone itself. I'd like to shed some light on the dilemma.

Let's take this to a more fantastic, symbolic place first, though, shall we? It's important to understand the nature of the problem, the underlying programming flaw in our species that leads us to behave detrimentally to ourselves and others. I want to challenge your awareness and open your mind.

Would you cure a werewolf?

I want you to think on that topic very carefully. The werewolf in question belongs to an everyday family of white people who're hand-wringingly distraught about this hairy situation. Among their number? A mother, who serves as a home-maker; A father, who's a humble clockmaker; An older sister; And a younger brother.

You've captured the errant werewolf in question, she pads around the edges of her cage agitatedly. As you enter, her movements halt and she's frozen in place with her amber gaze on yours.

"Why are you doing this?"

You've established that the werewolf is sapient. She hasn't been responsibel for harming anyone and it appears that for all intents and purposes that she's in full control over her powers. Over the course of weeks as you gather that which you need for the cure, you learn she has little interest in it, all she desires is her freedom.

Would you cure her now?

As time marches on, as is its wont, you discover that her home isn't nearly so rosy as it appears. Their father's business wasn't ever valued from the outset, business was booming for their neighbours whose smugness over this was apparent but their family had known naught but the struggle. The father turned to the bottle, and abuse, as an outlet for his pent up frustrations.

Would you cure her now?

You have the cure in your hand and it's your choice whether she'sc ured or not. The family begs and pleads with you to do so, to ease their burden as 'that monster' isn't their daughter. They make promises to you of whatever they can afford, even the daughter's hand in marriage should you but return to her her humanity.

Would you cure her now?

I want you to think on this question very carefully, let it weigh on both your heart and mind as you decide whose rights here are the most valid.

Do you side with the family, stripping the daughter's curse away from her so that she might return to her own? She's not happy about that, to her mind, you've 'killed her wolf.' She loved that side of herself, it had served to protect her, to keep her safe and out of harm's way. You've delivered her back to a broken home where the abuse she'll know will increase tenfold as she's focused on as being the source of all their troubles and turmoil.

Do you side with the daughter, setting her free and destroying your cure in the process? The family swears they will see you dead, they'll hire someone to hunt you and serve them your head on a platter. This escalates and an altercation with the father leaves you bedridden, having to practise your vaunted healing techniques on yourself for a while.

Which is the right outcome?

As you might've guessed, this isn't so much about lycanthropy as it is autism. Why werewolves, though? It's a good question. One I'll answer. It was a readily available and easily understood symbolic vehicle with which to drive this point home. You see, a werewolf is unlike 'us,' and thus the urge is to destroy or cure it for its difference.

This is a base urge that drives humanity, the separation betwen that which is like 'us,' and that which is not like 'us.' Of course, this results in the bigotries, prejudices, and hatreds we're all aware of and generally understand, though it doesn't illuminate the underlying issue. It is human to experience growing hatred for anything that is unlike what one is most familiar with -- the larger the difference, the more fuel to fan the flames of hatred.

This is how it is for autistic people. We're not 'us,' we never were. So the drive is to cure autistic children, and eventually adults, so that then we might all be happy neurotypical extraverts. What of our desires? Irrelevant. As a form of sapience outside of 'us,' our rights are reduced, sometimes even non-existent. Do you think that the autistic children undergoing excessive electroshock torture in the Judge Rotenberg Center have any 'rights' to speak of?

Of course we'd cure the werewolf because the werewolf is a lesser creature, whatever their desires might be are irrelevant versus our own desire to make them more like 'us.' That's the problem, you see? The same is true for autistic people, in a very real sense.

So what of vaccines?

The commonly held belief -- however incorrect -- is that vaccine can result in autism. That's not the problem. You're not looking at it in the sense of a human mind in that position, what you would be thinking upon hearing that your baby would need a vaccine is that these life-saving shots could very likely result in a child that isn't like 'us.'

This is an interesting hypocrisy, isn't it? On one hand, you'll have scientists who'll rally against parents for this imbecilic stand against vaccines. What does it matter if they're autistic, it'll save their life! Sadly, however, we also have scientists who're trying to use contemporary medicine to 'cure autism.'

What that essentially implies, of course, is that they want to make a 'cure' for those who aren't 'us,' so that they can make those disgusting, grotesque monsters into 'us.' This is a bit of a mixed message, isn't it?

If you're still having trouble understanding, consider that the medical community is broadcasting that autism is an awful thing because those vile autists just aren't 'us.' That's why a 'cure' is needed. What do you think happens in the mind of a parent when they read that, along with the news that vaccines might cause autism? If medical professionals are telling them that autism is a disease, then that's the expected response.

As an autistic person, I can tell you it isn't a disease. I'm fine. I'm the werewolf that got away, so to speak. I'm happy this way, I feel comfortable with myself as a person.

What I don't like as a person are supremacists whose only concern is 'us.'

Anyway, hopefully this has shed a little enlightenment. It can be found, there are those who have awareness and are willing to share it. All you have to do is listen. Something that, sadly, humans aren’t very good at.

[its-a-lark-blog]

An MMORPG Post-Mortem

This is a difficult topic to talk about as I know that a lot of people will want to deny it. There is a simple truth, though: If the genre was healthy, there would be more big name MMOs on the horizon rather than just small independent efforts. Okay. Where are they? Where are these MMOS to show the health of the genre? The Internet used to be abuzz about the latest MMO to grace our screens, that's no longer happening.

What went wrong?

A lot of things, honestly, though the biggest one was MMO developers being archaic dinosaurs who're unable to understand what a contemporary MMO demographic looks like.

I feel like The Elder Scrolls Online is the last, great MMO. I recently cancelled my subscription to it as they're making all the same mistakes that these companies always do, retreading the same grounds, it's like groundhog day for anyone observant enough to understand what, precisely, is wrong.

As a part of this, then, I'll be looking at The Elder Scrolls Online and Guild Wars 2 as my primary examples of why the genre is long gone, what killed it, and why it's unlikely to ever return.

Chaos, thy Name is Balance

That might be a strange thing to say on the surface, but it's ultimately true. Another truth? The contemporary MMO player doesn't care about balance -- what they care about is having a powerful enough character whom they have a personal connection to. They want to experience stories as that character, explore the world as them, take in all the lore, and build a personal narrative about that character's adventures.

Why do I say this? Well, look at what people want from a contemporary single player RPG. This is why they put so many hours into their character in those games, and this is a point I will come back to later on as it's one of utmost importance to understand why the MMO failed. So, players want some kind of connection to their character, they want to be able to engage with them.

That's impossible when each new patch is pulling the rug out from under them in the name of balance with every major patch an MMO has. It's the most disheartening thing when some balance patch to cope with min-maxers results in your favourite character no longer having a viable play-style. So you then have to completely rebuild your character, you're forced to grind out new gear, or maybe even just start over.

That's disheartening the first few times. Eventually it's crushing. I look at the upcoming patch notes for The Elder Scrolls Online and I see that sustain for casual templars (a class) is neutered becuase they were trying to cope with something min-maxers were doing. The same thing has happene to the werewolf skill line, leaving players who enjoyed being a werewolf out in the cold. Why not ignore the min-maxers?

This ultimately comes down to a complete misunderstanding that the dinosaurs developing MMOs have about the people who play them, they believe that balance is important and that we care about who's strongest. That's <1 per cent of any MMO community. The >99 per cent cares more about how the next patch is going to destroy their character and they'll have to start over again.

This is why people can leave MMOs in droves. You can't settle down into a character and enjoy it. You can't feel comfortable with what you'll be able to play. You're looking at more grinding, more 'balance,' and the unease builds into this tumultuous crescendo of rage until finally you just quit. You can only take so many characters ruined before you give up.

All you want to do is have fun with your character.

The thing is is that even if it means cutting PvP and hardcore end-game out of an MMO? That's fine. I'll point out that these demographics never account for more than around 1 per cent of the MMO community. Is it truly worth alienating the rest to appeal to that 1 per cent? The issue, naturally, is that MMO developers don't realise this. They're stuck in the past, where everything is still Everquest, and they're too cowardly to embrace the present day, let alone the future.

If you cut that toxic element away from your game, you'll have a better, more welcoming game anyway. All people ever do when talking about an MMOs end-game content is complain about the prevalance of sociopaths and toxicity. Well, that makes sense. It's all about being manipulative, controlling people who play in groups, and puppeteering them in order to get what you want. I mean, they might get what they want, too, but it's ultimately about the sociopath being first and serving their own needs.

Many of them will have enough foresight to realise that there'll be more raids in the future with loot drops that they want, so they won't cut ties and be completely hostile. They'll be just friendly enough to keep their group together and under their control so they can continue achieving their own goals. That's what happens with end-game content due to forced grouping. If you're forced to group in a big group, and you can't tailor that in any way, you're going to end up being forced to group with sociopaths and people who have other undesirable traits.

And these undesirables are the ones who clamour for balance, because tehy want to be the best at everything. The best at the end-game, the best at PvP, et cetera. They want it to be a closed off club so they're able to lord their winnings over other people. As such, balance serves them, but it doesn't serve the community as a whole. It only hurts. MMO developers, being Everquest-era fossils, fail to understand this.

A lot of players will choose not to raid -- we'll come back to this, too -- which means that balance patches will drop on them which will randomly destroy their characters. A bunch of casual build types are being ruthlessly oblitterated in an upcoming patch to The Elder Scrolls Online and it tells me that here we have another MMO developer who simply doesn't understand the people playing their game. Just watch for all the casual templar players leaving ESO when the Wolfhunter DLC hits.

MMO developers believe they need to chase the sociopaths because the sociopaths keep people in-line with the grind mill, they keep them addicted. They think that's the only way it can be.

What happens then is that players can't play the content they want to. They can't play the characters they want to because 'balance' keeps screwing them up. This results in anxiety, stress, and an absence of any conceivable kind of fun. You're just not allowed to have fun with your character, appealing to sociopaths is more important.

Like I said, they think this keeps people playing their game. That might work for World of Warcraft, but nothing else. I remember recently I saw this thread where a WoW hardcore player described his kind of player as being like a plague of locusts. They descend upon other games to devour their content, then leave. They always return to WoW, because that's the game that appeals the most to their sensibilities. Just as PvP players will always return to EvE Online as it's the most cut-throat experience.

What MMO developers don't realise is that not even the sociopaths will stick around. This approach of keeping people addicted to grind is so heinously and embarrassingly antiquated that anyone building a game around it in 2018 should hide their face in shame. That's what I mean though when I say that MMOs have too many fossils in on board and in powr, they believe that this is the way it must be.

They believe that the grind mill is the only way. For the grind mill to work, you need 'balance.'

What actually happens then is, as I said, people leave because they feel like they're not allowed to have fun. Different players have different levels of tolerance and they leave at different points but they all leave for the same reason, and they'll rarely ever return. This is what kills an MMO. It's the lack of fun. It's putting 'balance' over fun.

Nothing should ever come before fun in a video game.

The thing is is that fun can be expresssed in a lot of ways. Exploring a good mystery, being scared by a horror game, puzzling out a particularly tricky conundrum, or what have you. Being forced to relearn or (more likely) abandon one's character every couple of game patches is no one's idea of fun. This absence of fun is what hurts MMOs the most.

And what do you do if you've made your game no fun?

Carrot on an Infinitely Long Stick

The MMO developer thus believes that it's necessary to incentivise with gambling mechanics, grind, and other systems to keep their players in line. That's strange, don't you think? If the game was fun and enjoyable in the first place, they wouldn't need to do that.

I think that's a fair claim.

An MMO like The Elder Scrolls Online has more content than a game like Skyrim, it also has the carrot-on-a-stick system to keep people addicted, so people should be dropping out of Skyrim almost instantly to waste away their life in ESO, right? Well, not really.

A Skyrim player can easily sink 6-800 hours into that game.

Why?

It's fun.

I know that's an obvious thing to say, but I don't believe we think about teh nature of fun enough. It's fun, you see. It's enjoyable. It's all about the wonder and delight of it all. We play to learn, to explore, to understand; And we're thrilled by whatever narrative or gameplay curve balls a single player RPG developer throws in to catch us off guard. We have this connection to our characters, we're loving this adventure.

That's why we play!

In a single-player RPG, a good developer gives us new toys to play with whenever we encounter something new. This then spurs us to use those new toys in further adventures. If you give someone a toy, of course they're going to want to play with it! That's human nature, and that's the reason why some games are successful where others aren't.

However, if you were to withhold that toy and tease players with it until much later, by which point they'd be sick of playing the game to just try and 'earn' that toy? That's bad design.

Let's look at two examples. The motorbike from Breath of the Wild and the Delphinus spaceship from Skies of Arcadia. The former is a sordid case of bad design as Nintendo chose to dangle it over the nose of the player until very late in the game. The problem with this is that by the time you get the bike, there's nothing left to explore. So there's no joy of discovery to be shared with your new bike.

It's now just a new means of traversing environement you already know like the back of your hand. This takes the joy out of it. Sure, it might work, but the thing is is that it would've worked just as well if you'd given it to the players halfway through the game. I'd say that doing so is actually beneficial, it'd keep the contemporary game player playing for longer. I think too many gamers have become savvy to the carrot-on-a-stick.

They know by now that it only results in exhaution, the prize never feels worth it.

Now take the case of the Delphinus in Skies of Arcadia. Up until that point the player had only known airships, so the dramatic reveal of a high-tech, fully armoured airship with all of the science-fantasy trimmings was a marvel to behold. How was this handled? Did SEGA tease and dangle it over the head of the player to keep them going until some later point in the game, by which time the Delphinus would just be a pointless trophy? No, no they did not!

SEGA dropped the Delphinus on players mid way through the game as a curve ball to vary things up. Suddenly all kinds of new possibilities had been introduced! You could go to new players! You were given a customisable island HQ! It was truly incredible and it made us feel as though we were staring the game fresh again, as though the adventure itself had been reborn and we were ready to see it with new eyes. That's the value of diversity of gameplay, and giving the player wonderful new toys to play with at various points throughout it.

Never tease the player with it, just give it to them when the time is right and when they're least expecting it. The sheer happiness and triumph with such a reward will spur them on to enjoy the game even more.

A lot of contemporary game developers understand this, and they understand the pacing of handing out toys in their games and why they should never be a carrot-on-a-stick. The notion here is that you provide the player with something that grants them a new way to play that they would want, and this brings them jubilation. Hooray! Not that you ruthlessly taunt and tease them, and never provide.

That's what the Skinner Box of an MMO is, though. The developer promises you that this time will be the last time your character will be totally oblitterated. You'll just have to grind out one new set of gear, then you'll be able to play the character you enjoy, as you want. It's just over the next hill! Keep reaching for that carrot! Keep going! Sadly, people aren't horses. And they aren't idiots.

The average gamer is becoming wise and savvy to these techniques and it's just leaving people feel tired.

"This fun thing you want? Oh, it's only a long grind away! You can do it! No, don't quit the game! Wait, come back! Where are you going? Why aren't you grinding for the shiny???"

This is what lands MMOs on life support. What does that mean? It's an industry term where the MMO developer no longer has the funds, resources, or will to develop new content. So the servers are left on so that the game can continue to generate some money from curious newcomers and loyalists, but generally the game is considered a lost cause by both the developer and the community alike.

This is where every MMO heads, this is the future that Guild Wars 2 and The Elder Scrolls Online are careening towards.

Guild Wars 2 is especially notable, here. When they launched their Heart of Thorns expansion, it was entirely focused around that carrot on a stick to appease the <1 per cent of the MMO community that still lacks self-awareness enough to find that desirable. It almost killed ArenaNet, cash shop sales dried up. Why? Casuals and roleplayers buy cash shop items, hardcore players and PvPers never do as ArenaNet found out.

ArenaNet had to issue a public apology and dial it back. They're still trying to deal with their mistake, now. They keep doing it, too. After ArenaNet promised that they wouldn't add a new tier of armour to grind through, they did, to appease that <1 per cent. A whole bunch of the community left the game behind at that point (yours truly included). It felt like such a callous insult to our collective intelligence.

Why does a contemporary MMO player stick with a game? If it's fun, if it isn't manipulative, if it doesn't try to suck up all of their time and screw with them via manipulative systems of gambling and carrots on sticks? They'll play it. They'll reward the MMO developer with cash untold on their shop. I'm a whale, myself. I can spend hundreds of pounds, easily, per month on a cash shop if I find the game desirable. The problem here, of course, is that there are so few games worthy of that.

If an MMO developer designed a game like Skyrim, but with co-op where the content scales to the number of people playing it? Then that'd be fun for everyone. No more carrots on sticks or other manipulative tactics, no more slaughtering characters on the shrine of balance, just a fun game for everyone to enjoy.

We don't want to be tricked into grinding because you've ruined our characters yet again. We don't want to be tricked into grinding because you've put some toy we want in a raid, and you're dangling it over our noses. We don't want that. I mean, look at The Elder Scrolls Online's Wolfhunter DLC. Werewolf roleplayers wanted a new model for the werewolf skill line, yes? The currnet one looks like a poorly paid intern effort that belongs in 2005 (there are many werewolf models I can emphatically and eagerly point to since then which are better).

Werewolf roleplayers were also asking for the werewolf skill line to become a toggle (like the werewolf mods for Skyrim that everyone loves). Every werewolf player wanted this, it was a chorus on teh forums. And the developer knew, too. What did they choose to do with this information? More carrots on sticks, of course.

First they added a trinket to a raid, which you have to grind for, that allows you to temporarily change your form into that of the new werewolf behemoth model they added. Temporarily. After a long grind.

Then they added a house that you'd either have to grind for months to get the gold for or give them $70 for. In this house you'd be able to use your werewolf form permanently.

Both of these factors were salt in the wound. I'm not sure why they thought that either option was a good idea. I know for a fact that a lot of werewolf players left ESO after that (including yours truly). It was just insult on top of injury.

Oh, and they completely fucked up the werewolf skill line in the name of balance, too.

If they had common sense they would've just given werewolf players a new werewolf form, they would've made werewolf a toggle, and they wouldn't have nerfed werewolf. Why? This would've made werewolf a new 'toy' for MMO players. It would've resulted in an incredibly strong bond of loyalty between werewolf players and ESO, which would've brought in more cash shop sales.

They might actually have been able to sell that $70 house to us, then. Just as a werewolf themed house. No, though, it has to be more carrots on sticks. We can't just have fun toys to play with.

Which, ultimately, means we can't just have fun.

See, the carrots could become toys which allow people to have more fun in the long run. What's happened though is that MMO developers who've focused on 'balance' instead of fun have robbed their game of its more enjoyable qualities. So they turn the toys into carrots to place on sticks to try to addict people. This just leads to more stress, more anxiety, and negative word of mouth about the game.

If an MMO developer were ever to base the grounding tenets of their MMO around fun, they'd have the most popular MMO ever. That leads into another point I need to make, but first...

Locked Out

You know what's not fun? To have a carrot dangled over your nose, and to know you'll never be able to actually catch it.

MMOs have raids, trials, whatever you want to call them. A lot of players will never engage in this content. Why? They don't want to have to interact with sociopaths. The MMO experience is stressful and annoying enough already without having to deal with manipulative nutjobs on top of everything else. So the majority of players avoid that. Casuals and roleplayers especially, who make up the largest number.

So what does an MMO developer do? They try the carrot on a stick thing again. They add roleplayer rewards to a raid. The Elder Scrolls Online has done this with the Wolfhunter DLC. They have a memento for transforming into a large werewolf behemoth, and a werewolf skin that makes one's character look more werewolfy. These are clearly rewards for werewolf roleplayers, to entice them into trials.

That's not going to happen. All that means is that they feel denied. They feel as though they can't get those carrots, they'll never be able to play with those toys. Instead, sociopaths will enjoy lording that over them. Which is why the appeal to sociopaths in MMOs is, quite frankly, insane. Why do you want to appeal to a group of people who're only going to serve to alienate the vast majority of your players? Why?

It's because the dinosaurs who develop MMOs can't get their heads out of the past. Like I said, they think that the sociopaths are necessary. When all that's actually necessary (as is proved by games like Skyrim) is to make a genuinely fun game. That's all you need to do. That's it!

Also, raids and the like mean that there's story content that lore nerds and roleplayers will never get to experience. Even if they do do a trial, the sociopaths they're with are over-achievers so they have to rush through the dialogue and rob people of being able to enjoy that. Why even put dialogue in such content to begin with? It's only going to get skipped over by the people trying to win rewards to lord over other people.

As such, there's content now that they can never play. If these raids had difficulty settings and scaled to the number of people playing them, they'd be fun! If you had the rewards on all difficult settings, rather than just putting the best rewards on teh hardmode difficulty to add to the lording over factor (I'm looking at you, ESO) then it'd be even more fun! Fun!

Fun!

Oh... Well... We can't have that, can we? Fun. In an MMO? Psh.

Could you imagine playing a dungeon with however many people you wanted, without being forced by the MMO developer to group with the most toxic, awful people you can find online? I'd fucking love that! Why is that not a thing? I've suggested it on The Elder Scrolls Online forums and it's a popular idea, but the developers don't want to listen.

Why? Fossils. Fossils believe that sociopaths are more important than fun. Which is what this keeps coming down to.

Why have fun when you can have sociopaths and carrots on sticks? Wheeee.........

The Future

The reason the MMORPG genre has already passed is because of this love affair that fossils in the MMO developer industry have with sociopaths. As I've explained, these dinosaurs believe that in order to make profit they have to appeal to the sociopaths with rewards to lord over people, along with 'balance' to make the content to get those rewards an exclusive club.

They believe that when they get the sociopaths addicted this way, the sociopaths will maniulate other people into becoming addicted and so the profits will flow. That worked for WoW, yes, but it's important to realise that people can see patterns and they aren't idiots.

What the contemporary MMO player wants (and what would make the MMO developer money enough to be rolling in profit) and what the MMO developer thinks would make them money are two different things. This disconnect is what's killed the genre.

MMO players are surprisingly loyal people. They tend to stick with the characters they've formed a connection with, they play alts, and they'll enjoy making new stories for themselves. How do you appeal to these people? Just give them a fun game where they feel they have an important place in the narrative. Like, you know, Skyrim. There's a good reason why people are more excited right now about Skyrim Together (multiplayer mod) than The Elder Scrolls Online.

In Skyrim Together there are no carrots, just toys. Huzzah! In Skyrim Together people can play together in whatever group size without ever having to deal with toxic sociopaths. Huzzah! In Skyrim Together they can control their game with mods so that they can play their own way and have fun. Huzzah!

The thing is? Non-MMO developers are starting to catch on.

I'm going to throw a shout-out to Larian Studios, here. Divinity: Original Sin 2 and its ilk are the new MMO. They're the next stage. The only issue that D:OS2 has is that due to its combat, it's not very mainstream. Once you take the formula of D:OS2 and make it mainstream, though? Et voila, that's the face of the new MMO. Except it won't be an MMO, will it? No, it'll be a co-op, modifiable RPG we can play with our friends.

Larian and developers like them could make a LOT of money by selling DLC for games like this. We're going to get attached to these characters as we roleplay them with friends. We're going to form a connection with them as part of the narrative. And we'll happily pay companies like Larian for the chance to enjoy those fun experiences even more.

And so it goes.

The MMO is dead, long live the MMO (co-op RPGs, basically).

Footnote

It turns out that I was banned from The Elder Scrolls Online community for airing much the same concerns. And that’s okay. In a way, it’s a relief, it gives me a sense of closure for myself and my characters. I’m not a sociopath, nor am I the kind of person who’s played by them, so I’m not welcome there. Nor are my characters. That’s okay, my characters will find homes elsewhere.

They have to protect their sociopaths, I suppose, and... frankly? I deserve better than how MMO developers treat me, we all do. That’s why I’m done with ESO. I genuinely believe that a lot of MMO players deserve better than how MMO developers actually treat them (like dirt, most of the time). I don’t know why we put up with it, no other part of the games industry is like this. It’s like being stuck in an abusive relationship due to our characters being imprisoned there.

I sometimes think to myself ‘I don’t understand how these companies are still in business,’ but then I remember all of the MMOs which have died or are limited to life support with death on the horizon. Oh, right, I guess they don’t. At least, not for long. That’s the way of it.

I can’t say it’s not heartbreaking as I did find some enjoyment in my characters and their stories there. It’s just that I do deserve better. I’m glad I’m out, and now that I am? Well... I’m looking forward to Stardew Valley, I’m looking forward to Skyrim Together, I’m looking forward to Divinity: Original Sin 2 - Definitive Edition, I’m looking forward to being able to just play and enjoy my characters with friends.

That’s all I ever wanted, and there’s a market for that out there for those who’re smart enough to meet it. A lot of burned out, poorly treated MMO players who’re looking for a new home.

I’m actually going to do something a little selfish here, for me. Say, Larian... Can has werewolf class DLC for Original Sin 2? As a player who’s looking forward to bringing their characters to your co-op title, that’d make it all the better. I’m still going to love it without (so much) but if you could do that? It’d make one ESO werewolf refugee happy.

[its-a-lark-blog]

I Dig Wyverns

(Art is by h-avoq.)

With my recent thoughts on the topic of four-limbed dragons, there may be some vexed confusion over my stance on wyverns.

There's a reason I call them four-limbed dragons instead of wyverns. The four-limbed dragon exists to be a brain-drained, mutillated dragon meant for a white supremacist to murder to prove how glorious their dick is. That's the only reason four-limbed dragons exist.

However, a wyvern is NOT a four-limbed dragon. A wyvern is a wyvern. A wyvern holds itself more like a bird; Usually wyvern fans are bird nerds and I love tem.

The addle-brained mixing up of four-limbed dragons and wyverns likely only serves to piss them off. Four-limbed dragons are an amputated travesty of six-limbed dragons, made to be less threatening to insecure white supremacists who can't even handle anything being superior to them even in fictional fantasy. Wyverns are wyverns. Just wyverns.

It's unfair and wrong to compare a sick fuck's big game hunt fantasy to a wyvern. So let's not do that. For the sake of the adoring fans wyverns have, who're no doubt weary of this brainrot by now.

Wyvern fans, you have my sympathies. Wyverns are rad.

[its-a-lark-blog]

Unrealistic Dragons

Honestly, I don’t buy that people want four-limbed dragons because they’re realistic. They’re nothing like bats, man. Look up bats walking and running on Youtube. They look more like bats with their forelegs amputated. So why rob people of their six-limbed dragon friends? Sociopaths, basically.

Why am I so sure that four-limbed dragons are the wont of sociopaths to foray with? Well, let's think on some fascinating curios.

Pegasi have six limbs. Why no complaints?

Centaurs have six limbs. Why no complaints?

Basilisks have six limbs. Why no complaints?

Gryphons can have six limbs. Why no complaints?

I could go on like this but I feel I've made my point. Why aren't these beings maligned for their hexapodal status? Why are tehre no complaints about their unrealistic nature? It's a good question, right? If this were truly about 'realism' then these other beings would fetch as many complaints as dragons do. Yet dragons are singled out for having multiple limbs, and those clever enough would be given to wonder precisely why this is.

Through logical deduction, there is one answer.

The others in this list aren't maligned as they aren't intelligent, wise, kind, or powerful in the way that a six-limbed dragon can be. What a dragon has is this air of being a vastly more powerful, ancient being than any human. There are those who embody the role of the pitiful cretin with such passion that they perceive this as a form of superiority to be overturned. My curse is that I'm aware of how stricken with feelings of superiority humans can be. I see it everywhere.

It extends to fiction. If you were to run a survey, you'd find that this superiority would be found mostly in white men. You'd also be intrigued to see how a preference for four-limbed dragons over six would be more prominent in white men than in any other demographic. I've spoken with enough different types of people to realise that this is a truth. It's an incredibly easy one to prove, too. Why is it that female authors prefer to write about six-limbed dragons, whereas male authors prefer the four-limbed variety? Do your research, it'll echo my findings.

It's all about supremacy. It's about how the idiot alpha's one-upmanship and grandstanding extend even as far as fictional creatures. They're driven to harm anything superior to them -- but if a dragon is depicted as kind, gentle, and wise then they're painted as the villain for doing so. Of course, this doesn't appeal to their poisonous, dick-driven fantasies. The need is for the dragon to be a vile beast.

They slay the vile beast to prove their superiority; They've saved the kingdom, now they get to bed the beautiful princess, they claim the right to poke her with their diminutive meat pike. And no one would e'er dare say an ill word about them or their rights, they slew the dragon as a display of their prominent power.

Sick fucks, eh? That's sociopaths for you.

Not being a sick fuck, I'd rather befriend the dragon, myself. That's just me, though. That's me, not being a sick fuck. Which I personally find much more preferable, I can respect myself, and I don't feel my skin crawling whenever I look at myself in a mirror. The self-hatred of people who feel the need to express their dominance like this must really despise themselves, deep down.

Oh, sociopaths.

We'll still hear the complaints about a six-limbed dragon's lack of realism,t hough. It doesn't matter that a four-limbed dragon doesn't move like a bat or any other creature on earth; It doesn't matter that no animal that we know of breathes fire; It doesn't matter that their weight wouldn't allow a four-limbed creature to be properly ambulatory (let alone fly)... nope. None of that matters. It doesn't matter that the dragon's world could have six-finned fish they evolved from, either; Nor does it matter that a wizard could simply have hybridised them and modified their hox genes; Nor does the explanation 'It's fiction, fool!' satisfy them.

And that's because it's not about realism. It never was. It's about their sick fuckery. It's about how they're extending their supremacy beyond being white, and male, to even just being human. Rotten to the core.

And that's why they don't complain about pegasi, gryphons, or any other six-limbed creatures. They don't feel threatened by them. You see, since those creatures are but mere animals or men, it doesn't threaten the perceived godhood of the supreme white human male.

Sick fucks.

I mean, really. Like I said before, you can just know that they also don't believe in global warming, they're likely Alt-Right, they're probably racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic as well. That's the kind of people who think like this.

It's fascinating...

It really is fascinating how a love of six-limbed dragons portrays a progressive, open, intelligent mind; Whereas a love of mutilated dragons betrays a mind that's hateful, regressive, unimaginative, really sick, and not very bright. This is why I feel so much about this topic.

You can use dragons as a gauge for how good of a person someone is.

If someone hates six-limbed dragons, and tells you how much better their mutilated four-limbed variants are? Get as far away from them as you possibly can. There's a worryingly good chance they're a sociopath.

[its-a-lark-blog]

Prejudice & Bigotry Till the Last Breath

2018 -- A teen is angry at their racist uncle for not being able to empathise with immigrants.

2022 -- A teen is angry at their gay uncle for not being able to empathise with trans people.

2022 -- A teen is angry at their TERF aunt for not being able to empathise with trans people.

2030 -- A teen is angry at their trans uncle for not being able to empathise with otherkin people.

2100 -- A teen is angry at their luddite uncle for not being able to empathise with cloners (people who live forever by uploading their minds).

2150 -- A teen is angry at their pro-humanity uncle for not being able to empathise with their choice to customise their body by hybridising with another species.

2200 -- A teen is angry at their bio-pride uncle for not being able to empathise with their choice of an artificial partner.

2250 -- A teen is angry at their experiencer uncle for not being able to empathise with dead-headers (people who shut their brains off for a century out of boredom).

2300 -- A teen is angry at their terra-first uncle for not being able to sympathise with those suffering in the Martian slave colonies.

It's never going to stop, is it? I'm not proud of my species.

We may need outside help to fix humanity.

[its-a-lark-blog]

The Death of Curiosity

This is largely going to be about why I still read children's stories.

It's soul-crushing to recognise that there's a strange estrangement between what can be done, and then what is done.

And there's a good probability that you won't understand what I'm saying when I say that. A child would, naturally, that's a given. For the vast majority of those who're proudly grown-up, though, I feel there's almost a perverse enjoyment in awareness lost.

Consider: That which CAN be done, and that which IS done.

Children ask "Why?" and adults, in their infinite frustration, rattle out the preprogrammed response of "That's just how it is." which is rather morbid, don't you think? When did your curiosity die? I ask this because I was equally blessed and cursed with never having known this loss. How did yours die? Can you remember the year it happened, the transition between expressing curiosity to smiply accepting that things are the way they are?

And most do this. In fact, you likely do it as well. You'll never ask "Why?" even in a world of infinite possibilities, you'll only respond with "That's the way it's always been." No matter how diverse, varied, vivid, and magical those possibilities are.

Isn't that strange?

I see this in writing all the time. Now, a writer might be able to weave together a fantastic world, full of complexity, of truly endless wonder and infinite possibilities. They'll take such an impossible, beautiful, strange thing and what will they do with this marvellous, impossible creation? They'll set a bunch of humans down in it and task them with killing a dragon.

"Why are the heroes doing this?" "Heroes are good." "Why?" "That's just the way it is."

"How do we know that the dragon did this?" "Dragons are bad." "Why?" "That's just the way it is."

"But couldn't th--" "No, no they couldn't." "Why?" "THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS."

I mean, when I look at a painting of four people bursting into a dragon's lair, I don't see what you see because I'm more inclined to ask questions. What my mind concocts is a scene of home invasion, where these are bandits and hoodlums intent to steal someone's belongings and likely murder them in the process out of some insidiously racist intent.

Then we'd have to bring in the constabulary! A detective would arrive on the scene to investigate; Likely a gnome with a number of gadgets as magical as they are technological to seek out the truth of what happened in this poor dragon's home. Outisde, a griffin psychotherapist is quietly, gently consoling the dragon's parents and promising that the criminals will be brought to justice.

They've got their top men on the job, top men! Giant eagles grasping strange contraptions are canvassing the scene; The odd devices they hold in their claws being aetherial trackers, linked to the spiritual imprints left behind by the aforementioned criminal scum. They're attempting to find and follow their 'soul echoes,' in order to get some kind of idea of the direction that these sordid, sociopathic monsters went.

And what you see is a bunch of heroes killing a dragon; Simply because the heroes are good, the dragon is bad, and that's just the way it is. Why? That's just the way it is. That's sad. That's really bloody deepressing. I can't know what that's like.

I mean, I've met people who're like that. I can see the effects of it, after all. If a person shifts some historical events around in order to fashion anachronisms, they think of that as brilliantly creative. Not realising, of course, that the complexity they're utilising is that of a well understood history as opposed to anything they've fashioned. It's really not that clever at all. I was never inspired by alternate histories; Unless they're the alternate history of an already imagined world (those are fun!).

That's where familiarity comes into it, though, hmmm? Familiarity and the love thereof replaces the curiosity of the child. When one's inner-child dies, the curiosity leaves this giant, gaping void behind. Something has to fill it. Nature abhors a void, so what rushes in to fill the gap is what one knows to be 'true' and 'factual.'

Of course, 'factual' is subjective to an erudite mind. A smart scientist knows that there are no facts, only probabilities, and there is no scientific truth, only scientific proof. We can only assume we know something within a degree of probability through our observations of its behaviour, if we repeat an experiment a great multitude of times and the results never change then the probablistic factor of this being how something works within our reality is increased. That factor never reaches 100 per cent, however, as we can never rule out all other variables.

However, many adults whose curiosity has died will truly believe they know, factually, the nature of reality. This is what leads to very unfortunate cases of bad science. I could cite many examples, but I'd rather go with an obvious one that can't be denied. The desire to cure autism comes from the assumption that autism is a disorder, because that's what it is. Even though people with autism strongly disagree and would prefer to not be 'cured.' The scientist in question would still follow a cure out of their belief that autism is a disorder because, yes, 'that's what it is.' Is it? Why? Are you sure? As I've pointed out, there are many with this so-called disored who'd fervantly disagree.

Bad science, you guys. Bad science. I'm bloody old and I've seen more bad science than you could shake a stick at. It's gotten very tiresome, to say the least.

Still, my point is that hte death of curiosity leads to bad science -- and there's a lot of bad science out there. However, the brightest minds we've ever had are those whose inner-child hasn't died, instead of accepting that things are whichever way they assumably are, the mind in question asks why? Why are they this way? Or, more accuratley, why do we believe they're this way?

I've met so many people whose curiosity has died.

This is true in the creative arts as well, as I mentioned. You have these brilliantly fantastic worlds filled with possibility where truly wondrous things CAN happen, but they don't, as the writer is only focused upon what they know -- the familiar -- and they write purely about what IS, rather than what CAN be, because they've lost that spark. Their inner-child has died and they no longer possess the capacity to ask why.

You believe that things are this way in the world, why? You believe that things are this way in a fantasy world, why? Your answers will probably be oppressively depressing to me, but hopefully I'm stirring something within you that's been dead for far too long. A spark of curiosity, the will to ask why. Why did yours die?

Terry Pratchett is a great example of a writer who looked at a fantasy world and asked why. Why? Why this? Why that? Why are they behaving this way? Why are they doing that? Why aren't they taking advantage of these advances in magic/technology? Why aren't they putting to use these social structures they've developed? With all the possibilities, why is this world all about people in small wooden huts worshipping wizards in their towers? How preposterously dull! How morbidly inane! How comically nonsensical!

It shows that there's a lack of dreaming. No questions. No dreams. Simply that things are the way they are.

Bugger that.

There's a reason why PTerry was so irascible. He wasn't the friendly old man that people believed he was. Oh no. He was no smiling Santa. He was irascible, tired, fed up, and angry. He was also kind. As I approach his age, I begin to understand why as I face his challenges being a person who can ask why in a world that never, ever does.

I wouldn't be surprised if PTerry wrote Discworld out of catharsis to simply show everyone else what you could do in a world that did embrace what you CAN do with all of that potential, rather than simply writing a cloyingly familiar story about how it IS. So, so many writers fall into this pit-trap, whether fantasy or sci-fi, opting to present people with what they know instead of having the insurmountable gall needed to ask why.

And the readers, they're not as bad, they're worse! They reinforce this by clucking with offence should a writer even deign to dare to conceive the question. Yesterday it would've lead to a flurry fo angry letters, today it would result in aonther Twitter war. Why is it htis way? For most people, curiosity has died. Curiosity is only for children. Only a child is allowed to ask why.

I guess I'm a child, I suppose. I take pride in that. As much pride in the perverse pride people have in having offed their inner-child. What I can tell you is that it's lovely being able to dream, which is something that a person sans curiosity can never do. In a vividly colourful whirlwind of imaignation I can conceive worlds which aren't likely anything you've ever known or will.

Honestly, I think most people need to do DMT a few times in their lifetime. By law. Just to reawaken their curiosity and wonder.

So many problems today are caused by people being unable to ask why. And our entertainment industry is in a sorry state as it's staffed by people who never ask why fashioning the most drearily drab creations for audiences that anger at the very suggestion of why. Why did you let your curiosity die?

Curiosity isn't just for children, it's for everyone! It's a fact of life! How did this happen that we've been programmatically murdering inner-children to transmogrify our peoples from one of dreamers, philosophers, and imagineers to sleepwalking, drooling zombies who enjoy nothing more than modern day settings filled with zombies (that they can so easily relate to)?

Why? I'm asking why! Isn't that so very offensive of me? Why?

Why did you stop asking why?

This is why, for the most part, I still read tomes aimed at children over adults as they're written by people who can -- blessed be they -- ask why, for an audience which loves to ask why.

I'm currently reading the Farloft Chronicles and I'm finding it far, far more compelling than I ever did Game of Thrones. Is that insulting to you? Why?

Yes, there are adult examples out there that I could turn to but they're so rare that they're the exception that proves the rule. I've read everything by Terry Pratchett, I've recently enjoyed Out There: Chronicles (now that's a game that loves to ask why, it spent two episodes doing just that and I adored it) as well, but these are few and far between. For the most part it's all like Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and other works so drowned in the ichorous juices of verisimilitude I simply can't stand to read them.

Adult fantasy and sci-fi, for the most part, no longer brings me joy. I'd rather watch Voltron. There are more scientific questions asked in Voltron than in any of the dryest sci-fi I've read. And I've read some fairly dry, dusty sci-fi in my time... Unfortunately.

Voltron asks: Aren't windows in space silly? Don't they add lots of extra weight for transparent materials? What purpose do they serve in space where there's so little to see? Wouldn't they just increase the vulnerability and structural weaknesses of a craft in such a potentially hostile environment?

And so the Voltron lions and the Castle of Lions don't have windows. Their ground speeders DO have windows, though, which shows me that someone actually thought to ask why. Whmever did? THANK YOU. I've been asking that question for years.

Seriously. Windows in space. Why?

"That's just the way it i--"

Well, the way it is is insufferably asinine! Bloody stupid!

You have much better tools available to you in sci-fi than windows, use them! You could have a factory on board that produces swarms of femtotech camerabots that surround the ship and provide a 360 degree view of everything around the pilot! If some of thsoe are knocked out? The on-board factory simply produces more. And so the pilot has a complete view of everything around them and can enjoy a holographic display of everything with extra scanning doodads and the ability to zoom in!

In fact, why do pilots still look so human? In the future, we'd have the capacity to modify our bodies. Surely there are forms which are much better suited to space than the human body, so why don't we use these genetic and technological sciences to provide ourselves with better bodies? I'd even go so far as to ask: In the future, where AI is prevalent, why don't we simply dump our brain into a ship body and work with AIs and other brains to run the ship?

Who needs bodies???

Your body could be the ship! You could perceive reality as you've never done before! It would be incredible! No? Why? Honestly, why the hell not???

How irredeemably dull to deny the possibilities! I see it as a crime to not even consider what could be done, it's a cardinal sin to not use your curiosity to question what might be done with such grand tools made available to us. And yet, most don't. It's just jet fighters in space because that's just hoooow it is.

Good grief I'm sick and tired of adults.

Consider the regressive nature of TV 'toons like Teen Titans Go, how they've gone back to the comedy and simplistic animations of the '80s instead of embracing the more complex themes and interesting questions of 'toons from the '90s and early '00s. Why? I think it comes from a point of adults believing that children are just as bereft of curiosity and imagination as they are.

A flawed perception, if you ask me.

I remember some cartoons that were actually brave enough to present children with questions, they're always my favourites.

Extreme Ghostbusters tackled some interesting questions about what life is like for a hispanic person who could never afford proper education, a disabled jock who's been confined to a wheelchair, a lady who's a part of the goth subculture (and the reasosn for it), and a middle-to-upper-class black fellah. It looked at the kinds of issues these people would face and how those issues may even intermingle.

There was one brilliant episode where it turned out that a few of the friends the jock had were accepting of his disability, though they were tremendously racist. This kind of nuance between prejudices hasn't been tackled by contemporary comedic cartoons, which makes me sad.

Those cartoons asked uncomfortable questions about why people are the way they are, so children could also wonder and perhaps make better, more informed choices.

Teen Titans Go supposedly has diverse characters but it never does anything with that beyond using their diversity as a joke. Which is... disappointing, to say the least, but also so very, very typical. That's just the way things are, eh? Sigh.

So moving forward in time doesn't always lead to the kind of progression I'd find desirable, sometimes we encounter regressions when people fall back even hard on 'that's how things are,' or even worse 'that's how things were.' And never ask why.

Adults are tiresome creatures.

I'm not sure how, despite my many years, I never really became one. I've too much imagination to become a sleepwalking zombie who loves shows about sleepwalking zombies, I suppose. And that's going to make me sound like a 'special snowflake.' Funny thing is? I absolutely am. I've had to come to accept that I am, indeed, quite unusual. The thing is, though? This is true of everyone out there who still possesses curiosity.

I find that if one doesn't experience the death of curiosity, then one invariably becomes quite eccentric. Eccentric people are different, and obviously less 'usual' than someone who isn't. And they aren't eccentric because they choose to be, but simply because their curiosity never died.

At this point, I've come to see the 'special snowflake' complaint as one rooted in jealousy of curiosity. It always comes from the mouth of a person who can no longer ask why, who can only accept what they believe are the way things are. They're tremendously hateful of anyone who isn't dead inside like they are.

It's not my fault, though. I don't understand. If your curiosity died and mine didn't, I don't know why. I don't know what to tell you. It's not like I have a choice about being a 'special snowflake,' I'm simply curious and therefore eccentric. That's just who I am. I'm sorry that that bothers you. And believe me, I've met plenty of people whom that bothers. Whenever I've written a review praising genuinely creative works I've come to love I've met these people.

Thing is, though? There's no shame in being a 'special snowflake.'

It's just shorthand for how you aren't dead inside, how you're still able to ask why, and to wonder, and dream. I don't think that's at all a bad thing, myself. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but I value it, I love it, and I couldn't go on without it. It's as integral to me as breathing.

I could no sooner stop dreaming than breathing.

[its-a-lark-blog]

Neurotypicals & Innate Variables

And How it Affects Game Dev

I won't refer to these as 'qualities' as there are no qualitative factors to them, quite to the contrary. I mean, if I were to tell you that the games industry was quite the Penis Empire, you'd be more than likely to have some kind of kneejerk reaction, eh? You'd spit out some blimmin' utter nonsense acronym or phrase that was programmed into you, like 'SJW' or 'virtue signalling,' as you're unwittingly an easily hacked robot.

Still, a lot of the video games industry is a sausage fest that doesn't really involve women -- this is true on all echelons of it from indie right up to the very top tiers of triple-A, it's why the industry still has a sexism problem no matter how hard it tries. And the reason for this is the assumption -- which neurotypicals can't get away from -- that you're automatically going to understand everything.

Neurotypicals have a perverse belief in their own omniscience, so they don't need to ask anything, they just know. How do they know? A lack of introspection seems to be the only answer I can come up with.

I don't know if this is just down to a very extraverted world, but in my life I've only met a handful of people who're capable of actual, honest-to-goodness introspection. Instead of running with an assumption based solely upon flawed data, they'll ask 'is this actually the case?' in order to arrive at a more probablistic truth backed by proof and evidence. Neurotypicals can't do that.

I'd even say that there are some autistic people who can't, too, but I do wonder about misdiagnosis, there. I weigh the strength of someone's autism on their capacity for introspection, to question rather than assume. My partner and I are both exceedingly autistic and we value when questions are asked, even if they shake the very foundations of something that we've always believed. In truth, especially then. It's thrilling! Neurotypicals hate that.

I sometimes wonder why bad science has become so commonplace, I think it's the shift from it being mostly autistic individuals doing the science though often being taken advantage of by neurotypicals (Edison abusing Tesla's trust, et al) who're all too capable of being sociopathic sharks without a shred of empathy, to neurotypicals playing scientist themselves. Badly.

This is why we have dark gravity, now. I'll always shake my head at that. I mean, we have things we should be investigating, right? There's pilot wave gravity, emergent gravity, and the very real possibility that a number of our assumptions about gravity and the mass of other galaxies is simply wrong. I'll tell you, it makes my head spin that the recent discovery of just how wrong we were about the mass of Andromeda didn't even shake the belief in dark gravity.

Dark gravity is like a neurotypical religion that's parading as science.

This is pervasive, too. This lack of introspection that neurotypicals always have; It can be found in every field. For example -- it's as easily measured in PhD's as well as students that people in the psych field never ask autistic people for opinions. They believe they have an absolute knowledge of autism despite their neurotypical brains being completely incapable of grasping it -- which leads to them having incredibly, horrifyingly wrong ideas about autism.

I'll sometimes watch people on sites like Quora and StackExchange try to figure out something about autism -- and I'm just sitting here, being me, and wondering why they don't just ask an autistic person? That, however, takes a level of awareness that neurotypicals have never possessed. A shame, but a truth.

An example of this?

Theory of Mind. Neurotypicals, for the longest time, believed that autistic people couldn't read emotions and had impaired empathy. All this came from the astounding realisation that they'd never even bothered to interview autistic people to find out if that was true, at all. It took decades, and the Internet, for them to finally realise in their slow, reptilian, cold blooded brains that perhaps they could ask?

I think we all have morbid fascinations. I remember neurotypicals watching 9/11, unable to look away as people were begging for anyone to save them, waving to be noticed as the building was burning and crashing. I couldn't watch it, I was told about all of this by those who'd watched, who couldn't stop watching. I would watch them watching, seemingly devoid of empathy for the people on screen.

As an autistic person, I can't stand to see people suffer. Neurotypicals seem thrilled by it, though? Being autistic, I naturally decided the best course of action was to interview them to find out why they're so attracted to watching people suffer. The answer I got was that it was exciting for them, they couldn't stop watching because witnessing mortality so brazenly put on display was thrilling.

They felt powerful and privileged that they were chosen to live.

Ultimately, though, the most I could get out of it was that even though they knew it was wrong, and sick, it was thrilling to watch people suffer.

Now, my autistic brain will never understand that. Too much empathy.

I accept that I'll never fully grasp that, though. All I can do is try to get neurotypicals to try to explain it to me as best they can. This is quite the commonplace thing, though. I'll try to understand neurotypicals, whereas neurotypicals will assume they already know everything and therefore there's nothing for them to understand. What I could grasp about the why of this is that neurotypical culture has a sociopathic quotient to it, it's killer shark-y, so they need to be manipulative, pretending to know more than they do???

How awful! And how terrible for science.

Similarly, I see birds, dogs, and other animals trying their best to communicate with neurotypicals. Often, neurotypicals won't give them the time of day, there's this bizarre narcissistic weight in their mind that harks back to the fetish for their own species they have -- where it is the burden of the lesser species to put in all the work. If birds can't learn English, then they're too stupid to bother with. Why aren't we trying to understand their methods of communication??? They're clearly trying to understand ours.

If this doesn't seem relatable to you? You're probably autistic. I mean, I see people who're obsessed with bugs or birds as their special interest (which is very autistic in the first place), and they absolutely are trying to learn how to communicate. So for them this might seem alienating. Sorry to be the one to tell you, but you're very likely autistic. You might want to investigate that for yourself.

This all brings me back to the point of autistic empathy.

Turns out that we don't lack empathy. Turns out that we don't lack Theory of Mind, either. Turns out, in fact, that according to brain scans and other evidence we actually have more innate empathy than any neurotypical alive. Turns out that what's actually happening is that we have difficulty expressing empathetic responses. Turns out, of course, that we could've told neurotypicals this at any time had they asked.

They don't ask, though, they never do. They don't ask, they don't enquire, they don't investigate, they don't like it whena another asks a question of them. They don't like that at all. And worst of all? They don't ever ask questions of themselves, they don't internally interrogate themselves to learn.

It was startling to learn that.

So I did a study of my own. Unofficial, of course. I asked as many neurotypical people as I could whether, when presented with a topic tehy know nothing about, do they rely on possibly fallible memories and opt for assumptions or do they spend time questioning themself in order to ascertain how much they actually know? In each case, when I could get them to be honest about it, they admitted that they didn't ask themself -- they just opted for assumptions.

Assumptions are an innately neurotypical problem. Which leads to kneejerk reactions when presented with contrary information, it also leads to very incorrect ideas about how to approach problems.

This brings me to game development. If your game dev team is made up of mostly men, and you don't have any women in an advisory role? What's going to happen is that the men will assume that they know all about feminism and women, so they'll do what's right for women and include that in their game. They know best, right?

This is why you'll see white, healthy, able-bodied men speaking for women, other ethnicites, and the disabled because naturally they know best. I don't know whether it's just this subconscious, animal fear they have in their cold-blooded reptile brains, but they're terrified of the very idea that they might not know something.

To have advisors on board would admit that. Can't do that.

This leads me to wonder just how autistic Ubisoft is. I mean, I can't say I like many of their games, you know? I don't. Sorry, Ubisoft! You don't make bad games, at all. No, no no no. You just don't make games I necessarily want to play; They're too grounded in reality for me, not nearly fantastic enough, and in the case of Assassin's Creed they revolve around lots of murder.

I want to see Ubisoft develop an open world thiefy simulator. Similar to what was attempted with the recent Thief reboot (THAIF), but... um... actually interesting and competent. The THAIF thing is interesting, though. Can I talk about that?

Initially the Thief reboot was called THI4F. A lot of people assumed that EIDOS didn't understand how the numbering thing worked, how it was L33T-SP34K where numbers replaced letters. I entertained that idea, but i also asked other questions. Such as -- Is thiaf actually a word?

Being as autistic as I am (which is as autistic AF, naturally, loves), I found out that thiaf is indeed a thing! It was proto-Germanic, Saxon in nature. I began to wonder to myself whether this meant that Thief was going to have a proto-Germanic setting, with all the trappings thereof, as opposed to the usual thief fare. I began to imagine how this would work, how they'd set up the location and the lore. It was fascinating, putting together this anachronistic representation of a forgotten Germany, pulling on history, folklore, and fantasy to do so.

After Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I wondered if Eidos could actually pull this off. They created such an autistic intellectual property (which was actually intellectual) with their first Deus Ex game that I believed, for a moment, that this was their intent. They weren't failing to understand L33T-SP34K, they were being incredibly clever and hinting at what their upcoming game was about! Suffice it to say, I was excited.

I was then disappointed.

Turned out that they just didn't know how L33T-SP34K works. Sad.

No, really, a big bloody shame there as another culture other than Britain could've been explored as a setting. I'm British! I find it quite belaboured how everything that isn't modern day is generally British. Even the Elder Scrolls can do better than that, and that's not exactly a high bar (unless we're talking about Online, as that one tends to occasionally surprise me with how intelligent it can be).

Which brings me back to Ubisoft. Ubisoft enjoys having advisors and exploring other cultures; I'd love it if they were more fantastic and less murdery, but that's just what they want to do and I won't begrudge them that. They're not games made for me, but they are truly exemplary games. I'm not saying that to be political either and to try and look like a better person than the next because I'm invested in some sort of sociopathic, manipulative social game. No, no, no. Absolutely none of that. I hate that. No, I respect them.

I don't enjoy their games, for the most part. I buy some of them. I enjoy bits of them (being a pirate, Google conspiracy, the discovery tour mode, hacking), but in general the whole package doesn't click with me. My head is too in the clouds, and Ubisoft's offerings are too grounded. This is why I'm very excited about Beyond Good & Evil 2 as they might, finally, be making a Ubisoft game I want to play. The first was about lefty underground progressive journalism AND alien invasions. God yes. My god yes. Of course, my god has scales but the sentiment of my words likely isn't lost on you. I'm excited! Oh, yes.

Perhaps not Night in the Woods excited, but excited.

Note to self: You need to write about Night in the Woods and how the assumption that anthropomorphic characters are always meant either for children or bloody, violent, aggressive, mutilative games because you can't appeal to Teh Furreez. And how Night in the Woods just overturns that assumption with flawless gusto. Talk about that.

Sigh. Neurotypical assumptions.

This all brings me back to the Penis Empire thing. Yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek. I've tongue-in-cheek trolled people before, in different places, with different names, just to try and snap them out of their assumption-laden stupour. And always it's the kneejerk reaction instead of wondering what's meant by it and questioning whether there's perhaps a shred of truth behind its statement that games development is a sausage fest where assumptions are made for women who're never allowed to speak for themselves.

That's why Ubisoft stands out to me, really. It's a company where women are allowed to speak. Usually, games development has very toxic ideas about women, even if women are allowed to work on developing games. It's almost every other day, now, you hear about harassment in some video game dev house or other.

I wouldn't call it surprising, but I would call it new.

In the '90s, it was entirely acceptable for a woman to lead a development team and create games which were sensitive to women. This was because, at the time, it seemed like a lot of the people using computers were autistic/introverted nerds. The neurotypicals just couldn't figure out those computer things, at all, so there was no market ther efor them until later on, when things had been dumbed down enough to be accessible to the neurotypical mainstream.

In the '90s, people were sensitive to sexism and racism more than today. It was the audience. If you had a scantily clad woman, or racist epithet, it'd leave your audience feeling distinctly uncomfortable. It was a different time, one where even furries could openly work on developing games. Then we were flooded with neurotypicals and the industry changed, it went from being one of questions to one of assumptions.

So instead of Laverne, Laura Bow, and Elaine Marley, we had faceless femme fatales or submissive sex objects meant for neurotypical males to lust after. It was a sad, sad, sad time. And whereas women-lead development was fairly common in the '90s, today it's almost unheard of. Thanks to neurotypicals, we went from a more equitable games industry to one that's truly a Penis Empire.

And it's not okay to call it that because it challenges the assumptions of neurotypicals. Assumptions that they know everything, that they never do wrong, and that everything is okay. I want to see women leading development again, and other ethnicities, and disabled people; I want to see developers taking this seriously and including advisors on their team whom they ask questions of and actually listen to.

What I don't want is to play a game and be hit with an autistic slur, only to see the garbage person responsible defend it by saying that 'people in reality can be nasty, too.' That's not the point, mendicant. You should be setting an example with your work. Yes, people can be bad, but in reality you'd have someone speak up against the slur in defence of the person being attacked. Which never happened in Dreamfall Chapters (the fell game responsible), did it?

Neurotypicals have been ruining game dev for the longest time, now. It's why I've fallen out of love with it. I mean, I look at the figures I used to love and I see people who're as autistic as hell. Tim Schafer, Ron Gilbert, the Coles, among others. I mean, I'm sorry if that's offensive to them but an autistic person can always spot another, it's not hard. I'm open to being proved wrong, of course, but I'm not basing my belief upon base assumptions. A life of researching neurotypicals? I've learned both how they are, and how they are not.

I'm open to being wrong, always, but since I bother to actually research things I'm more often correct than not. And I'm also sad. I'm sad that game dev used to be more progressive. It wasn't scared of anthros, animal people, and friendly dragons; It wasn't scared of ethnicities; It wasn't scared of strong, independent women; It wasn't scared about actually learning about the topics involved in its own games. I miss that. I miss that dearly.

I miss a games industry that wasn't afraid to ask questions, and wasn't afraid that the answer might not align with what they believe. This is why when I speak of game dev, if I want to see women in games I'm not saying "Hey, hire me!" but "Hey, hire women similar to the character you're trying to depict and ask them how accurate it is!" instead. This isn't some popularity contest, this is just one bloody ancient Welshman on the Internet longing for more diverse, interesting, and better games.

Hire more women, more ethnicities, more disabled folks, more autistic people, and give them a chance to have their voice heard as it once was in game dev. We've heard all that we can hear from white, healthy, cis-gendered dudes. Let's hear some new voices.

Like we used to.

Of course, I am intrigued by Shadow of War. I hear it's about a sociopath (the pompous arsehole of an elf), his enablers (such as the idiot ranger who's more compelled by his position on the social ladder than with petty little concerns like ethics and empathy), and how herd mentality can allow atrocities to come to pass with very little challenge since neurotypicals prefer to idolise the charming sociopath rather than recognise the genuinely terrible things they might be doing right in front of them (such as torture and slavery).

I heard of a scene where apparently Mr. Sociopath Elf is yelling about the orcs just being savage monsters, not noble men. Better nod along with that because he's just so handsome, charming, and in control!

That's kind of how Nazi Germany happened, right? The neurotypical herd idolising the sociopathic Hitler, treating him like some kind of adonis-esque godhead and ignoring the whole Holocaust thing. I mean, I've been watching that bit of ach-y-fi life theatre my entire life. Interesting to hear of a game tackling it.

I need to play that game, though it might be preaching to the choir.

More like that. More intelligence. More diversity. Come on, games industry. Do better.

[its-a-lark-blog]

Aggretsuko vs. Xenoblade Chronicles 2 -- "Woman's Work"

I care about issues. I care because people are people; And people have feelings. Even if those people are neurotypicals who want to see my autistic brain zapped out of existence for the heinous sin of being different to theirs? I still wouldn't want to see them suffer. I might want to hammer some empathy, care, and wisdom into them, but I'd never want to see them suffer.

I've pointed this out before -- If a feminist is shitty to a trans person, I'll still support feminism because feminists don't deserve to suffer. If a trans person is shitty to otherkin, I'll still support them for the same reason. I wish more of the supposedly sapient life on this planet actually understood this and practised it. I'm just dumbfounded by the lack of care. You want care but you're not really willing to give it? That's kind of selfish and narcissistic, don't you think?

It's interesting how many cultures of men have an issue with this as well. Oh, they'd like their largely imagined grievances heard but they'd turn a blind ear to all the suffering women have to endure. Aggretsuko is a grand illustration of this and it's why Japan's birth rates are dropping like a stone. Oh, no, they are! if this keeps up then the Japanese ethnicity will be gone within a few generations and no amount of paid off Swingles nights from the Japanese gov't could fix it.

Why don't Japanese women want to take interest in the men?

"Women's work."

And Aggretsuko explains this sublimely. If you've not watched it (it's on Netflix), then I'd heartily recommend it. This is why some white Alt-Right dudes -- who've got their heads so far up their arses that they see only very narrowly through their own nostrils -- didn't understand the problem with Xenoblade Chronicles. You see, it wasn't just that Pyra -- one of the main characters -- had an outfit meant for men to ogle, but that her job was woman's work.

That's why straight Alt-Right guys are invariably single? Are there any gay Alt-Right people despite the Alt-Right being homophobic? Probably, people are just that stupid that they'd forgive those who hate them or hate others. I'm not quite that forgiving, myself, as I think that causing another person to suffer just 'cause you're trying to appeal to a Nazi status quo is the very, very worst kind of awful cowardice. If you do that, you're betraying everyone, including yourself.

I don't want to digress too much -- But this is why I give gay people who shit on trans people, or trans people who shit on otherkin a lot of flack. They're spineless cowards who make things worse for everyone and I wish they'd stop identifying as gay/trans or whatever else they think they are because by identifying in that way and appealing to the Nazi status quo, they're just making things worse for everyone. We'd all be better off if they just packed up and left, I'm sure they would much more prefer an officially recognised position as brainwashed Nazi lapdogs anyway. I think that'd make them happier. They'd get to wear gimp suits and say "Yes Sir" a lot. That'd do it for them, I think.

Anyway, there are gay people who don't attack trans, just as there are trans people who don't attack otherkin, et cetera. Why? They recognise that the Nazi status quo is harmful to everyone. We're all human beings, after all, we're all sepient creatures that have feelings and we can all suffer. As such, it's humane and caring to realise that if you don't want to suffer, other people don't either. Only narcissists fail at this equation, I think. And like I said, they can go and prostrate themselves before Nazis. Enjoy the gimp suits.

Deeply unpleasant people, really. Nasty lot. And we shouldn't give anyone who can't recognise that other people are equal and deserve to not suffer a free pass. It's like what I spoke of with Karl Popper's Paradox of Intolerance. If we aren't incredibly intolerant of intolerance, then tolerance dies. That's the way of things, so we have to be willing to not pull our punches. If someone's being a Nazi, you call them a Nazi; If someone's being a Nazi lapdog, you call them that, too.

And yes, feminists, trans people, gay folk, otherkin, or anyone of any group that experiences prejudice can be a Nazi lapdog. It's mostly spineless cowardice, in that they'd prefer to kowtow to Nazi thinking for a quiet life rather than to stand with the rest of us in a show of solidarity. We're all in this together, right? No mwatter what walk of life you're from, you should stand up to supremacist Nazi sentiments of inequality. You need to be willing to put yourself on the line for other people.

I actually do that, in real life and on the internet. It doesn't give me the easiest life, I'll tell you that, but would you like to know what I can do that Nazi lapdogs will never be able to? I can sleep well at night.

Inequality that leads to suffering is Nazi thinking and needs to be stamped out.

And the notion of 'woman's work' is as much a supremacist Nazi notion as any other. Japan's not immune to Nazi sentiment, there's as much of it there as there is anywhere else. Birthrates are dropping because the men are all wound up in Nazi sentiment and they think that being a stay-at-home wife who rears and raises children, who organises the house, who cooks for the man? Well, that's 'woman's work' and that's what all women should aspire to. Women are just sick of it, no matter where in the world they are. It's why -- as studies show -- both Japanese men and Alt-Right men alike can't land a date, they're all single.

Let's get back to Xenoblade Chronicles and the issue I had with it that Nazi lapdogs would prefer to delude both themselves and others about, they'd rather think they don't see it and therefore neither do we. You see, being a submissive woman who's a healer -- a nurse, effectively? That's 'woman's work.' Whereas being a frontline fighter? That's 'man's work.' Sadly, you even get women being apologists for this, the US Gamer website had one journalist who believed it acceptable to behave this way. Just another cowardly Nazi lapdog.

Aggretsuko starts off like that -- She's an apologist for Nazi thinking and puts up with mistreatment by men. It's only thanks to two powerful women (the secretary secretarybird Washimi, and the gorilla Gori) that she even begins to take the kind of stand she'd need to enjoy happiness in life. She has a lot of incredibly toxic ideas at first that she has to work through to become a more complete and hpapy person. In the end, she outright refuses to be a lapdog any longer and is rewarded with fulfilment and happiness.

Her life might be less easy now that she's standing up for herself but at least now she won't be walked all over by men who dictate to her what women can and cannot do. The problem with a game like Xenoblade Chronicles 2 -- and why I'm so mad at Japan despite loving so much of it -- is with characters like Pyra who quietly accept what is 'women's work' and, supposedly, 'men's work.' Pyra naturally has to be a submissive healer, not a frontline brawler.

Similarly, men can't ever serve the role of healer because it's 'demeaning' for a man. This is why I have an equal amount of umbrage for Overwatch and what its community healthily refers to as 'healsluts.' Women meant for men to ogle who do 'women's work' for the men. Huzzah, Nazi sentiment defining people, woo. Not like that ever went horribly wrong, right?

Bloody hell. Kids these days. Dew dew. Sometimes I want to smack them all collectively with a very large newspaper. A newspaper large enough to do that. I don't think there is one, nor do I know where they all are, so they're off the hook for now and this is a chance for them to get their act together.

I'd recommend Aggretsuko for any short-sighted blowhard who's unable to understand what women have to deal with. And it's disingenuous to assume this is just in the eastern workplace as well; In the USA and Europe there are still plenty of old men in corporate structures who have incredibly outdated views of what men and women can and cannot respectively do. I wish I could've bought Xenoblade Chronicles 2 -- It has a talking tiger that's actually an AI stored in a living weapon. I live for that nonsense. Yet I'm not allowed to enjoy it as confoundingly Nintendo thought it all right and completely acceptable to leave Nazi sentiment lingering in that game instead of actually doing the work to improve it for everyone.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some women in Japan who import certain localised games from the West simply because of this improved state of affairs. For example, Xenoblade Chronicles X was localised to fix many of these issues, with only a few left lingering, and as such it's an objectively superior experience when compared against the Japanese original. I feel bad for Japanese women though; Even though they're putting their foot down with their men, their blissfully oblivious men are too vacuous to notice.

That's unfortunate, but it's still not acceptable. It does make me happy to see creations like Aggretsuko though and I certainly hope we see more of them. What we need is more of Aggretsuko and less of Xenoblade Chronicles 2. Nintendo, you wonder why the popularity of Japanese games is dropping in the West? This is why. It hurts your sales, because the contingent of Alt-Right people who'd think this acceptable is tiny compared to those who'd want to make a statement by leaving it on the shelves -- As I did.

It's this kind of thinking that'll sink the good ship Nintendo. They need the western market, so they need to improve their equality game to appeal to a wider range of customers. The world needs to keep moving towards more and more equality, to say no to Nazi sentiments and shame cowardly Nazi lapdogs.

Sigh.

Thankfully, there are good people out there who'll understand this. I feel that the number of them are increasing every day. I want to believe that empathy is becoming more commonplace, that the sentiment of appeasing a Nazi status quo is being replaced with punching Nazis in the face for being horrible monsters. That's where the world needs to go.

We're all human beings. We can all suffer. If you can suffer, so can I. If I can suffer, so can you. And there's much we have to suffer together, so there's no reason we shouldn't all stand together as a united front against the real enemy. The kinds of Nazi sentiments that cause us to suffer in the first place.

There are three concepts that I've declared as my mortal enemies, whom I'm ready to stamp out whenever and wherever I get the chance. I've declared them in numerous past posts but I want to do so again, until I'm blue in the face. Your problem isn't with trans people, or gay people, or otherkin... Stop being a Nazi lapdog! Your suffering is sourced from Nazis thanks to three incredibly toxic ideologies that they hold dear.

Supremacy – Where any person believes themselves to be better than another;

Enforced Suffering – Where any person is forced to experience torture and anguish against their will;

Institutionalised Uselessness – Where the world is designed in such a way that some people are never allowed to offer their worth.

It's those concepts and the ones who hold them that you have to fight, tooth and nail, in whatever way you deem necessary. A Nazi is anyone who holds those three toxic ideologies, and sadly there is a contingent of these people in every culture, today; And worse, there's a larger contingent of cowardly, spineless lapdogs who kowtow to them and obey them.

In this case, the three toxic ideologies manifest as 'women's work.'

Why?

Supremacy -- Men who believe themselves superior to women so there are tasks they believe they can achieve with more efficiency or that there are tasks that women aren't capable of at all;

Enforced Suffering -- The self-esteem and confidence of women is whittled down intentionally to 'keep them in their place,' this is so that men can continue to hold their power over women and keep the status quo;

Institutionalised Uselessness -- Women are conditioned, brainwashed, to accept tehir role in life and never question it, this has been referred to as 'internalised misogyny' but the problem runs much deeper than that, it's a programmed feeling of the uselessness of their gender that they can't shake.

And that's fucking awful. That's why characters like Pyra in Xenoblade Chronicles 2 bother me so much -- Because she seems so brainwashed into Nazi thinking that she's unable to be anything other than the objectified, man-serving nurse that she was literally made to be. And that's telling, isn't it? She was created by a man to serve these roles, she was programmed to obey them and find them fulfilling. Which, apparently, Nadia Oxford at US Gamer doesn't see as problematic.

That's because I think Nadia has been programmed in exactly this way. She isn't aware of it, so she simply repeats the Nazi signal to uphold the status quo.

This attitude is commonplace in Japan, that women should be seen in the way Pyra is seen. A xexy, submissive nurse ready to serve the needs of men at the drop of a hat, putting the desires of men above everything else, including their own happiness as if they were nothing more than robots. And in Xenoblade Chronicles they bloody ARE robots, which is just a fetish.

Here's what I'm trying to get at: Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is a fetish game. It's a fetish game about the desired end-point for women, where the female gender is forced to abandon what little agency, sapience, independence, individuality, and drive it has in Japanese culture and become nothing more than a pretty drone, waiting on men hand and foot.

Sure, sure, sure... Xenoblade Chronicles 2, at one point, makes a half-hearted attempt to point out that this is toxic. It's mumbled under the breath as a sort of disclaimer so that they can get back to enjoying fetishised views of women. It's not exactly a core tennet of the game, it never was. The primary tennet of Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is that women are made to serve men.

Which is why there are so many female blades.

It's a fetish game.

Thankfully, all of Japan isn't like that. Thankfully. And things are beginning to slowly turn around, there. What needs to happen though is for the Japanese gov't to actually realise that the misogyny that's become so acceptable in Japanese culture is why birthrates are dropping. This is why it's imperative for them to do more to fix this via laws and education -- Young men should have it explained to them in school from a very young age why this isn't okay. Why it's just as acceptable for a man to be the stay-at-home wife as it is for the woman to be successful at business. This is for the Japanese gov't to do, and until they do, birthrates will just continue to drop like a stone.

When actual fetish games like Xenoblade Chronicles 2 are being developed and released over there? That's when you know you have a problem. The only way they could possibly have made this worse is if they'd actually dressed up the women in gimp suits to exemplify their brainwashed lapdog status.

Japan should be encouraging its men to see their women as more akin to Washimi than Pyra.

[its-a-lark-blog]

The Puzzling Tale of the Nokia 3310

There's been some marked confusion over the popularity of Nokia's new phone in the UK; Whether it's some kind of nostalgia, or if there's some other unexpected factor as to whether Nokia has become the UK's third most popular smart phone provider, behind Apple and Samsung.

I'm not confused at all, honestly.

Let's take a little train ride into Segue Valley again and forget about the Nokia 3310; Let's talk about the Nintendo Switch. There were people who were incredulous as to why it would be popular, too. The haunted wails of it just being another tablet echoed in the hallowed halls of the Internet as though it were some kind of truth. And yet, the Switch has enjoyed such marked popularity I'll often hear people say "I wish this was a Switch game."

So why did the Switch -- a 'mere tablet' -- come to enjoy such a wave of popularity? Identity, basically.

I don't carry a smart phone, much. I don't see the need, a simple cellular phone is fine. I feel that the functionality is a mere shade, a base mockery of what my rig is able to do. I'm left feeling unimpressed and depressed by this 'bright, bold future of mobile devices.' I feel as though it's a sort of stepping stone between places that hasn't really moved on since '07, and the introduction of the first iPhone. Nothing much has really changed since then.

Oh, certainly, there's some moderately improved hardware in there but people are still using exactly the same sort of functionality, playing the same sorts of games, and feeling restricted by the stripped down, bare bones apps that they were in '07. I mean, Photoshop on mobile is being outshone by open source projects, and that's sad. A lot of it is to do with limited storage space -- but mostly it's a matter of the idea of what a smart phone is.

I feel the smartphone herds are stuck in 2007.

Like any truly autistic person, I look at htings with an outsider's view. That's what an autistic person brings to everything, even smartphones. It isn't an egotism statement, not really; I'd love it if everyone possessed the self-awareness to actually be able to see these things without having to be prompted, it can be a depressing burden to bear but... I wouldn't want to ever be without it. It defines me. It defines every autistic person.

So I see these things with little to no effort, but I find I have to prompt others before they even begin to achieve the same level of understanding. Which is what's happening here.

Look at a smartphone. Pick one up. It's this ugly, unwieldy, flat slab that doesn't look like anything. It's a corporate invention; It has absolutely no identity whatsoever. It's all metal and glass. Now, I know what brand loyalty brainwashing is like so I apologise for tweaking your brain -- I full well expect people to talk about specs or how free or not free one OS is compared to another. I understand that. I'm actually put off by how cynically Apple views the intelligence of its customers, too. Despite that, put two phones side by side and they're almost identical.

Yes, yes, yes. This phone has a slightly nicer screen; That phone has a better camera; This phone went to market; This phone went home. I know the spiel. Try to bring your perception out to be a little more broad, look at the aesthetics, the design, and the overall lack of presence. There's not a smartphone out there that can say it has any individual identity that's separate from any other. All these corporations are mimicking one another so perfectly to try and have the best slab.

This results in homogeneity.

So why do some play games on a Switch to an extent they would never with a Samsung or Apple tablet? That's easy. The Switch has identity! Just to look at it it has its own distinct personality -- It doesn't care about being the flattest slab made of the finest metals and glass. It's a tacky, plastic jobber and it knows it. The Switch owns it. The controllers are granted this colourful chassis to exemplify what the Switch is in the mind of whomever might be looking at it. It's unique. It's its own thing. It's... fun!

It feels lovely to hold, and that's because it doesn't care about being the flattest slab on the block. This freedom allows it to have better ergonomic design, and nicer aesthetics, which make it more of a comfort than any devices which could be considered to be similar to it. It leverages its uniqueness to provide the user with comfort, it isn't just a special snowflake for the sake of it (I'm looking at you, N64), it actually harnesses that which makes it different and utilises that to allow for better device design than what's commonplace for devices these days.

This added comfort and superiority of design marks the Switch as being more memorable for it, which is why it stands out. That's why it's not 'just another tablet' as some would want to describe it.

I know how it is. You get a new phone... Oh, it's so svelte! It's sleek! It's beautiful! It's... it's a narcissist, isn't it? It's so shallow, it has so little in the way of personality to speak of, it's just a whole lot of nothing wrapped up in something that might seem attractive to a certain kind of person. It's the problem autistic people have with actual narcissists -- too often they're just a whole lot of aggravating nothing.

Those of us who're neurotypical tend to hold up the narcissist as some kind of idol for the herd, a form of perfection to be strived for. As an autie, I find this baffling. I could never sacrifice what neurotypicals think of as my 'special interests' (what I would refer to as my identity) just ot be pretty. Still, it works for them, but it doesn't work for me.

This has the knock on effect of singling out autistic people. Not because we desire it but rather because our brains are wired in this particular way. Those of humanity who're autistic are as happy being that way as those of humanity who're neurotypical. We value our 'special interests' as much as neurotypicals value being pretty, though I think generally we tend to confuse one another.

Though we're the same species, we can be quite alien to one another. Don't you think so? As an autistic person, I don't value being pretty for the group; I value being a person for myself. I'm not saying it's wrong to be pretty for the group -- Just that that's an alien concept to me. Just as I'd be accused of being a 'special snowflake' for not fitting in with the group by neurotypicals. This is just the way it is.

I'd be accused of being a special snowflake if I had a Nokia 3310, whereas neurotypicals would be flaunting their corporate slabs in an effort to appear the most beautiful.

I think perhaps a smartphone is more of an accessory to a neurotypical than it is a tool. I can't tell. Is that right?

You can take my blog as one example of this, though. I find that more neurotypical blogs tend to speak in populist ways and play to the crowd, always looking to appease their clique. Whichever one that might be. There's always this careful air about it where one writer is sure to never express too much individuality as it might clash with the group identity their site has. Even PC gaming likes like Rock, Paper, Shotgun which superficially appear to be more individual possess this attitude.

Whereas I'm here talking about humanity's self-obsessions and the problems of homogeneity as that's what matters to me. I'm not a group identity, I'm just me. And whilst you might not particularly like what I write, you couldn't say that my words are commonplace. I carefully plot my thoughts and run them through various perceptive filters, the goal being to provide a unique perspective to those who care for it.

This is very contrary to those of us who're neurotypical as they merely want the groupthink reaffirmed. It's sort of like synchronising data more than the open sharing of ideas, it's less about providing a fresh, new perspective and more about making sure that eveyrone's clock is properly synchronised to the atomic clock server. So that everyone knows which film to talk about, and what opinion to have of it.

I mean, for example, Guardians of the Galaxy was a bit shit. It took a bunch of characters with loads of depth and turned them into simplistic caricatures, often sociopaths, which was distressingly one-dimensional when compared to how fleshed out they'd gotten in the DnA Marvel comics run.

The neurotypical concsensus though is that Guardians of the Galaxy is a fantastic film, even despite the sociopathy and the ableism.

I don't really understand neurotypicals, you know? I mean, they're absolutely human -- as I supposedly am, I guess -- but they function in such a peculiar way that it's just unfathomable for me. I don't think neurotypicals really like me or other autistic people simply because we don't fit into the herd, they're upset when they can't make us care that they're conforming to the herd beter than we are since we don't work the way they do.

I think it's the same with the Nokia 3310. I think that it would offend a neurotypical to see an autistic person with a Nokia 3310. It's somehow an affront to them because it means we don't have to spend our life savings on something we're barely ever going to use. The impression I get is that this freedom from the herd is irritating to them, but why would it be? They like being a part of the herd, right? Do I have that right?

So then why does it bother them? It's like furries. Why do furries bother neurotypicals so much? Why do black people and jews bother them so very much that they have to form groups like the Alt-Right? Shouldn't these people only care about conforming to their own herd? Why does it bother them what other individuals or herds do? What drives them to think of it as a wrongness, somehow?

It's this ingrained assumption of wrongness that leads to their confusion over the popularity of a phone like the Nokia 3310. An autistic person may want one because it's fun! It feels nice to hold. It plays snake! It's just a bit of fun, and it's got much more identity than those corporate slabs (which does matter to us). Remember, the autistic person will put comfort and identity over conforming to the herd as there's nothing in their brain which compels them to conform.

And that's not wrong. There's no need to try to cure or eradicate that. I mean, I would be happier if a part of my own species didn't remind me so much of the borg, daleks, and cybermen. That'd be nice. Just be happy with your own group identity, you shouldn't be confused by the popularity of something that exists outside of your group identity. You should be curious, yes, as there's probably a reason for it.

But not confused, or worse, offended.

I mean... Yes, I find the Switch nice to hold, it's fun to look at. Definitely much more so than an iPhone X. I'd ask if that were wrong, but I already know the answer I'd get would be a resounding, irritated-sounding affirmative. I find the Nokia appealing for the same reasons, you know? The Nokia is what it is, it doesn't have to be competing to be the new herd's darling. It can just be its own thing. Why be offended?

And yet neurotypicals will be offended, won't they. It exists outside of their group identity and that's an affront. This is why neurotypicals scream so loudly for a cure to autism -- because they want everything in the world to conform to their herd's thinking. They're driven toward that end. It's why despite dark matter being a steaming pile of horse nonsense, neurotypical scientists still chase after it.

They chase it without realising that it's basically their own hunt for god -- a theological construct which doesn't actually exist. A godhead which must not ever be questioned, but must always be sought.

I mean, s'much more likely to be down to pilot wave gravity and bad math in reality.

Of course, you won't find autistic people screaming for a cure to neurotypicality because it's no skin off of our nose if some humans are different than other humans. Scientifically, we need diversity to survive, right? So we're going to need neurotypicals in the long haul, they have their niche in the ecological paradigm. It's a shame that isn't mutually accepted.

The long and short of this is though that -- no right or wrong implied - the neurotypical values the group identity, the autistic values the individual identity. The neurotypical is going to want to appeal to groupthink and appease whatever the status quo is there, the autistic person will only be bound and beholden to their own individual thoughts and idnetity.

And whereas the neurotypical herd -- for whatever reason -- has an ingrained desire to eradicate that which is unlike the herd, the autistic person has a more live-and-let-live attitude. We're happy for you to have these strange rituals of trying to be the prettiest of ther herd, it's quite fascinating to watch from the outside. We don't want to cure or remove you, after all, we're... frankly intrigued, if I'm honest. Sometimes there's some amount of chafing, I'll admit, but as much as a neurotypical may hurt me I can't bring myself to hate them.

I don't understand why you want the very latest corporate slab, it's baffling. Still, if that's what you want? I'm intrigued, but I'm not confused by it, nor do I see it as an affront. It does confound me though that when confronted with an autistic person who does have a Nokia 3310, this is deemed unfashionable, an affront to neurotypicals everywhere, so whomever it is must be mocked -- either to their face, behind their back, or however have you. Well, mocked... or worse. I've seen so, so many articles being baffled by the popularity of the Nokia. I just smile.

We're so bad at understanding one another, neurotypicals.

When you hold one of those corporate slabs, it looks like you're touching your god based upon your expression. I mean, there was a study which showed that when people view the Apple logo it activates the same areas of the brain as those in religious zealots who're viewing imagery of Jesus. When I hold one of those slabs? It's painful, it's unergonomic, ugly, nasty, without any identity, it's just this pile of metal and glass with nothing to really give it its own identity.

An autistic person will be more than happy for any person -- or object -- to show individuality. We revel in it, really. It's only the echo chambers of cliques that repeat the same things over and over that tend to get us down. If someone's talking to us one-on-one about ideas they've carefully considered, though? That's lovely. The thing is? I don't have that kind of experience with neurotypicals very often, which is all the more peculiar when they believe that in their echo chamber it's they who express individuality whereas the one person they were arguing with did not. I don't quite grasp that manner of thinking, but I see it a lot.

#AlienOnTheOutside

You like hashtags, yes?

So I like the Nokia 3310. I understand its appeal. In a sea of corporate, faceless slabs, there's this one phone that's a little bit cheap, quite bulbous, feels nice to hold, has its own unique personality... Yeah, I understand the appeal of that. I'm quite tempted by it. It's just an interruption to the wave of homogeneity, a hiccup in the pattern. It's welcomed by people like myself.

It's like... Oh, it's like websites. Yes, we're taking the train into Segue Valley again. '90s Internet was a very autistic thing, it was very individual and incredibly unique. The neurotypical sites were just collections of gifs and icons, you could spot those easily and navigate away -- though there were just as many 'shrines' to things people had a great degree of very personal interest in. It was lovely. Lots of unique site styles, opinions, creativity... It was marvellous.

These days, it's all a bit homogeneous. There's this website software kit that's rolled out for all blogs, I forget what it's called. I can't even be arsed to remember its name. It's so dreary. It's resulted in websites that I can barely tell apart. I've seen numerous autistic people say that the Internet has lost its soul, and I'd be inclined to agree.

The difference between '90s websites was astounding! Even when a marketing company had to interact with the Internet, they'd end up with something interesting as it was usually a creative who'd be putting it together. Look up the promotional website for Jurassic Park: Lost World, it's sort of like a Myst-ish point & click game, in the browser. You simply don't see that sort of ingenuity now. Neurotypicals are too fond of everything being the same, and they're the primary audience.

I'm not saying that neurotypicals shouldn't have their homogeneous Internet, either, but rather that I simply miss an Internet that I was more able to connect with. I feel out of place, here, now. I felt out of place in the real world. It seems like neurotypicals don't really want to allow people like me to have a place where we can be ourselves.

NeoPets is another good example of this. Fans of that site will know precisely what I'm talking about. It used to be an incredibly creative, fun site that was put together by a couple from Wales. Wales! I'm from Wales! That's bloody marvellous! WALES. And it was so clever, funny, and original in all that it did. Then it got sold, and as time went on it grew into this faceless, corporate thing and lost all of its identity.

That's happening to the world and it makes me said. Neurotypicals enjoy this push toward homogeneity as it suits their group identities, homogeneity suits group identities.

And all of this is true of phones. You see? Phones have become homogenised. As I said, one can barely tell them apart any more. But you can certainly tell a Nokia 3310 from the rest! Blimey! Now that's a phone that's comfortable and confident in its individual identity and quirky personality. That's what an autistic person enjoys!

And so it's popular with autistic people.

I'm sure that despite this I'll continue to see articles about neurotypical journos who're confused by the popularity of the Nokia 3310. It really does make perfect sense to me, but if you're neurotypical and you're unable to see the homogeneity and how the Nokia 3310 breaks it? Then yes, you're going to be confused. I do try to explain this to NTs but... success isn't something I enjoy very often at all.

In a way, I'm using the Nokia 3310 as a metaphor to explain something much larger. An abstract idea, a notion of how differently minds can work and what they might prefer, and then what happens when one is catered to almost exclusively. The Nokia 3310 becomes an affront. I see articles like 'The Nokia 3310 is back, but should we welcome it?' and my response is 'Why the bloody hell would we not, isn't more choice better?????'

It's why I can't ever see a neurotypical group picking up the Nokia 3310. Their groups are all about being better at the status quo -- having what is absolutely the finest of the ugly, sharp-edged, unergonomic, clumsy, corporate slabs. With the 3310 only having one model, what could be done with it to prove that a neurotypical is being better than others at doing what the group is supposed to do? The only option left is to get creative with it, and I don't see neurotypicals falling over one another to be creative. I can't really imagine they'd be rushing to Etsy to buy a customised case for their phone which they'd have to DIY fit.

From the neurotypical perspective choice is very thinly defined, it only happens within a very tiny subset of the overall Universal hub of choices available to someone outside of the herd. This is the only reason I can think that neurotypicals are offended by the existence of the 3310.

It's funny.

Here I am trying so hard to figure out neurotypicals because I'm quite fascinated by them. They're weird. They're like ants. I don't quite know how to parse them, really. And all they want to do is 'cure' me. I don't know how to feel about that... I don't want them to be less who they ultimately are because that's who they are, but I also don't want them making me not me.

Hmmmm...

Neurotypicals. A conundrum. I'm a Nokia 3310 in a sea of corporate slabs. That's what it's like to be autistic. And all the slabs are screaming at me about being a special snowflake. I don't want to make out that neurotypicals are corporate slabs, but could you put it in any better of a way? It's kind of the image they've forced on themselves and me, as opposed to vice versa. They're the ones with agency.

I think I've talked myself into getting a 3310. It's about time for an upgrade, I've just been avoiding the faceless slabs.

Yes, I think I want one.

And while I want to paint it with black and yellow danger stripes I'm worried that that would make it even more of an existential threat to humanity's homogeneity. I don't want people throwing breeze blocks at me, no matter how impressive of a feat that would actually be.

First world problems.

I guess I'm also saying that neurotypicality's beautiful is autism's ugly? Sorry about that, that wasn't necessarily intentional but I know the feeling is very mutual so I don't feel too bad about it. My nightmares look like plastered in cosmetics and cleanly shaven. And that’s metaphorically what those very corporate slabs represent. I’m a hobo, gimme a 3310.

[its-a-lark-blog]

Calling all Empaths -- A Place to Care

Isn't it amazing how many people simply can't? Oh, some of you'll understand precisely where I'm coming from with this. For example, if I were to say "You are a bad person!" then there'll be this distinct separation between two different kinds of human.

There will be one kind -- the common kind -- that is so focused on the self that they'll feel attacked. They'll do whatever they can to aggressively remove the source of the complaint; They'll try and project it onto others; They'll turn to manipulation to try to convince others that it's a lie. However distasteful it might be, they'll do what they can to avoid considering whether there's even but a single grain of truth, a mere modicum of reality, to what's said of them. They'll opt for insults, abuse, inciting controversy instead of even thinking first. This is most people.

There'll be another kind -- the rare breed -- who'll feel immediately guilty about the possibility. It will cause them to turn inward to examine their self to find the truth of the claim, to see what they could do to better themselves. It would be a wake-up call for betterment, or it would deepen the anxieties they've developed as a response to an abusive, horrific world filled with people who'll attack first and perhaps think to care later.

It has to be said, the latter group are unequivocally lovely. My heart cries for them and all they endure, as I full well understand what it's like having had to wade through the shit and bile of the common kind in order to try to exercise my care, to be kind, only to be met with the hatreds of prejudice realised as abuse and manipulation.

I'm old. I've earned grey to share for my crimes against the common people, my acts of kindness borne out of selflessness which have left them feeling shame that they cannot muster the same. I know how it is to be laid into by these rabid creatures who're desperate to see my ilk gone so they won't feel darkened by the comparison. To me, this is what the 'Cure for Autism' is all about. It's because we're anathema to the common person, it's a cure for our ability to care.

Honestly, I'm weary and tired of the common kind and how they react to those who can care, in ways they can barely begin to understand. Just because they cannot care, it doesn't mean that their way should be one of abuse and mistreatment toward us. That is the reality we live in, though, and as such this old draig is pondering the necessity of a place for those who care to rest without the lingering fear of being judged simply for their capacity to do so.

Would you want such a thing? It would be heavily policed, it would be a little cove of privacy meant only for those who're tired of how the world treats them for being kind. A place for those like myself who feel tired of people being awful to one another for self-interested twaddle.

Would you like that? Any and all would be welcome, any kind of person, with the only prerequisite being that they care and they do not wish to cause suffering. Do let me know if you think this should happen. It might be time for us to gather.