Smuppethole

This is my Liberal Tucker Carlson roleplay blog. Fuck you. I am in my twenties.

[rnismatch]

Stellated Icosahedron as been appointed Surgeon General of the United States by President Biden

[rnismatch]

Stellated Icosahedron has been Appointed Attorney General of the United States of America by PResident George biden

[zebulontheplanet]

Sometimes yes, people with meltdowns do need to be retrained. Sometimes yes, they can seriously hurt themselves. Yes, there is nuance. Restraint can be seriously harmful, but restraint can mean the difference between injuring yourself severely, and someone else hurting you from the restraint.

I’m an autistic person that has violent meltdowns with self injurious behaviors. And yes, this does mean that sometimes I need to be restrained.

I think that in the autism community, there’s a lot of people saying “never restrain!! Never do that!!” And they forget about people like me, who WILL hurt themselves severely if they are not restrained. Does this mean that I allow random people to restrain me during meltdowns? Absolutely fucking not. My caregiver is the ONLY person I trust to restrain me during meltdowns. Why? Because they know how to do it in a way that won’t hurt me, or lead to me hurting them.

I feel like within the autism community, there’s so many people telling us what we can and cannot do. And what our caregivers can and cannot do. YES! Restraint can be life threatening and harmful, but I am prone to hurting myself. To giving myself a head injury, to self harming. It is far more safer for me to be restrained correctly from my caregiver.

Please remember that those of us with higher support needs and more violent meltdowns, do sometimes need to be restrained. However, it’s important to remember anatomy. When my caregiver became my caregiver, that’s one of the first things we talked about, and we came to an agreement and I talked to them about the CORRECT way to restrain me during meltdowns.

Please remember those of us who do need restrained, and please remember those of us that this is the safest option for us.

[rottenbutrecovering]

I'm not autistic (but am ND) so apologies if I'm speaking out of turn, but this post feels so important.

Something I've noticed is that as mental health destigmatisation is pushed more (as it should!!!) a negative knock on is people just denying that any neurodivergencies or mental illnesses lead to any harmful behaviours.

I frequently see claims under the guise of mental health destigmatisation that are just. Lies. Most frequently they pretend that only "high functioning" ND people exist.

Claims that neurodivergent people (I see this most often regarding autistic people) are not ever violent towards themselves or others. To claim this denies care towards those who are.

[lordevren]

This is a difficult topic for me so it's taken a while to muster the energy, but I've wanted to write a short addition to this post for a while now so here goes-

I'm personally a victim of serious and long-term (thirteen years) abuse in the special education system which involved frequent misuse of restraint and seclusion. I will spare the details.

I want to stress that in OP's example, it is their consent that makes it okay, not the self injury itself. If you are ever grabbing a person in your care without their consent- especially if they are making it very clear to you that this is something they do not want- that is a failure on your part as a carer. It is an abuse of power. Unless it is really, really serious (eg. life threatening) and you've tried every other option available first, self injury alone doesn't change that.

I also have been known to self injure during meltdowns and mental health episodes. I have hurt myself in ways that have left me unable to walk for a week+ afterwards, knocked myself unconscious, fractured bones, ect. But I'd still always choose this over being restrained due to how triggering and upsetting that experience is for me. I will never give someone consent to restrain me and it will never be okay to do so unless I was about to commit suicide or actively trying to harm somebody else. That is my choice to make and I should never have that taken away from me, just because somebody else has decided they know what's best for me.

To be clear I'm not really disagreeing with OP here, but I do feel this needs to be stressed a little more since I worry people are going to see "sometimes people need to be restrained" and think it means they get a free pass to apply that however and to whoever they see fit. So to any people thinking this I would like to remind you not to assume that what is best for one person will be best for everyone. If you are a carer it is your job to cater to that individual person's needs and a part of that is listening and taking on board what they want that to look like, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

[boyfriendyke]

i love that the satellites in 17776 r like actual satellites or whatever. satellite rpf. i see news abt the actual ones and i go hey thats my friend from football

[bbeiex]

🍎 doctors hate this guy

[sanitymakesposts]

Something people don’t bring up about nefarious goons and villainous heathens enough is that they’re always there for you. At your heights and lowest points, they’re always scheming for your miserable end and looking a little cute while doing it

[jame7t]

of course your evilness

[cryptotheism]

Yes your vileness

[sanitymakesposts]

Hey. You guys know I’m the hero right.

[jame7t]

of course your callousness

[cryptotheism]

Whatever, your horridness

[evilwizard]

(relaxing at the evil spa) im so glad i told my henchman the hero’s base was “goon daycare”

[electricabsolution]

this homestuck discourse shit is easy

[abcq2-deactivated20250911]

gamzee kills people because he is trying to spoil the show; he's going off script because he wants to be written out.

before murderstuck, gamzee has no idea that he is a clown. sure, he anoints his face with greasepaint, rides a unicycle, and juggles, but these are serious religious sacraments to him. and, sure, sometimes he trips on his giant floppy shoes and lands face first in a pie, but that's just being blessed with a miracle, because he was just thinking about pie. and, sure, sometimes his friends say things like "HEY ASSHOLE. CLOWN ASSHOLE. YOU WORSHIP A CLOWN RELIGXON. FOR CLOWNS." to him, but he's too zonked on sopor slime to extract any meaning from it.

when gamzee sees the ICP miracles video, he's too sober to dismiss it as a mere coincidence; for once, he gets the joke, and realises that he was the butt of the joke the whole time. he understands that every time he fell face first in a pie, it was the work of an unsen riddler. he grasps that he is, in a cosmic sense, a clown, and hates it.

the next time the curtain rises and hussie says "everyone look! he's about to do something stupid!" gamzee goes shithive maggots and starts mauling his friends and fondling corpses; every time hussie says "don't worry, folks, he can't hear us making fun of him! everyone point and laugh!" gamzee gets angrier. that's what the "are you next?" bit is about - gamzee is aware of, and hates, the audience.

when the murder spree is over, gamzee's beatific grin returns; no longer a look of blank ignorance, but a knowing smirk. he's successfully ruined his character forever - no one wants to see him and no one thinks he's funny. hussie seems to say: jesus you are such a shitty clown. and gamzee's impassive face seems to say: i know.

gamzee refuses to clown out of spite, and hussie refuses to remove gamzee from the story out of spite. it's a committed relationship of reciprocal, mutual antagonism. what i'm saying is that hussie and gamzee ar

[strawberrynightmere]

[jacobtheloofah]

[sleazymachine-deactivated202411]

waiter, waiter! more attention please

[onefr3ddieo]

freaky motherfucker orig idea https://www.behance.net/gallery/169248105/On-set-graphics-for-PULSE

[gojinka]

My bacteria means I like it.

[ccyanideapples]

Lift-off!

[brokuma]

Chat said manbun bro NOW 👍

[welchia-rpc]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ this shouldn't be surprising

there's not much for context. really, i just wanted to dress a!dave in an outfit from that movie about that one american guy. it's really underground, you wouldn't know it.

[our-queer-experience]

(kinda venty)

I dislike when people try to push transmasc as a term that includes all trans men and trans/non-binary "AFAB" (personally hate that acronym and "AMAB", but both are used commonly in this topic) non-cis folks and transfem as the inverse. It feels very "gender binary +" as I've seen too many both in person and online informing these terms as universal categories that all trans people must accept fitting into.

I know I'm mad mainly because I'm a trans guy who just isn't masculine at all but, I'm disappointed that instead of tearing down the gender binary many would rather made a "progressive" version instead

i like when people say “trans men and mascs” or “trans women and fems” because i generally know what theyre trying to get across, but it does bother me when people try to find a way to make it the absolute truth of how gender identity and expression and roles work. plus completely leaving transneutral and abinary folks behind

[our-queer-experience]

as a gnc, perisex, detrans woman i often feel like i relate to the frustration of cis intersex people who aren’t accepted in Cishet:tm: society* but keep being treated by the trans community* as if we don’t face discrimination for not being “close enough” to our assigned sex or somehow have the ability to opt out of transphobia because we aren’t trans, but i worry about overstepping boundaries when i point out bullshit that affects us both like the assumption of appearance, experiences and even traumas based on gender assigned at sex

(like sorry, but what the fuck is an amab voice? do you mean masculine or male or even just. deep?)

*(these are generalizations based on an average, im not saying every single person in this group does this)

no you’re so right and youre so welcome here

[mayvette]

💖 the alpha kids

[nekropsii]

You don't have to answer but how is Calliope transfem not trying 2 Say u have 2 justify it or anything but I'm curious :3

Calliope is transfem because that is what she is in the comic.

[nekropsii]

For the record, she’s XTF, which already makes her canonically Transfeminine, but it’s made pretty clear that the body she’s inhabiting is more Caliborn’s body than her own.

She’s a woman in a man’s body - something the comic goes out of its way to show her covering - who is constantly fretting over being seen as masculine, ugly, and not herself, and she tries to compensate for this by dressing in cosplays that really accentuate her femininity. Through her struggles with what is easily able to be parsed as Gender Dysphoria, she is comforted by another character with an extremely easy Transfem reading - Roxy Lalonde - who is very understanding of her plight, and goes through great lengths to comfort her and tell her she’s loved and beautiful as the girl that she is.

It’s not a difficult read, I don’t think.

[ghost-jester-sys]

what do you mean by talking about an event and memory cues not being triggering? You either worded that really badly or you're wrong?? That's horribly incorrect and damaging

memory cues and triggers are two separate but similar things. i was literally a psychology student. i highly recommend u research this shit cus i know what im talking about.

a memory cue can be just as stressful. but they are not "triggers" in the same way. i did not say that memory cues arent bad.

talking about an event is a memory cue. this can cause unpleasant memories to come up and can be painful and stressful

a trigger occurs and its different but similar.

i hope you simply Google the difference. google will tell u more.

A quote from my psych student bf: "Talking about an event can be stressful but it's a gross misunderstanding of what the word trigger means"

An edit to help define trigger: "A trauma trigger is a psychological stimulus that prompts involuntary recall of a previous traumatic experience." From wikipedia

Further edit: Talking about a topic is not involuntary recall (as episodic memory is memory that is consciously recalled) therefore is not a trigger

Please at the very least google what you're saying to me and do a modicum of research

[smuppethole]

After googling, I can only find sources that treat cues and triggers as synonyms, including an article published by the VA on PTSD. If you have sources that say otherwise, I would enjoy seeing them.

Being triggered | Center

VA.gov | Veterans Affairs

Apply for and manage the VA benefits and services you’ve earned as a Veteran, Servicemember, or family member—like health care, disability,

[ghost-jester-sys]

Hi this is Cypher speaking for us, please forgive any awkward wording we are currently in a very unstable state

I appreciate the sources and information.

I think personally that yes, that information you've provided is correct. However psychology is not a one-sided, nor two-sided conversation and multiple views can be correct.

This is taught in psychology classes, that multiple views and interpretations can have merit even if they oppose eachother. (This does not mean that every view is correct, obviously many views are misinformed and are inherently damaging and wrong. A good example is Freud)

I will be adjusting the wording of the post this stems from, however this is in acknowledging that while triggers and memory cues are defined differently, they can be used interchangeably dependant on context.

Our original issue stemmed from a conversation regarding specific triggers, in which someone claimed to only be triggered when "talking about a lot" which was a genuine misuse of the term (I am purposefully ommitting further context to protect the individual I am speaking about). I understand they CAN be interchangeable, however it depends on context (This is an informed opinion, you are welcome to disagree, however we overall agree and accept what you are saying.

A small edit to add: I still stand by the definitions provided as they are sound and backed up by psychology, however these can be flexible

[Edited to adjust incorrect wording]

[smuppethole]

I agree that conflicting frameworks can have merit, however I don’t understand the benefit of separating traumatic memory cues and flashback triggers. I feel as though it could very easily be used to invalidate those who have somatic and emotional flashbacks (involuntary recall of trauma material) while describing or mentioning traumatic events (which can include voluntary recall of the episodic memory of the event itself, but not always), which is what I believe Anon was reacting to

[ghost-jester-sys]

it was my mistake for not stating that i believe they can overlap! /gen

i believe i was a bit too rigid with how i defined it at first, thank u for this discussion!

[smuppethole]

Thank you for being open to discussion. If you run into more information on memory cues vs triggers, please feel free to send it to me as I find it interesting