Alright, Let's Attempt Some "Good Faith" Criticism:
Part 1: Medrano is also a terrible Director
My post about The Circus was sniped with a comment that feels like Medrano herself wrote it. I'll function in the belief that it actually is what Medrano intended, and then explain why it still doesn't work in practice.
Firstly, before I even attempt to deconstruct this comment, I need to clarify that Bad Faith has nothing to do with author intent. But it seems this is how the fandom and Medrano herself misuse the term. Bad Faith is a philosophical term, not a literary one. It means to be inauthentic or dishonest, not in a compulsive manner, but intentionally.
Bad Faith IS promising to do something you know you have no intention of doing.
Bad Faith IS knowing you are doing something selfishly while pretending to be altruistic.
Bad Faith IS denying your obvious reality.
Bad Faith is NOT believing that an Author's intentions are flawed or failed to be executed.
Bad Faith is NOT reading malice into something that wasn't intended to have it.
Bad Faith is NOT "making mistakes".
Bad Faith would be extrapolating that Medrano is a rapist herself due to her love of the trope. Or claiming to think poorly of Medrano in order to rile up other people's emotions when you really don't care.
It is a Lie, not a Disagreement.
There is no truth in art, and no "right way" to interpret what you see on the screen. The way people feel about Stolas' and Blitz's dynamic will never be "Bad Faith". Because it is a wholly real and unique experience to those who have interacted with the material.
So the main disagreement is that I see Stolas as a narcissist based on his patterns of behavior. And the irony is that as Medrano has become more insistent of trying to "correct" that image, the more it actually reinforces the perception for myself and most other people. This is not bad faith, this is now miscommunication.
Additionally, Death of the Author is NOT Bad Faith. It is a literary reading of the story with the intentions of the author removed to reflect how the work the Author made is connecting to those engaging with the material.
It says so much that Medrano and her ilk believe we are lying about how her work makes us feel due to the poor quality of writing and direction. In fact, the assumption of dishonesty is itself a source of bad faith when it is used in this manner. Not because it perceives malice, but because it creates a false reality for the simple objective of not having a fair conversation.
Instead of seeing that once art is made public, everyone is allowed to have their own experience, or even acknowledging that the fact Medrano is asked so many questions to clear up her bad writing to even consider that maybe she is actively failing as a director as well. Instead we are somehow inauthentic because we don't agree with her, because she feels entitled to her work even after letting it free.
Which, if that isn't a great encapsulation of the problems between the characters of the show themselves, idk what is.
To breakdown this wall of text, this person is saying that Stolas meant "Ravish" in a way that is no longer in use.
The commenter insists that Stolas was actually referencing Blitz having previously stolen from him as children. And somehow extrapolates a bizarre fantasy of Blitz having returned a quarter of a century later to also steal Stolas, like Blitz stole all his stuff.
To be genuinely frank, the idea that this is readily accessible to any degree is demented. The term Ravish being used in this way is not a good term. This goes into bad writing, because I think we all have ideas of what certain words mean.
When I say sad, I mean a gloomy heaviness of an emotional kind. Like the grey cloud over someone's head that may start raining at any moment. It's a feeling of a depressed and subdued mood. Whereas the word distraught means frantic. High, negative energy. It's a panic-stricken sadness. Or even Depression, where the feeling of sadness may not even be tangible, but the similar oppressive heaviness inside one's soul is almost palpable. Grief-stricken is almost like a sense of fear mixed with sadness. A form of painful emotional horror that consumes the victim with a deep and pervasive sadness.
Words have built in connotations.
Ravish under the archaic use literally implies violence as a default. To Ravish something from someone implies the use of force. Meanwhile, the more current definition of Ravish still implies an almost carnal instinct. Something sudden like a viper's strike, but instead of venom it implies bliss. It is still implying something abrupt and physically stimulating.
And if you do not have a wide vocabulary, you will inappropriately misuse words by not understanding their implications. So while this may be a retconned, or even valid explanation from Medrano herself, it doesn't work on multiple levels.
In writing, it doesn't work because everyone who first saw that scene believed Stolas was implying that Blitz had come to have sex with him. Mainly because of this:
It's clear from this sequence that Stolas is viewing Blitz sexually. It contradicts the idea that Stolas had any other intentions, specifically because we see this from his perspective with the pink haze of lust and infatuation around Blitz. Add to it the unnecessarily awkward porn talk by the Hellhound guard and Stolas' blushing after the fact, we know what Stolas is feeling and thinking through nonverbal direction. And he's definitely not thinking about that giant bag of stuff Blitz stole from him.
Second, it contradicts Stolas' character. He's supposed to be intelligent. He finds Blitz's really obscure horse joke funny, but it is only funny to people who know things. We see Stolas' favorite things are books by how he is going through his library with young Blitz when they are children.
So Stolas would know the implications of a word like Ravish. It could have worked if Stolas was in some way upset over Blitz stealing from him, but he clearly is not from the moment they lay eyes on each other. Ravish would never be used for unimportant trinkets. The connotation is that it implies a struggle or having something precious taken from you against your will. And Stolas, being book smart, would know this fact. So him misusing the word in such a way also breaks his character, because it shows the book-smart guy is actually unable to learn from books.
Meanwhile, this is Blitz:
Doesn't take much rocket science to see Blitz is scared. The dynamic is on full display on how Stolas feels (he's seeing this as a porno script) and Blitz feels literally helpless. It's clear in this sequence that Blitz's is trying to gain some control over the situation only for Stolas to shut him down. And Blitz is both resigned and intimidated. He doesn't know what to expect going into this room and it's clear he doesn't think it is going to be anything good.
So when Stolas throws out that Blitz is there to "Ravish" him, you see Blitz concoct the scheme to get the book in real time.
When Blitz says "Oh, yeah...!" You can see it animated on his face how he is trying to come up with a plan to gain some ground. He sees the book, has a thoughtful look while the "Sexy music" plays (another layer of clear indication that Ravish was always intended to mean something sexual by Stolas) before leaning into the setup.
And here Stolas outrightly refutes the belief that he ever thought Blitz came to steal from him. Theft does tend to fall under "nefarious" actions, and if Stolas believed Blitz broke in to steal from him while everyone was distracted at the party, well, he wouldn't be saying this. He genuinely thinks Blitz is there for him specifically.
This line prohibits the audience from linking together the current situation with Blitz's childhood actions entirely. It signals that Stolas either doesn't care at all about Blitz being a thief, or he doesn't even realize he was stolen from to this day. So the idea that "Ravish" was in reference to that setup is soundly put to bed.
Then the two sit down and Stolas starts wanting to "reconnect", like an awkward coffee date after a one night stand. Due to the absolute strangeness of his horny fantasy, it's a good faith assumption that he wants this to be more than just some random sex, he wants a connection. Asking what Blitz does for work and getting panicked when Blitz admits to being an assassin.
Frankly, the best bit of characterization is that Stolas legitimately thinks for a second that Blitz may have been hired to kill him.
Anyway, this is going to have to be split into two parts because I only can post 10 pictures and I've already posted 7 and we still need to cover Blitz's perspective. So, let's call it here.
Responding to @pastel-kaleeshâs comment from this post. Here is the story behind their dynamic and hatred for one another;
Nora and Maneeâs rivalry is definitely a deeply rooted mixture of hatred and fear for one another, beyond just a normal sibling rivalry.
Even before the two were spice runners and in their early childhood; fights were frequent, though most would simply chalk it up to siblings being siblings. Manee would commonly slack off around the farm, refusing to work and pushing whatever chores she had to do onto Nora. It goes without saying that conflict over this was common, usually starting with screaming matches before evolving to a physical altercation.
As they got older, these issues only worsened. Especially once the two became spice runners and smugglers for the Pyke Syndicate. For a little while, Manee and Nora worked together, just the two of them. Manee as the pilot and Nora doing nearly all of the rest of the work. Whatever mistakes were made between the two generally erupted into more arguments and insults. Manee normally aimed her anger and frustration at Nora, even if it was Manee herself who originally made the mistake. Nora was blamed. It wasnât until after Manee begun recruiting some friends of herâs to join the crew and spice running operation that things took a turn for the worse for Nora.
During a heist of some kind, Nora was caught, arrested and taken into custody. Manee simply left with her small crew of friends, abandoning Nora for the first time. Once sheâd finally been let out, Nora managed to return to Manee, much to her dismay and annoyance. Nora was none-the-wiser to this, still clinging to the belief that Nora being left behind was nothing more than an unfortunate turn of events. A few more times, Nora was thrown to the wolves to be arrested and taken into custody, eventually resulting in Nora managing to escape prison on a few different occasions and, foolishly, returning to Manee and her slowly growing crew of friends.
It wasnât until the ship was raided by a small time band of pirates and robbed of their shipment of spice that would end up being the straw that breaks the eeopieâs back. Negotiating a deal between her and the pirates, Manee had given up Nora as an added bonus to help secure the deal. Hesitant, but with no other choice at this point and fearing of what the Pykes may do to them for their failures; Nora silently accepted this deal and so did the pirates. Unfortunately for all of them, Manee never came back to upkeep her end of the bargain and never returned for Nora. Nora was ultimately put up for auction and taken to the spice mines of Kessel.
After Noraâs escape and Manee having caught wind of her becoming a bounty hunter eventually known as âThe Smiling Hunter,â Manee now begun to fear what Nora might become to her and her newly founded gang.
So recently I got a comment on my How to Fix Nickelodeon post from a user by the name of @farmershire.
And although they gave the post a like, they left a comment saying that they disagreed with what I said, and what came my attention the most, that Nickelodeon is thriving.
And not to sound rude or mean, I think this guy might be delusional or in denial.
Literally anyone would tell you that Nickelodeon isn't thriving at all.
In fact, they haven't been thriving for YEARS..
Admittedly a huge reason for this is the unfortunate rise of streaming (making cable television pretty much irrelevant) and the ever-growing use of the Internet.
But there are several other factors for the channel's downfall.
As I'm sure all of you know, Nickelodeon is easily the most well-known and iconic of the big kids channels.
And for years, they ranked 1# in that regard!
Although getting its start back in 1979, it really didn't become the channel we knew it as until the late 1980s and the early 1990s.
Largely thanks to them starting to create their own original live-action series and their own original line-up of original animated shows known as The Nicktoons.
And they DOMINATED children's television during the 90s and the 2000s.
But then the 2010s rolled around and it was all downhill from there.
2010s Nickelodeon is notorious for the RIDICULOUS amount of shows it has that were either just average, mediocre, fine, or just straight-up ASS.
T.U.F.F. Puppy, Planet Sheen, Bucket & Skinner's Epic Adventures, FRED: The Show, How to Rock, Marvin Marvin, Robot & Monster, Wendell & Vinnie, Sanjay and Craig, Sam & Cat, The Haunted Hathaways, The Thundermans, Breadwinners, Henry Danger, Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, Max & Shred, 100 Things to Do Before High School, Bella and the Bulldogs, Pig, Goat, Banana, Cricket, Alvinnn!!! and the Chipmunks, Game Shakers, School of Rock, Bunsen is a Beast, Welcome to the Wayne, and The Adventures of Kid Danger.
But that's not to say that they didn't have any good shows.
Because they did.
Victorious, Winx Club, The Legend of Korra, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), Harvey Beaks, The Loud House, and Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
As you can see, there's a massive gap between the shows that were good and the shows that.....weren't.
While yes, Nickelodeon has had bad shows prior to the 2010s....
They were very few and far between.
But during the 2010s, it felt like there was another bad or whatever show around every corner!
And these are all shows I could name off the top of my head!
But even then, nearly all these shows do share something in common.
They weren't treated all that well by the network.
Nickelodeon has become notorious for hardly giving many of their shows during the 2010s a chance.
Specifically with the Nicktoons.
They hardly got any sort of exposure or promotion, and usually only ran for two seasons.
And that's if you're lucky!
They were FAR more lenient with the live-action shows.
But there was a reason for that.
In fact, as I'm sure many of you noticed, live-action shows more or less DOMINATED Nickelodeon during the 2010s.
And there's a reason for that.
That being none other one of their two rivals: Disney Channel!
During the 2000s, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel were relatively tied in terms of popularity and viewership.
But when the 2010s rolled around, Disney Channel started to edge Nick out with ratings and viewership.
While Nick and Disney Channel were known for both live-action and animated programming, Disney Channel had more of the former than the latter.
And since they were now beating them in the ratings, Nickelodeon started rapid-firing so many sitcoms and other live-action projects in order to compete with Disney Channel.
As for why many of the Nicktoons released during the 2010s (and even to this day) haven't done so well, it was because of, ironically, the biggest one of them all....
It's pretty well-known that Nickelodeon has become incredibly over-reliant on SpongeBob SquarePants and how it takes up a ridiculous amount of the schedule.
Even to this day!
But the impact it's had on its fellow Nicktoons cannot be understated.
Not only did SpongeBob taking up nearly all of the schedule not allow any of these shows to truly shine (not helped by the lack of promotion and being given bad timeslots), but it also made Nickelodeon place WAY too high of a standard for their Nicktoons.
If a Nicktoon couldn't even come close to the ratings of Spongebob, it was game over.
Even when they got good ratings that any other channels would've been fine with, it still wasn't good enough for Nick.
The Loud House got INSANELY lucky due to it being one of the very few Nicktoons released post-2010 to run for more than two seasons (and it's the only one still running).
But as we all know, this would end up being a curse as the show has long gone downhill and has been more or less milked dry.
And it's become the channel second SpongeBob, taking up most of the schedule as well.
I wanna ask you guys a quick question.
When was the last time you heard anything about Nickelodeon?
Not from movies, or video games, or even the company itself.
But I mean the actual channel specifically.
I'm certain most of you can't answer that!
A major aspect many have pointed out is how shockingly irrelevant Nickelodeon has become over the past couple of years.
And it's not hard to see why.
-The overabundance of bad or mediocre shows that overtook the network during the 2010s and beyond.
-The actual good shows being few and far between.
-The fact that most of those shows hardly got to shine due to Nick not giving them a chance.
-And the two shows taking up most of the schedule being long past their glory days and haven overstayed their welcome.
As you would expect, this caused many people to lose interest in the channel.
However, I do know the last time Nickelodeon was relevant.
It was actually just last year!
For two reasons.
The first (and smaller) reason was because of the release of The Fairly OddParents: A New Wish, which was a delight and a much needed breath of fresh air for its incredibly troubled franchise.
And the second (and much bigger) reasons was....
At the time of this documentary's release, Nickelodeon's reputation was already in the dirt thanks to the reasons I just stated earlier.
But thanks to this documentary (plus more people who had previously worked with Nick coming forward about the company and channel's long and dark history of child exploitation), their reputation was dragged down to the fiery depths of HELL!
I genuinely don't know what @farmershire is on (most likely copium), but I have no clue how anyone could look at modern day Nickelodeon and unironically say that it's thriving, when the channel is in the worst state it's ever been in!
That would like seeing someone having their arm cut off and suffering from major blood loss....and saying they're perfectly FINE!
Nickelodeon's relevancy has been non-existent for YEARS due to the aforementioned reasons.
Along with how they more or less threw out the playful and edgy branding and identity that made them successful in the first place for the sake of their pissing contest with Disney Channel.
And what little cred the channel could've had left was pretty much destroyed by its long history of mistreating creatives, workplace harassment, and most importantly, child abuse now being known to the much wider general public.
Nickelodeon is basically the channel equivalent of an actor who was once one of the biggest stars in the world.
But now they're nothing more than a washed-up has-been long past their glory days, who gave up what made them so popular in the first place for the sake of competition, and are now constantly being faced with the shady things they've done in the past coming back to bite them.
In conclusion....Nickelodeon is COOKED!
They've been cooked for years, and will most likely continue to be so.
And it's only a matter of time for the channel eventually goes under.
Over the last few years, major countries like Russia, Japan and Canada have shut down their Nickelodeons.
Funnily enough, Canada is the most recent, shutting down just at the beginning of this September!
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if in the next 10.....fuck it, 5 years, no kids will even know what Nickelodeon really is!
And admittedly, while the copium line was largely a joke, I do think @farmershire is genuinely might be in some kind of denial, most likely because Nickelodeon means so much to them.
I recently checked their blog, and I saw a lot of posts relating to Nickelodeon.
So it's clear that they seem to have a fondness for the channel.
And while they may be denying this, I do think that even they know deep down that Nickelodeon hasn't been a good state for a LONG time.
And in all honesty....I kinda can't blame them.
Nickelodeon played a major role in many people's childhoods, including mine's!
So to see something that was once near and dear to the hearts of many become a shell of a its former self.....it's gonna hurt.
Especially knowing that kids these days will never get to experience that kind of magic for themselves thanks to, once again, how much streaming and the Internet has overtaken the world.
And even then, most of the programming.....or correctly, what little the channel has right now, probably won't appeal to them that much.
I mean, look at most of the shows from the 2010s.
You hardly see any sort of conservation about them online.
And if there is, it's either about how much they sucked or how just....whatever they were.
So if you know me at all, you know I have ADHD and also a neuroscience degree. Meaning sometimes I ramble a lot about the science behind ADHD and ADHD meds. Generally, people appreciate it at best, or ignore it at worst â but apparently not on reddit! So, I'm coming home â forgive me for straying, Tumblr, please give me back my belief in people's ability to understand nuance.
The comment below was in response to a post asking about ADHD medication, including concerns about stimulants and addiction, and the question of "will I quit these meds or is this a life-long thing". They also mentioned "rejection sensitive dysphoria" (which is not a medical term!) and asked for other people's insights on any of these things. I tried to give that. The original post is now suddenly deleted, and the comment was invisible even before then for whatever reason (I won't speculate whether it was censored by the mods or not, it doesn't matter.)
But since those are all pretty general topics and this was a lot of effort to write, I'm re-posting it here in the hopes someone will benefit from it â it may just read a bit odd at times because it addresses the OP of that post. So if ADHD medication, treatment approaches, stigma, or emotional dysregulation are at all relevant or interesting to you, give it a glance. There's a TL:DR at the bottom as well.
If Tumblr could stop bitching at me about the formatting that'd be great. Please ignore potential oddities with the list levels.
COMMENT RESPONSE IN VERBATIM
OKAY SO, buckle in my friend because you have activated my ADHD research deep dive mode. For the record and some context as to where I got all this; I have a BSc in Psychology, and did a research masters in cognitive and clinical neuroscience. Throughout both degree programs, I've written every single paper I could choose the topic for about some aspect of ADHD. (I do not have a license for psychotherapy yet, but I am getting one.) I also just have ADHD myself.
What Iâm trying to say is: I know way too much about ADHD and now I must tell you about it because what else am I supposed to do with it â ANYWAY ⌠I should probably structure this somehow so itâs less overwhelming.
Weâll try this:
Medication
Strattera/Atomoxetine (ATX); how it works, why it may or may not be working for you
Stimulants; how it works, evidence regarding the risk of dependency and abuse, connections to other substance use (since you mentioned nicotine)
Long-term treatment plans; factors to consider / questions for you to evaluate for yourself
RSD â probably a rant, first; why buzzwords are counterproductive even if the experience is 100% valid
Emotional dysregulation; research again, also potentially about meds
rejection sensitivity slkjdsjfs it escalated, help
Community and peer support
Yes? Yes. Feel free to skip any parts that are too sciency, if that doesnât interest you!
First of all, congratulations on your diagnosis! Youâve already made one of the hardest steps. But letâs get into it, shall we?
ADHD Medication
Non-stimulants / Atomoxetine (ATX)
I must say, I am quite surprised that you were prescribed ATX as your first option, given that stimulants are very firmly established as first-line treatment.
Regardless, a couple of facts about it:
ATX is a selective noradrenaline (NA) reuptake inhibitor, which also affects dopamine (DA) levels, specifically in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) becauseâ well because brain chemistry. (Iâm trying very hard to keep this simple, can you tell?) Basically, the idea is to regulate DA levels through an indirect mechanism via NA. And that works pretty well, generally. ATX is effective for approximately 50-60% of people, and the effects reach moderate strength.
Now you said that you donât really notice any effect; that can have several possible reasons:
It just doesnât work for you; 50-60% of people show a response, sure â but the other 40-50% do not! Unfortunately it is possible that you simply are part of those 40-50% non-responders.
The exact mechanisms of that are still unclear, but there are many factors that might influence someoneâs drug response, including individual differences in metabolism, genetic factors etc. --- weâre still researching that
ATX, unlike stimulants, doesnât necessarily have immediate effects. Full therapeutic effects are generally not evaluated until at least 2-3 weeks after starting it. That also means that the effects can develop slowly, which can make them harder to notice because itâs a somewhat gradual change.
On top of that, if your doctor is even the slightest shred of competent (which I hope), theyâll probably have started at a fairly low dose, meaning that;
you might just not feel it yet, but the effect may still emerge
you might need a higher dose; if thatâs the case, this increase is generally done step-wise and quite slowly, to monitor the effects (and side-effects) properly. I suggest asking your doctors about what kind of trajectory they have in mind, so you can decide whether that suits you.
You mentioned mood swings; definitely mention that to your doctor! Psychological side-effects of ATX should be closely monitored
Note that this is especially important if someone has (potentially undiagnosed) comorbid disorders. I donât know whether thatâs the case for you, but better to be aware either way.
All that said, I also take ATX and I must say that on its own its effects are barely noticeable for me. Itâs only because I know that my symptoms can be worse that I even consider it effective. I am an unusual case, though, regarding med-response etc. and I take ATX in combination with Elvanse (Lisdexamfetamine; LDX).
Which I guess brings us to stimulants. You say youâre reluctant out of fear to form a dependency, if I understand correctly. Well, the research is quite interesting in that regard â but letâs cover the basics first.
Stimulants
Stimulants, i.e., various types of amphetamines (AMP) and methylphenidates (MPH), are the standard first-line treatment for ADHD. Both AMP- and MPH-class drugs essentially increase the efficiency of the PFC âsame as ATX â but where ATX only directly targets NA, AMP and MPH inhibit the reuptake of DA itself as well as NA reuptake. This direct effect on DA levels is basically (very basic; oversimplified even) what makes them stimulants. It is also likely the root for your concerns about dependence risks, because DA is involved in our reward-system in the brain â i.e. the thing that tells you âi want more of thisâ.
So, yeah, these concerns are not unfounded, HOWEVER
It is important to remember/note that a lot of the public narrative around ADHD and ADHD medication is heavily distorted by stigma. The number of people who worry about stimulants being addictive is leagues away from the actual prevalence of stimulant abuse/dependence.
This also kinda ties into your question about whether you will stop taking meds at some point or not; the idea that treatment must be temporary roots in the stigmatisation of mental health treatment.
Iâm not saying that life-long medication treatment is a delight and a joy, but I also donât think that it is the ultimate evil itâs sometimes made out to be. ââ EXAMPLE: Think of a diabetic; they will need insulin for the rest of their life, but in their case nobody would ever suggest that them taking it is somehow a bad thing.
Mental health in general is unfortunately still heavily stigmatised, and that also impacts the narrative around treatment options, including medication. And more often than not, public beliefs about psychiatric conditions are downright and blatantly wrong.
In this particular case, actual research indicates that stimulant treatment actually decreases the risk for substance abuse in ADHDers. (Generally, adequate ADHD treatment reduces risks for all sorts of unpleasant things, like comorbid disorders, social isolation, divorce, accidents â I could go on. Not the point.)
The point is that overall, from a research perspective, the risk of drug dependence due to stimulant medication is quite low. Hell, literally everyone I know who takes ADHD meds will go âshit I forgot my medsâ at least every other month or so.
Of course that doesnât mean that we can all just pop stims however we like without a care in the world. As with any other medication, monitoring effects and side-effects together with a doctor is key.
With all that said, there is good reason why stimulants are first-line treatment for ADHD: 65-80% of people show a treatment response, and for a lot of people who donât initially experience an effect, switching to another type of stimulant will often do the trick (total response rates of ~90%). Besides the fact that they work for more people, they also generally work better than non-stimulants, meaning that the symptom improvements are stronger for stimulants.
Does this mean you should just get over yourself and go for stimulants because theyâre clearly superior? Of course not.
Medication response is ultimately a very individual thing; it is basically impossible to know how youâll react to any given medication before you try it. So in the end, it really comes down to what you want. Itâs your decision, based on your priorities and values.
The same goes for your question of âwill I take these meds foreverâ â thatâs up to you!
Generally speaking, ADHD doesnât go away. It is not something you grow out of any more than you can grow a second brain to replace the one you have. And our brains have ADHD. So, symptom-wise, we will always experience ADHD to some degree at least.
Of course, there are plenty of other treatment approaches such as CBT and literal mountains of helpful strategies to learn about and use. And thatâs wonderful! Still, therapy alone is generally considered less effective than meds, but it does help. The best treatment approaches are multimodal, i.e. a combination of pharmacological treatment and behavioural interventions. Aka we take meds and go to therapy. Amazing.
So letâs say youâve taken meds for a while, youâve gone to therapy, youâve learnt all the strategies â you decide to quit the meds. What happens?
Well first of all, nobody can know that beforehand, so keep in mind that these are hypothetical assumptions based on scenarios that research described as likely
Anyway, you quit whatever meds that ended up working for you. Ideally, you do that slowly so you donât have any withdrawal issues, but eventually youâre off the meds. As a result, your brain isnât getting that neurotransmitter boost anymore that the meds created (though some research shows that some benefits might persist, yay!), meaning that cognitive impairments are stronger again.
Does this mean all your symptoms come back? Well, yes and no. On a basic brain level, impairments return at least in part, but the strategies you learnt in therapy might still help you cope with those impairments better than you used to before.
So you might be overall more functional, thanks to those strategies, yes.
But strategies will not fix your brain chemistry, and if thereâs no dopamine thereâs no dopamine, and suddenly you spent all day in bed. Or youâre staring at your work open in front of you feeling like thereâs a thick panel of glass between you and your screen/keyboard and you just cannot make yourself type. These things wonât go away, and strategies will not always do the trick
Personally, I dread the idea of living my life entirely off meds. My main hobby is writing, which is nearly impossible without my meds â and even if I had a less challenging hobby; I want to do things in life, not waste my time trying to get myself to brush my teeth. But, again, that is a very personal decision that you ultimately have to make for yourself.
Still, here are a few things to consider that might help you evaluate your options:
Need â what are your primary needs? Which symptoms are impacting you most? (Yes Iâm getting to the RSD sfksjhgj)
Want â what are things you want beyond the most important needs? Where do your priorities lie?
Benefit â what benefit are you getting from [medication X]? How much positive effect does it have on your symptoms? On your life as a whole?
Need-benefit â do the benefits fulfil your essential needs? â> if not, thatâs probably not the right med for you
Want-benefit â do the benefits fulfil your wants beyond the essentials?
Cost â what costs is [medication X] causing you? Do you have side-effects, if so what are they, how bad, how frequent?
Cost-benefit â do the benefits outweigh the costs, on a somewhat objective level? (effects vs side-effects)
Cost-benefit-want â Are the benefits worth the costs, also taking your individual values, concerns and goals into account?
This last one can get quite complicated, Iâll admit, but in the end I feel like this one is what tips the scale for a lot of people.
You could have the most amazing improvements, if you suffer side effects that keep you from something that is important to you, itâs probably not worth it in the end.
Vice versa, in my case, if it means I can write, I will accept that Iâll feel incredibly nauseated on some days for like 1-3 hours. It all comes down to individual choices in the end.
-deep breath-
So, that was a lot, whops. So much, that I should actually go and work, so Iâll try to keep the RSD thing short. Conveniently, the AutoMod already summed up the most important bits:
RSD is not a recognised medical term
Instead of RSD, it is better to use concepts and terminology with solidly established definitions such as emotional dysregulation and rejection sensitivity to talk about the experiences people tend to label RSD
This is particularly important when consulting mental health professionals; well established concepts enable them to assess your symptoms and needs better than vague, ill-defined buzzwords. I have had people tell me they were going to switch to another doctor because theirs wasnât familiar with RSD --- that is an issue!
Buzzwords like that tend to hinder treatment progress, because they are too vague to be properly informative. Most people have a very specific conceptual definition of RSD --- namely the one that describes their own symptoms best.
That renders it basically useless as a communicative device. Doctors cannot mind-read; you are doing yourself a favour if your communication (including terminology) is as clear as possible.
Obviously nobody expects you to know specialised medical terms --- just try to avoid buzzwords; of any kind! RSD is just a very very popular one and therefore warrants repeated clarification.
Now, just cause itâs not A Thing(tm), doesnât mean itâs not a problem. And yes, the experience of rejection sensitivity in ADHD is valid and should not be dismissed!
Emotional dysregulation is actually one of the most prevalent and most impacting symptoms of ADHD, but because it isnât part of the diagnostic criteria, a lot of people arenât even aware of how much ADHD impacts emotions â and how much that impacts life for ADHDers. Emotional dysregulation leads to all sorts of other problems, like social isolation or comborbid mood disorders like depression or bipolar. So, clearly, itâs something should be addressed when it comes to treatment.
And would you look at that, they did! Yay!
Research shows that stimulants are effective for reducing symptoms of emotional dysregulation; as mentioned earlier, ideally you combine that with therapy.
Especially for emotional dysregulation, therapy â not just strategies, therapy â can be very beneficial, because emotions are hard. A lot of ADHDers, especially those that only get their diagnosis in adulthood, develop suboptimal coping mechanisms throughout their life that are very hard to dismantle without help. But resolving those patterns often makes an immense impact on the general quality of life.
Conclusion: Get a good therapist. Itâs worth it. (Good = someone you trust and click with, you have to be comfortable.)
Now, one last thing (almost done I promise), because you said you donât really have anyone to talk to about this:
I strongly encourage you to actively seek out ADHD communities in a format that lends itself to connecting with people on a personal level.
So, quick story time:
Back in 2018, I (by complete coincidence) stumbled over a video of a TEDxTalk about ADHD on Patreon â who even browses Patreon?! Anyway, I watched it. Cried. A lot. Backed that Patreon immediately, before even looking at the actual YouTube channel it was for. The Patreon came with Discord rewards â I had never heard of Discord but thereâs nothing like ADHD impulsivity, so I made a Discord account and joined that server.
Literally my whole life has changed since then. My perspective on ADHD has changed so so much simply through seeing other people having the same struggles, and yet they were still unique. And it was a wild ride. I look at some of the beliefs I used to have and am baffled at myself. But thatâs not the main point, though knowledge always does help. No, the main point isnât another strategy or lifehack.
The main point are friends. True, actual friends who accept you, but also understand you.
When I joined that server, I very quickly met a lot of people. It was wonderful to suddenly be in a space where people related to my experiences that had previously always singled me out as weird or rude or incompetent or whatever. And all those people were lovely, but theyâre not the friends I mean; most of them I am not in touch with anymore.
I mean the select few. They are what made the biggest difference for me. I met one of my top two best friends like 2 months after joining the server, when we both became moderators. We later did community management together for over a year, until I moved on to other things â they are still Community Manager there! I flew to the other side of the planet for their wedding. We spend hours on video chat sometimes, both just working and hanging out because we like each otherâs company (and it helps us focus). I can tell them anything, even if I hate what I did or didnât do or say or think.
Those friends.
And I donât know you, obviously, so maybe you already have that friend, in which case Iâm very happy for you. But judging by your statement that you have nobody to talk toâ
Iâm not saying that joining an ADHD community will magically drop a best friend for you out of the sky, but itâs honestly not a bad start. Simply gaining the peer support of people who understand and relate to your experiences is worth it.
Okay, phew. Now Iâm done.
For your convenience;
TL;DR
non-stimulants might still take effect or you might need a different dose
stimulants are heavily stigmatised and the actual risk for substance dependence is quite low if the treatment is properly monitored by a medical professional
ADHD doesnât go away; we will always have ADHD brains and there will always be issues that cannot be solved with strategies
Itâs up to you to decide whether you want to take medication for it, and whether you want to take them long-term or not. I personally am fairly certain that I will continue to take these meds as long as I can. Even though there are downsides, the benefits are more than worth it for me.
Emotions are hard, everyone should go to therapy.
Make ADHD friends! (I personally really like Discord communities; I can recommend the HowToADHD community â thatâs the server I mentioned earlier â but itâs unfortunately behind a (very low) paywall. If you donât know that YouTube channel, Iâd also recommend checking out Jessâs videos.)
But back to the point: Friends. Whichever platform you are comfortable with â try connecting with people beyond surface level conversations in public comments/threads/channels. Slide into those DMs!
And thatâs all. That was way too long and I apologise. I hope any of it was helpful and understandable, I know I can get a bit sciency sometimes. If anything is unclear just ask.
Good luck with your journey! It might be hard in the beginning, but it gets easier with time, I promise.
END VERBATIM
I hope anyone finds this useful, if only for validation. Shit's hard, but we'll all be fine, together.
So this cropped up as a comment I got elsewhere and it felt like it needed its own discussion.
Straight people don't suffer from discrimination for being straight. Hope that helps
{deliberately not giving a username cause I don't want to start beef xD}
I don't know if that's true.
I have no life experience there... But I'd assume this is never true of any group, just because one group are in a majority or several groups have a plurality doesn't mean they don't face any sort of prejudice or impacts based on having any identity. There are reasons why for example being married and having children are protected characteristics a person might have.
It doesn't invalidate your own experiences to acknowledge that someone else might have their own and that those experiences might not be positive in all cases.
The above reply @ me came up in a discussion about Ace erasure within fandoms and I commented that fandoms do straight erasure too. I had limited space so nuance was neither possible in my post nor their reply.
Fandoms queerify straights too. Iirc slashfic is it's own whole genre of coupling against authorial intent.
I was trying to express that the problem is bigger than just Ace people, there's a bigger fundamental issue with people writing coupling that is against canon depiction and how the practice is far wider than just the impacts on acespec people.
I wanted to include more about how just because someone is "straight" or anything else doesn't mean that they're attracted to all the variations of humans that the term implies. A character might be straight but they can still have a type, they might be straight but might only love one or two romantic partners their entire life. They might be straight and Arospec because they can only ever love their one person. By coupling any character with someone outside of the cannon depictions it could be an act of ace erasure.
I err on Ace/Aro in all cases, unless a character says they're *identity* then they might only be attracted to the few people they fall for in the medium. They aren't necessary attracted to all xyz people either, it might only be that one specific person or a handful of people.
Just because a character is straight doesn't mean they would hook up with every person of the opposite gender if they could. There are as many varieties of straight attraction as there are queer identities.
Yet it's a huge unwritten assumption that if you're writing fanfic then shipping anyone with anyone is generally okay regardless of the cannon of the source media, the characters may be enemies or might never meet or even come from completely different franchises and it's still okay to make those ships in many cases without issue.
It's perfectly acceptable to inject any queer relationship upon any character that has expressed no identity or has only expressed attraction in a limited capacity. A character with hetnormative attraction never said they had no queer identities, and one person might make inferences others might not see so to them it's "okay" to ship even in queer directions.
There's a convention that if a character is already queer to not take that identity from them entirely. Making gay or saphic characters bi or pan isn't unheard of so long as they express that in ways that are predominantly gay or saphic. But there's often context and execution to consider for if this is deemed okay by anyone other than the fic's author.
But the pattern is at its core the same. We're all fighting the same fight to have our identity respected. And the pattern is that it's generally okay to add relationships to characters regardless of original cannon.
So now you have context back to my response to the quote that spawned this essay
I find it's often easier to get people on your side by building bridges and offering points of reference with which they share. By showing they have the same problems they might help you fight your corner, at least that's been my experience.
So the reply set off all my "making enemies for no good reason" alarms, it disregards the feelings of an entire group and treats them as a monolith of people who are neither deserving of respect nor consideration in the discussion. Completely disregarding intersectionality etc... putting them on defensive mode rather than keeping them agreeable. And I'm inclined to believe this happened due to space constraints rather than genuine malice but it did spark an essay so it clearly upset me anyways.
So now we come to the point of disclosure because I felt somewhat as though the comment was erasing my identity and assuming I was straight and so not worth listening to on this issue.
I'm Agen/Aro/Ace I want to not have my identity ignored either and I want to get people on side with the discourse. Having more people stand up and say "non canonical coupling hurts people" as a blanket statement is a good thing.
Having more people acknowledge the harms is at least a starting point.
I don't like the attitude saying "it's okay if they're straight, arospec, or if you're really clever with it." Because it erases people, but just cause I don't like the attitude doesn't mean people should stop expressing themselves so long as they're self aware about what they're doing.
And acknowledging that it hurts people doesn't negate that sometimes that hurt is resonable, having more rep for minorities is a generally good thing, most people doing the shipping can make people feel seen and happy.
On an individual level almost every act is one that has a net positive effect and is done out of love. Love for a character or a story or anything else. A fan fic here, a ship there, it all makes the people doing it happy and builds communities.
Even if it hurts to see it happen to your favourite characters no one is actually coming after you personally or your identity by wrapping a character you identify with in a cloke of their own because they identify with them too.
At the same time it's worth acknowledging the cumulative effect can be an overall negative on a group as people see the characters they frequently identify with as being stripped of their core aspects and the result is that many people feel aggressively dismissed and invalidated as though their identity would receive same treatment from the same people.
I'm also Auti/ADHD I see patterns, this is a pattern I've seen and acknowledged and it doesn't stop at fictional characters it applies to real people too, celebrities and the people you walk past on the street.
I have noticed when anyone has their identity usurped by another the people with the original identity in meatspace get defensive and hostile to the people erasing them.
Every act of unrequited love, where someone puts an attraction or implies a non existent desire to be with anyone on someone else it makes those in receipt of the treatment defensive and off put.
Repeated actions like this by a group or an individual can build resentment. If you have no respect for their identity they then become openly hostile to you as an individual and perhaps people who share your identity if the pattern repeats. Resentment builds initially about one individual but eventually to a whole community who share an identity. This doesn't just apply to us Queers defending GSRM identities.
I think some of the growing animosity and phobias that come out of those screaming about woke culture come from seeing people shout and scream that all identities are valid and beautiful while at the same time 'allowing' other people from our same group to abuse them and theirs or just ignoring when it happens because "straight people cannot be the victims of discrimination based on sexual or romantic orientation".
"they want to turn us all gay" might stem from the fact our communities don't respect the het identities of various characters. We do it to fictional characters why wouldn't we do it to real people? (Not that this explanation excuses their behaviour few treat fictional characters the same way they'd treat real people)
Human beings are at their cores pattern recognition and remix engines. We see patterns and in order to simplify our cognitive processes we put things into boxes in our own heads.
Everyone loves pizza, if I'm throwing a party that's a safe bet for a food that won't offend.
An assumption and a stereotype that's relatively harmless, and yet I and you know that people exist with Lactose or Gluten intolerance, people can be allergic to tomatoes or onions or garlic, that vegetarian and vegan people exist in the world. By simplifying the world to that stereotype it makes life easier and we aren't doing it to harm anyone intentionally. Making the conscious effort to overcome the initial stereotyping is in my opinion what separates true bigotry from a bad mistake or a poor decision.
We all recognise patterns and try to simplify our messy existances to avoid existential dread.
While remixing is the idea that most of us will never have a unique idea in our lives. We might combine things that exist in novel ways but every idea we have is built on the experiences we go through and the things we learn, read, see or hear. Remixing is how humanity progresses, how science is done, how great works of literature are produced how we practice our crafts and how we become better individuals as well as a better society on the whole.
Fandoms and the erasure of identities has costs, but it's an example of remixing and an aspect of humanity that is good to nurture even while we acknowledge the short comings within.
Acknowledging the flaws in a thing doesn't stop it from being beautiful. Acknowledging the shortcomings of an experience or an action doesn't make it invalid or of zero worth. And acknowledging that a thing someone else loves has flaws is not a personal attack on that person.
I like your story
Thanks it has pockets
Very few things in this world are entirely without impact or flaws.
Just because there are flaws doesn't imply a moral judgement.
Just because there is an impact doesn't mean that the morality is simple.
Humanity is messy, existance is messy. I wish there was a good simple solution to every problem but unfortunately that's the exception not the rule.
Hello! I was just curious, are you continuing to write forget my mercy, take my blame? If not I understand! I came across it recently and was totally hooked but didnât know if it was on a hiatus or not. Youâre a super talented writer and Iâve really enjoyed your work! Hope you are doing well!
Hi! I am actually just getting back to continuing the series. I was sad to abandon it like I did, but come autumn I simply didn't have any more time to write and I haven't really put anything down since late October I think. I'm trying not to force chapters out, so it might take a while for me to get back into the groove of things and remember all that I wanted to do with the story and characters, but as long as my schedule is kind(er) this year, updates should happen soon! I'm glad you've enjoyed the story thus far and hope that will continue being the case as it evolves. Have a happy new year!
