mouthporn.net
#cw: bullying – @random-thought-depository on Tumblr
Avatar

Random Thought Depository

@random-thought-depository / random-thought-depository.tumblr.com

Science fiction fan and aspiring science fiction author. 39 year old male. I made this because I wanted a place to put my random thoughts.
Avatar
Avatar
newhologram

In response to me saying “Cruelty and suffering are not requirements to create a strong society. ☺️” , I got these comments: but survival of the fittest and natural selection is☺️. That what life is pookie, you either blend in with society or you be “different” and get eaten alive 😘😘🥰. I used to be bullied when I was younger and for a while up until a few years ago and once I finally “gave in” and tried being normal, it changed my life. I made hella friends and connections who have helped me through life because people will accept you for being normal and when people accept you, they will boost and build you up and have your back. there is a huge difference between bulling and abuse 💀 (This commenter’s page is full of car pics. They have what is considered to be a socially acceptable interest. This is an important little detail in this conversation about “normal.”)

Pro-bullying is a very concerning worldview, because this is how people convince themselves that it’s okay to use violence of any kind on those who are different from you, simply because they are different, not because they did anything bad or hurt anyone. People who believe that “actually, bullying is a Good Thing because it makes us conform, which is Correct. Anyone who does not conform is Bad, and deserves abuse until they finally squash themselves into the mold we’ve decided is Normal.” It’s hard to understand if you’ve got any kind of grasp on empathy, or even if you don’t experience empathy but understand that differences are to be celebrated and that abusing people into hiding these harmless differences is, uh, bad? The only people I see defending bullying as some “necessary corrective action” in society are those who seem to think they turned out well and that life is great, except they really want to hurt other people for being different. Like, they’re thirsty for it. Their jaws chatter for the feeling of a slur between their teeth. They’re salivating at the thought and many can’t hold back, as evidenced by the comments I get on my “hey, bullying comes from insecure people” posts calling me ugly, stupid, weird, saying my hair is bad, my eyebrows are bad, I talk weird, I make weird faces/movements (ableism lol), my gender sucks or whatever, blah, blah. Which is strange to me because: isn’t the basis of so many belief systems, what we were taught in kindergarten is “Hey, we’re all unique and that’s by design. Be yourself! Also be kind, don’t hurt people.”

So… No, sorry. I will never agree with this stance. “Don’t be weird and you won’t get bullied”—All the things I’m labeled “weird” for are completely harmless. I’ll never be normal and that’s okay. How about just be kind to people even if they are different? Me being different isn’t hurting you or anyone else. 

What people like this fail to realize is that for many of us, there is no way to ever really “pretend” to be “normal.” We will never fit in, we’ll always stand out in some way, we’ll always be who we are. If the choice is between: use all my energy to hide who I am and still get abused just so I can have fake friendships with shallow and insecure people vs Just let go and be who I am, distance from people who don’t accept me unconditionally, make friends with cool, kind people Uh, I’m gonna go with the healthier, happier option? Wtf?

What you are saying is Good/Correct is to hide anything that is different: disabilities, gender, romantic or sexual orientation, very niche interests (which is a lifeline to ND’s)

Obsessively passionate about video games and comic books? I was “not normal” for this in the 90’s and even 2000’s. Should I have conformed and been interested in, I don’t know, boybands and pencil-thin eyebrows like my peers instead, to avoid their daily torment? Would that have made me “fit” to survive the world, or perhaps is it the bullies who are in the wrong for being horrible little devils to a child who just had different interests? (No, clearly, I was the one in the wrong for daring to exist, huh?)

Sensitive to stimuli? Probably my biggest autistic struggle, compounded by unending chronic pain. So I shouldn’t self-regulate at all, because that makes me stand out as Not Normal and make me a target? Instead of, maybe people should just accept that neurodivergent people exist and that it hurts no one if I need to decompress in a dark room and wear earplugs because my nervous system overloads easy? 

Ethnically mixed and hairy in places my white, blonde peers weren’t? That doesn't hurt anyone either. The bullying I got from my body’s natural state was so traumatic I started shaving my arms and legs at age 8. But it didn't stop; just the fact that I had hair to shave was another reason to bully me. I got called disgusting for being hairy, disgusting for being smooth. Conforming did nothing to stop the harm. Happen to be queer? Guess I should have “given in” and forced myself to be straight and cisgender because, what? To please whom? To appear more normal so I will get “acceptance and support” by people who would drop me if I wasn’t like them? How is the argument literally “either be exactly the same as us or we’ll hurt you! :)” solid in any way? It sounds unhinged. Not a social environment I would want to be part of at all. (Spoiler alert:  As an adult I have friends and a support system of people who like me for the ways I am different and myself, and that’s actually what is life-changing. That’s real love.)

All of that was “different” enough to get me verbally and psychologically (and a few times physically) abused for over a decade in school. I did nothing wrong. I was just different. 

To fit in and have a better life, I should hide all of this, because “that’s life?” What other ppl decide is normal and socially acceptable is “life”? We’re humans. We have free will. We can make the choice not to “eat people alive” just for harmless differences. There’s a reason these people try to justify it by relating to what they perceive as “mindless, empathyless” animal behavior and it isn’t good. 

And to address one of their comments: Incorrect. Bullying is a form of abuse. I endured sustained, systematic attacks on my sense of self and my body by my bullies for my entire school life and even early adulthood. That is abuse. Period.

I wanted to do a proper video reply to this but I haven’t got the spoons. I might just script this into voice-to-text at some point. 

Also, even if it worked, imagine spending the entire rest of your life suppressing and hiding your personality to LARP as some idea of a "normal person," that sounds like such a grim and joyless and stressful existence, I think I might prefer suicide to living like that.

Also, I don't like to use what's natural as a moral argument because nature is amoral (I think "We can make the choice not to “eat people alive” just for harmless differences" is definitely the correct take here), but if you want to talk about evolution, you know what happens to a totally homogenous species? It goes extinct when the environment changes or some really nasty virus comes along because a species like that is very fragile because they all have the same weaknesses. A diverse species is more likely to survive and thrive and diversity was probably crucial to our success. Also, if it wasn't for the diversity of our ancestors we could never have become human in the first place; a totally homogenous species can't change because it would have no variation for selection to act on; we're all descended from individuals who were abnormal in their own lifetimes. For instance, IIRC Homo erectus were probably normally adults by 15; we're all descended from their late bloomers.

Avatar

Have some Blindsight vampire OCs from my Blindsight elsewhere fic set in the early Holocene (around 8,000 BCE)! You may have met Heron, meet her (surviving, adult) kids!

I might use it pronouns of ancient vampires in my fic, but for now I'll just use conventional ones.

Heron has three surviving adult children: Magpie, Drowning, and Stargazer:

Magpie is Heron's oldest child (she had another one before him, but that one died of disease in infancy).

Magpie is not the child of Heron's regular mate/partner at the time. Different ancient vampire families were very distrustful of each other and mostly just avoided each other, but they did sometimes trade or otherwise cooperate. A feature of ancient vampire "diplomacy" was that they'd often send a breeding-age female near ovulation to the other family to do the deal, with the understanding that she'd get gang-banged by some or all of the males of the other family. This made the other family less likely to kill her, as she'd thereby be a potential pathway for the proliferation of their genes. It also increased the genetic diversity of the species and the family, and thereby mitigated the low genetic diversity of ancient vampires and the tendency of their social structure to compound this by promoting inbreeding. Magpie was conceived in such a union. This means during his early life his blood relatives had to protect him from Heron's regular mate, who'd have killed him to free up space in the family for his own offspring if he could have gotten away with it, much as male lions will kill the cubs of rival males.

Magpie got his name because as a child he made a sort of friend of a magpie, feeding it little scraps of food until it trusted him enough to perch on his shoulder. A normal vampire might do something like this, but probably with the intent of betraying the animal and eating it later; when Heron and her mom asked him when he was planning to do this, they noticed he seemed a little upset by the idea. This was one of their first clues that there was something odd about him.

Magpie is different.

Another early clue was that Magpie did not go through the normal ancient vampire childhood phase of torturing small animals. Vampires are far less playful than humans, but they are a highly intelligent species closely related to humans and play is part of how humans learn and a common trait of intelligent creatures, so play is also a normal behavior of vampire children. An unfortunate but common manifestation of playfulness is sadistic play, which is common even in human children (in our species it is often directed toward other human children), and vampires are an aggressive species with a strong hunting instinct. In ancient vampires, sadistic play with small prey items during childhood was a normal part of how the hunting instinct "wired up" during brain development. Thankfully, usually by the time a vampire reaches adulthood the sadistic impulse has become very tightly coupled to the hunting instinct and thus the sadistic play phase has passed; gratuitous cruelty is rare in adult vampires; it would make them less efficient predators. The worst an adult vampire was likely to do was take a few moments to gloat over cornered and/or wounded prey before delivering the death blow (the most horrific plausible human-vampire interaction is what might happen if an unsupervised vampire child in the sadistic play age range encountered a lone and vulnerable human child young enough to be easily overpowered by a maybe 3-8 years old or so vampire child). But Magpie never went through a sadistic play phase, and even seemed uncomfortable when his mother, grandmother, and grandfathers/great uncles (Heron's mom mated with a pair of brothers, so unclear which is which) were teaching him how to hunt, fish, and trap nonhuman animals. He even sometimes showed altruism to animals; his relationship with the magpie has already been mentioned, and he may even have sometimes tended injured animals back to health and fed and protected them until they could fend for themselves again.

The family also noticed subtler things about Magpie; how gentle he was with his younger sisters and how enthusiastic and attentive he was in helping his older relatives look after them, how attentively he protected Stargazer from her older sister Drowning's attempts to target her for casual low-level sadistic play, how eagerly he volunteered for small tasks around the camp...

Magpie is neurodivergent in the same kind of way as Cassie/First from The Nightmare Stacks; a relatively high-empathy high-altruism individual in a species where sociopath-adjacency is the norm. Compared to a normal vampire, Magpie has an abnormally high capacity for pro-social impulses such as affective empathy, altruism, compassion, and guilt. Empathy is connected to imagination (as it is, after all, fundamentally a matter of imagining what it's like to be something or someone else), so Magpie is also atypically playful for a vampire, in a broad sense of playfulness that includes things like abstract curiosity and the capacity to appreciate art. Another early sign of Magpie's difference was a tendency to doodle representational art. Normal vampires sometimes also make doodles as a kind of stimming, but they are usually geometric rather than representational; for instance, Magpie's grandmother has a tendency to doodle spirals with notches separated by the exact length of a segment of one of her fingers (a human with a measuring device would be astonished by how precise they are for a casual free-hand drawing). Magpie may be a little bit of a runt as a consequence of the genes responsible for his neurodivergence, kind of like how autism often comes with poor sensorimotor coordination and chronic digestive problems in humans, but the effect isn't very severe; he may be shorter than either of his sisters, but within the normal distribution of ancient vampire male size (vampires have lower sexual dimorphism than humans and Stargazer is big). He may also have a mildly neotenous look as an adult (compared to ancient vampire average), as some of the genes responsible for his neurodivergence may be related to the ones involved in domestication syndrome and the ones involved in making Homo sapiens the most neotenous and hypersocial hominid, but again, the effect would be noticeable but not super-dramatic; to vampires of his own time he'd look a bit distinctive but normal-ish.

Around 1-2% of the ancient vampire population were like Magpie, comparable to the occurrence of autism, sociopathy, and transgenderism in humans. This is common enough that Magpie's family were aware of the existence of vampires like him and had that as a reference for his (to them) strange behavior, but rare enough that he was the only person like him in his family (with the partial exception of Stargazer) and, given the ancient vampire social structure, Magpie was the first person like him that any of his family members had extensive interaction with.

Empathy and compassion for your prey has obvious potential liabilities. So does being more altruistic than the other members of your social group. There is a reason Magpie is not typical. In a sense Magpie is a rather lonely and profoundly tragic person. But being kinder than your fellows is not necessarily entirely a negative in terms of personal or reproductive success. Magpie's family benefit from his abnormally high altruism and therefore value him as an ally. If you were a cold-hearted rational selfish killer, whose company would you prefer, another one like you, or somebody more altruistic and compassionate than you, who treats you better than you treat others? The unkind can still appreciate receiving kindness and recognize its source as an asset they wish to preserve.

When Magpie was around 9-11 years old he observed his younger sister Drowning getting casually slapped around by Heron's mate because she'd irritated him. Vampires mature faster than humans, a 9-11 year old vampire is a very different thing from a 9-11 year old human, at that age Magpie was already smarter and more physically powerful than most adult humans ... but he still had not yet reached his full adult size and strength, and Heron's mate was a particularly physically impressive specimen of vampire-kind, bigger and stronger than Magpie would ever be, and would be eager to kill Magpie given an opportunity/excuse. Magpie walked up to him and basically said "If you ever hit my sister in anything but necessary self-defense again, I will attack you. I realize that if that was a one-on-one fight I'd basically just be committing suicide by doing that, as you are a physically powerful adult male and I am a child and you really want to kill me and would have done it when I was a newborn baby if mom and grandma would let you get away with it. However, consider this: mom, grandma, and grandpa/great-uncle value me more than you, because I am their blood relative and you are not, and also because I'm nice to them while you're kind of a jerk even by vampire standards, if I attack you they will take my side and you will end up taking a beating at best and getting expelled from the family or killed and eaten at worst. As you mentally process that, factor in that I would be willing to take what you in my place would consider an unacceptably high risk of getting hurt or killed to protect my sister cause I'm a freak like that. I expect you to now examine my game theory, find it impeccable, and change your behavior in the way I've demanded." It worked! Vampires are highly observant creatures with the memories of metaphorical elephants and if you cross them - or help them - they will remember. You bet Drowning was taking mental notes during that incident and referred back to them for the rest of her life!

I've been talking about this in terms of pure selfish cold game theory logic, but there is also a dimension that humans might find more sympathetic. Even neurotypical vampires have some capacity for affection (it still served important social functions in ancient vampire social groups). It wouldn't be very anthropomorphizing to say that Magpie's mother, grandmother, and fully vampire sister think he's a precious beautiful cinnamon roll too good for this world, that the way he acts toward them plucks at calcified and atrophied but still existent strings in their cold vampire hearts, that his kindness toward them endears him to them, and that they have the same kind of concern for him that human parents often have toward a child who is different in a way that makes them vulnerable.

Of course, like just about every ancient vampire who survived much past their fourteenth birthday, Magpie is by human standards a serial killer. He can basically function normally in ancient vampire society, and he's now in his thirties, which means by now he's personally killed a number of humans that's probably closing in on double digits.

It would be very hard for an "ethical vampire" to survive in Magpie's time; their only plausible options for obtaining the protocadherins they needed would be scavenging by grave-robbing (very unsanitary and therefore dangerous, and inefficient) and non-fatally bleeding humans (very inefficient). A vampire who refused to hunt humans would probably be expelled from their family. But also (and related to the previous sentence), Magpie has never been taught human morality, and insofar as ancient vampires had something like morality it was like tribal/mafia morality taken to its ultimate logical conclusion: the family was everything, entities outside it weren't moral patients, and it was laudatory and often even mandatory to harm or kill outsiders if doing so would benefit the family. To refuse to hunt humans would be to betray the only concept of pro-sociality Magpie has been taught; his obligation to fulfill his social role in his family by, among other things, participating in food acquisition. Magpie's mother, grandmother, etc. recognize that killing humans is emotionally distressing for him and even feel a kind of compassion for him and attempt to offer him a kind of emotional support, but this support is mostly oriented toward trying to make him more OK with killing humans. Magpie finds killing humans unpleasant (they are so similar to his mother, grandmother, sisters, and grandfathers/great-uncles!), but the ecological context and culture he's embedded in is not conducive toward developing this discomfort into any sort of moral principle.

To say that killing humans is "emotionally distressing" for Magpie understates how horrific the experience is for him. The vampire brain habitually constructs much more vivid and tangible remembered and imagined experiences than the human brain. By human standards, Magpie has hyperempathy.

The most common unit of social organization in ancient vampire society was the matrilineal family. The usual procedure was for male offspring to be expelled from their natal family when they reached adulthood, around the age of 14, after which they would seek a family with a new "eligible bachelorette" alpha and try to join it as the alpha's mate. This was a dangerous period in a male vampire's life that they often did not survive; alone, they were easy prey for vampire families seeking to free up trophic space for themselves by killing and cannibalizing a rival, they had no-one to help them if they were wounded or got sick, and also vampire courtship was terrifying, with a high risk of the male suitor experiencing literally lethal rejection (on the flip side, male vampire courtship strategies included things like "kill the alpha's present mate, kill all her existing kids, that way the future kids you impregnate her with will have no competition," and even a courting vampire male might get lethally skittish in the presence of a stranger, so it was pretty terrifying for the females too). Magpie's family decided not to subject him to this experience. For one thing, his atypically high altruism is beneficial to them, and they did not like the idea of losing that asset and transferring it to a rival family. But also, they like him, were concerned about what might happen to him if he had to fend for himself (e.g. his atypically altruistic nature might lead to him being taken advantage of), and just didn't have the heart to exile him. He was therefore allowed to remain in his natal family as a non-reproductive helper. This means he'll probably never get to reproduce, but he'll be safer, and he can still ensure the proliferation of his own genes by helping the reproductive success of his mother, and potentially in the future his sisters and nieces. This is pretty similar to the "deal" many female vampires get, and he's...

... Settling for it in the absence of any clear better options, but not exactly content with it. As I said, in a sense Magpie is a profoundly tragic person; a brilliant, observant, sensitive, compassionate person born into a species of (similarly brilliant and observant) cold-hearted killers, condemned to a sort of profound emotional isolation, forced to prey on beings heartbreakingly similar to himself if he wants to survive. I think Magpie would love to trade places with a modern vampire; he'd be so much happier in some lab somewhere eating ethically produced synthetic protocadherin supplements and writing software or something, getting to work and socialize with a human prodigy or three, who I think he might relate well to (I think they might seem kind of like big intellectually precocious kids to him, in a good way; curious, friendly, playful, intelligent enough to challenge him intellectually, much more fun company than most of his own kind). It's one of history's tragic ironies that the PfizerPharm bio-engineers had only the most common vampire genotypes to work with, had no clue vampires like Magpie existed; vampires like him probably have fit much better into twenty-first century human society than the neurotypical type. Modern vampires are... kind of like if aliens re-created humans in the distant future and only had the most common human genotypes to work with so they ended up creating a version of humanity that's 100% neurotypical cisgender heterosexuals; we've re-created a simplified, impoverished, homogenized version of the original species.

Drowning (or maybe River, I haven't decided - which do you like better?) is Magpie's younger sister, the middle child. She's about five years younger than Magpie (ancient vampires usually had relatively wide birth spacings) - at present, she's about thirty. Drowning is Magpie's half-sister, being the daughter of Heron's regular mate at the time, and unlike him she is neurotypical by vampire standards. She's Heron's only adult vampire-neurotypical child, as her older brother is neurodivergent and her younger sister is half human; by vampire standards she's "the normal one." She's firmly next in line to be the next alpha (breeding female, kind of authority figure) when Heron hits menopause. Despite being the middle child, she has a kind of "big sister" attitude toward her siblings, perceiving that their difference is a kind of vulnerability and being protective of them; this is especially true of her relationship to Stargazer, who is mildly disabled by vampire standards.

She's called Drowning because when she was a young adult she once swam after a teenage human girl and killed her by holding her underwater. :(

Stargazer is a vampire-human hybrid Heron deliberately produced because Heron and her mother decided it would be useful to have a family member who was immune to the crucifix glitch and could pass for human. Stargazer is Heron's youngest adult child. To create Stargazer, Heron picked a nice healthy-looking young human male and spent a few months stalking him while slowly implanting a hypnotic command that, when the trigger stimulus was provided, made him see her as a girl in his community he had a crush on (similar technique to the one Valerie used to implant seizure cue in Echopraxia). From there it was a simple matter of catching him alone, showing herself, giving the trigger stimulus, arranging a meeting in a secluded spot, and... well, you can imagine the rest. That human was relatively lucky; he didn't realize what was happening and came away from the episode alive, intact, untraumatized, and with some subjectively pleasant false memories (though the discrepancies between his memory and that girl's might have led to some pretty awkward questions later); it could have been a lot worse.

Stargazer is human-looking enough to pass for human, albeit a funny-looking human (to humans, the vampire nose would never be fooled). She's very tall and she has a lot of funny-looking features by human standards (big jaw, big ears, etc.), but the only really blatantly inhuman thing about her appearance is her tapetum lucidum, which isn't noticeable in daylight.

Stargazer is very tall; she's the tallest person in her family! Ancient vampires and humans had a sort of tiger/lion/liger dynamic where the hybrid was bigger than either of the parent species. This was a consequence of ancient vampires being taller than humans but having serious problems with lack of genetic diversity, like cheetahs. This lack of genetic diversity, combined with being forced to prey on a very closely related species, meant that infectious disease was a grave problem for ancient vampires and they usually suffered high allostatic load. Modern vampires are bigger than ancient vampires because they don't have this problem. Because Stargarzer has a human father, her immune system and physiology presents a very different disease-resistance profile than most vampires, so she is much more resistant to infections (in fact, she is more resistant to infections and parasites than most humans because her hybrid physiology is so unusual; there are no species-specific parasites well-adapted to live in her). In other words, Stargazer has hybrid vigor. Stargazer's family has noticed that she is rarely sick, she recovers from illnesses quickly, and her injuries heal quickly (especially wounds). This hybrid vigor also meant more vigorous childhood growth.

Stargazer has a much higher metabolism than normal vampires, and she doesn't do the vampire thing where they mostly keep their blood in their core and only periodically refresh the outer tissues. Her skin is much warmer than a normal vampire's; her family think she's great for cuddling up to on cold nights. Because of her higher metabolism, she's much more active than a normal vampire. She has a much more human-like sleep cycle, sleeping 7-10 hours per day and being fully awake the rest of the time. She tends to find the normal ancient vampire lifestyle of spending most of their life in a cramped hiding place rather boring and get restless, although at least it's more pleasant for her than it probably would be for a human (how would you feel about spending most of your time inside a claustrophobic tomb-like hole, sharing it five other people who spend most of their time sleeping?).

Stargazer's higher metabolism and large size means that, by vampire standards, she has a very big appetite. However, Stargazer has a functional human copy of the protocadherin y gene, so she can make her own protocadherin y and does not need to eat humans. In her entire life, Stargazer has only eaten a few bites of human flesh, once or twice, out of curiosity. Her appetite imposes no serious burden on her family; vampires are very efficient predators of nonhuman animals.

Heron originally created Stargazer with the thought that, since a hybrid would be immune to the crucifix glitch and could pass for human, they'd be good at sneaking into human villages and towns and abducting children for the family to eat. They gave up on that idea the first time they took Stargazer with them on a human-hunting expedition and it was a disaster.

Like Magpie, Stargazer has hyperempathy. Magpie is able to be an effective human-killer despite that because, like a normal vampire, he has a brain that's relatively good at shutting down unwanted trains of thought, he has a pain response wired around the assumption that he can't count on help or mercy if sick or injured, and when he's in hunting mode he's in a state kind of like dothe where he's able to ignore even very severe pain if he has to. Stargazer's more human-like neurotype gives her a strong tendency toward perseveration, she doesn't have hunting/combat mode as a distinct physiological state the way a normal vampire does, and she has a pain response more like a human; adapted for a highly social species that can usually count on help if sick or injured. So...

... One of her relatives stabs a human in the stomach with a spear. Stargazer knows gut wounds hurt a lot (ancient vampires had a pretty good knowledge of human anatomy and pain response, partly as an extension of their own medical lore cause they were closely related to us, partly to be better able to kill us). Stargazer imagines what that would feel like and experiences mirror neuron activation and instantly collapses to the ground clutching her own stomach and screaming from the pain of a sympathetic imaginary wound. It really feels like she's being stabbed in the stomach herself! She might start doing a Midsommar empathy maiden sort of thing where she's mirroring the movements and screams of the victim - it's not an affectation or a mind game, she really is feeling their pain! Worse, she naturally perseverates on the distressing idea and stimulus, she can't stop imagining what it would feel like to be stabbed like that, so it doesn't stop when her family get her away from the situation. She spends hours, maybe even days lying near or in the family den, writhing on the ground and screaming from the pain of a completely imaginary wound! I think she might have been stuck in this state until she killed herself with adrenalin overload if her family hadn't eventually managed to basically help her CBT herself out of it. After that, her family gave up any idea of using her to hunt humans and she's completely excused from that; she's the only adult in the family who's never killed a human.

Normally, an adult ancient vampire who can't or won't hunt humans is in very grave danger of being expelled from their family or filicided and cannibalized by their own family (the selection pressure of this is probably part of the reasons vampires are supermajority sociopath-adjacent). Thankfully for Stargazer, she has another value to her family that makes her worth keeping around and alive to them. Because she can pass for human, she can be used to trade with humans. Theoretically, ancient vampires and agricultural humans are natural trading partners. The vampires are excellent at trapping and hunting wild nonhuman animals and being wired for hunting they even enjoy it (hunting was one of the closest things ancient vampire culture had to institutionalized fun!), and being so few in number and having low metabolisms they need little meat themselves, so it would be easy for them to produce a surplus of hunted meat, skins, etc. for trade. Agricultural humans have labor-intensive and resource-intensive manufactured goods like pottery, textiles, and bappir; these are by default "expensive" or unattainable in vampire society, because a vampire family-nation's entire material culture must be almost entirely portable by usually less than two dozen people or disposable, and because labor (or, more precisely, drudgery) is relatively expensive for vampires because there are so few of them and because they are very independent-minded and very lazy. Pottery is particularly valued by vampires; a good pot or two is useful for preparing soups, broths, and medicinal concoctions, and is compatible with the vampire lifestyle, though a bit awkward, heavy, and fragile; most vampire family-nations in the Hilly Flanks region of this era have bought or stolen a pot or two and treat them as valued heirloom possessions, like their meteorite iron axes and knives. A few of these bought or looted pots even pass along tenuous ghostly vampire long-distance trade routes, from family-nation to family-nation, reaching regions where the local humans are still mostly nomadic hunter-gatherers who don't make pottery (this behavior is an extension of an ancient practice dating back to the vampire happy time or maybe even earlier by which resources like obsidian and meteorite iron are spread around). If humans were as coldly selfish and rational as vampires, there would probably be a thriving inter-species trade between vampires and human agriculturalists! But humans are not so logical; humans fear and hate vampires too much to easily trade with them (even humans willing to trade with vampires are disincentivized from doing so because they are often regarded with hostility, as traitors, by others of their own kind who find out about it). In a way, this is a sort of meta-level rational irrationality; by acting this way, humans deny resources to their predators and weaken them. Stargazer's ability to convincingly pretend to be a human (to humans) and trade with humans is therefore useful to her family. Because of her, her family's consumption of grain (mostly in the form of hard dry breads like bappir, which keep relatively well and can be readily eaten) has increased dramatically in the last five or seven years or so; agricultural humans are often willing to trade venison or other wild game meats for grain at a ratio very calorically favorable to the vampires (the agriculturalists are getting a good deal too; their food system is good at producing cheap calories but not so good at producing protein), and agriculturalist-grown grain now makes up a substantial percentage of her family's calorie intake.

Human agriculturalist products acquired by Stargazer in this way include beer. Vampires sometimes accept beer as a kind of food, it has water and calories, but to a vampire getting drunk is a very disagreeable experience; vampires have a strong instinctive sense of a dangerous world and dislike being vulnerable, and drunkenness is a kind of vulnerability. But Stargazer sometimes finds beer therapeutic. She would say that sometimes the inside of her head is "noisy" and sometimes has "too much going on" and beer "quiets" it. She has human-like tendencies toward fantasy, mind-wandering, and self-reinforcing recursive thoughts, but combined with vampire-like sensory hyperawareness, HSAM-like memory, and memory and imagination so vivid it's often experienced like a series of parallel subjective sensory realities almost as detailed, vivid, and tangible as the input from her senses (vampires don't use the past tense because they don't experience the past tense, they don't remember the past, they relive it, remember?). The result is that she's prone to literal overthinking! For her, a cognition-impairing "downer" like alcohol is sometimes kind of like holding down the power button on a computer with too many running programs, shutting down some of her excessively proliferating trains of thought and clearing her head (her family's attempts at breaking her out of her hyperempathy loop episode may have involved getting her drunk, and they might have been at least contemplating trying a "hard force quit" of knocking her out by hitting her really hard on the head).

Stargazer's higher metabolism and more human-like neurotype means she has more human-like play impulses (broadly defined) and enrichment needs. Stargazer has some very strange habits by ancient vampire standards. She makes visual art, such as carving intricate, complex, repeating patterns into spear shafts and other tools. She also makes a kind of music, using instruments she has fashioned or improvised from odds and ends lying around along with her own voice. She's also adorned herself with a kind of scarification-based body art (more on that later).

Being more active and playful also means Stargazer has more abstract curiosity; the name her family gave her is a reference to one manifestation of it. She watches and studies the stars at night, sometimes seeking high places to better do so. Ancient vampires sometimes studied the stars, but only for utilitarian reasons such as to predict availability of seasonal plant foods or movement of game herds. Stargazer is curious about the cosmos. With her vampire-like eyes she can probably see much more in the night sky than a human can without a telescope, especially as I think she might be able to use her vampire-like sensorimotor system to do something like long-exposure photography; she might know about the moons of Jupiter and other celestial bodies humans won't discover for ten thousand years. Highly intelligent, she's studying the apparent movements of the stars and planets and may also have done things similar to Eratosthenes's experiment measuring the size of the Earth (relatively easy for her to do given the far-ranging nomadic lifestyle of ancient vampires and that she has excellent visual memory); she's trying to figure out the structure and nature of the cosmos...

One time Magpie saw her stargazing and asked if she was planning to eat a star, since in a normal vampire that sort of still posture and attentive observation of distant objects would usually be hunting behavior; vampires can have a sense of humor! The rest of her family are mostly uninterested in her stargazing (it registers to them as weird and pointless but apparently not doing her much harm, so just sort of something to shrug at), but Magpie often joins her in stargazing now. His higher empathy and higher altruism make him willing to show interest in her strange pointless unnecessary work because he can tell that it makes her happy when someone does that, but also, his neurodivergence makes him a little more imaginative and curious than a normal vampire. He'd never study the stars like this on his own initiative, but now that he's doing it anyway, he finds it kind of interesting. From Stargazer's end, it's nice to have somebody show interest in her weird human-like interests (being a person like her in ancient vampire society is rather lonely), and two eyes are better than one, and Magpie's fully vampire eyes may be at least a little bit sharper than hers. Magpie is similarly more-or-less Stargazer's only appreciative audience for her art; he will look at her carvings and listen to her music to make her happy, and will even sometimes make art of his own to show her because that makes her happy too, and he can appreciate her art a little and take a little joy in making art in a way his neurotypical relatives never would.

Stargazer and Magpie are close. They have somewhat similar neurodivergences. They aren't exactly alike; Magpie is neurodivergent but he's still fully vampire, with a vampire metabolism and vampire feelings, instincts, and preferences regarding stuff like preferred activity level. Still, Magpie and Stargazer have some very significant similar personality traits and experiences (Stargazer also has much higher empathy and altruism than a normal vampire), and a shared sense of difference from their neurotypical relatives, so they have a strong bond. I think they'd also be close because... Drowning has a close older sister sort of relationship to Stargazer now, but their relationship did not get off to a great start. By vampire standards, Stargazer is slow, spastic, and probably has other impairments too; this activates the circuits in Drowning's brain that identify vulnerable prey, with the result that child Drowning (called something else back then) saw Stargazer as a good target for predation practice/sadistic play. During those years Magpie spent a lot of time hovering around Stargazer (also called something else back then), protecting her from the casual cruelty of her older sister. Stargazer is half human, and humans feel gratitude to those who help and protect them. Stargazer is half vampire, and vampires take notes on who helps them and who harms them and remember.

Squickly by human standards, as adults Stargazer, Drowning, and Magpie are a polycule as well as siblings. This was a common ancient ancient vampire behavior; ancient vampires knew about the dangers of inbreeding, but they had little inhibition against non-reproductive incest, and since vampires can smell how close a female is to ovulation birth control was easy for them. Stargazer has a somewhat atypical sexuality by vampire standards. Normal vampire sexuality is very tied to sensory and social cues. Stargazer has a human-like tendency toward daydreaming, fantasy, and fantasy-arousal feedback loops. One of Stargazer's odd activities (as her family thinks of it) is masturbation; autoerotic activity is very rare in vampires. They see it as of a piece with her uselessly embellishing tools and uselessly staring into the sky at night and see all these things as connected to her higher metabolism, and they're not wrong!

With the assistance of her siblings, Stargazer has adorned herself with a kind of scarification body art. Stargazer gets Drowning and Magpie to use their sharp teeth to carve patterns into her skin, and maybe then rubs pigments into the wounds to make crude tattoos of a sort. When they do this her siblings get to lick up her blood, which has a little protocadherins in it and therefore is tasty for them, which is nice for them. It wouldn't be wrong to see this as a kind of kinky intimacy.

Most of Stargazer's fantasies are non-sexual; most of Stargazer's fantasies are artistic and abstract. Like many neurodivergent people, Stargazer tends to retreat into her own head, into an imaginary world that is friendlier and more sensible to her than the real one. She has a human-like tendency to daydream and fantasize, combined with a vampire-like ability to construct imaginary and remembered sensory experiences almost as detailed and tangible as the real one. She essentially has a sort of personal Star Trek holodeck in her head that she carries with her at all times, and she creates most of her art in there! Stargazer's fantasies are mostly visual/sensory rather than narrative; she occupies much of her time and mental energy creating imaginary pictures, soundscapes, and smellscapes. What she does blurs the line between imagination and art, as to her these imaginary sensory worlds are almost as detailed and tangible as the real world; she can create an imaginary object that looks and feels to her like a real object, she can imagine rotating it in her hands and it feels like touching a real physical thing, etc.; to her the difference between fantasy and reality is more intellectual than tangible; she knows her creations aren't real because she knows she created them with her thoughts. Some of her creations are representational, e.g. of animals and landscapes, but most of them are highly abstract, often representations of mathematical patterns. In this her behavior is an outgrowth of a common vampire stimming behavior (see: her grandmother's spiral doodles), but her version is much more elaborate and sustained. In a sense, Stargazer's physical artworks are simultaneously her most ambitious and some of her least ambitious creations. In her imagination, Stargazer is a goddess, able to create immense and intricate structures at will; she need merely think it and an impossible sculpture as high as a mountain rises on the horizon or impossible complex tetrahedrons encase the sun and moon or the horizon folds and the distant sea becomes the sky. In the real world, she is limited by physical resources, her own physical strength, and the limitations of physical objects.

A normal vampire could theoretically use their imagination this way too, but normal vampires have little motivation to use their imaginations this way. The closest normal vampire equivalent to human fantasy is an expression of grief; a grieving vampire will sometimes become withdrawn and spacey as they retreat into their memories to spend time in the company of their lost loved one there. It is, in a sense, one of history's tragic ironies; vampires evolved to have incredibly vivid imaginations but mostly use them only pragmatically, while humans evolved to take great joy in imagination and fantasies and paracosms but can construct only comparatively minimalistic wire-frame imaginary worlds. In this, Stargazer's neurotype is in a sense a rare and precious blessing. Stargazer is also in a sense unusually blessed in having vampire-like senses and a human-like sense of beauty.

Stargazer will sometimes describe one of her imaginary creations to Magpie, so he can make a version of it in his own mind. In this way, she is able to share some of her otherwise invisible internal creative life with someone.

Some of the novelties and challenges Stargazer presented for her family while she was growing up and some of the challenges she faced as a child with human-like emotional needs being raised by vampires:

Vampires have a shorter childhood than humans but their language acquisition is slower. Stargazer mostly matured more slowly than a vampire child, but by vampire standards she was a precocious talker. I think she'd have been a slow talker by human standards, but she started talking earlier than a vampire child usually would, and at a lower level of general brain development.

An exhausting hyperactive hellion when she was little! Vampire children are more active than vampire adults and do play, but they're still kind of low energy and sleep a lot compared to human children, they have a strong instinct to cling to and remain close to their mother or other parental figures, and they quickly develop an intuitive sense of a dangerous world that makes them usually stay close to their parental figures (though I think they'd love hide and seek and pursuit games, so they might indulge in that when they feel safe). Little Stargazer had a higher metabolism, more human-like playfulness, and less of an intuitive sense of a dangerous world, so she was more energetic than a normal vampire child and more prone to wandering away. This was mixed with a Magpie-like disinterest in sadistic play, relative disinterest in predation practice, and discomfort when her parents were teaching her to hunt, trap, and fish (I think her hyperempathy might give her problems even when hunting nonhuman animals like deer).

Stargazer's rearing would have been a special challenge to her family because compared to a vampire child Stargazer had higher demands for socialization, enrichment, affection, touch, and positive reinforcement. Vampires by default spend most of their lives in a kind of very shallow open-eye sleep, and they're a lot more touch-averse than humans, and then of course there's the whole sociopathy thing. Imagine a child with the activity level, sleep cycle, and emotional needs of a human toddler being raised by people like that! Thankfully, Stargazer's parental figures were aware of this and wanted her to grow up into an adult who would like them (as that way she would be more willing to cooperate with them), and even vampire parents, in their own way, tend to like their children and want what is best for them, so they tried to adjust their parenting style accordingly, to parent her more like human parents would. In this she was much luckier than modern vampires raised by humans, as her parental figures actually knew approximately how human parenting works; they had opportunities to observe human parents interacting with their children, and ancient vampires were attentive students of human behavior, with a large body of cultural lore about it (in order to more effectively and more sustainably predate on humans). So, considering that she was raised by sociopath-adjacent people-eating monsters, Stargazer's childhood was surprisingly OK and untraumatic; her terrifying people-eating mother, grandmother, and grandfathers/great-uncles treated her a lot better than a lot of human parents treat their children, even by human standards. However, I think it might be difficult for vampire parents to avoid inflicting some understimulation and emotional neglect on a child with human-like emotional needs, even if they were making a real serious effort to not do that. Little Stargazer's favorite elder was Magpie (who'd have been nine or ten when she was born - that's most of the way to adulthood for vampires, but still prepubescent!), who was more patient and attentive to her because of his higher altruism and empathy and had more genuine sympathy with her because of his higher empathy.

As a hybrid, Stargazer is immune to the crucifix glitch. When her grandmother first (carefully!) showed her a cross-shaped talisman taken from a human victim at the seizure-inducing degree of visual arc, Stargazer's reaction was a small involuntary spasm, a giggle, and her language's version of the words "It tickles!" Stargazer soon discovered that the little pair of sticks terrified Drowning, and promptly saw the opportunity to turn the tables on her childhood tormentor and had a lot of fun chasing Drowning around with it, marveling at how her older sister cringed and fled from a harmless pair of sticks. Her grandmother eventually dissuaded Stargazer from this behavior by asking if she was curious what a crucifix glitch seizure looked like and, on being given an affirmative answer, offered to let her induce one on her by holding the cross up close to her face (I'm going with an interpretation that crucifix glitch seizures are usually not fatal in themselves, the big danger to the vampire is they leave it helpless in the presence of its enemies). This wouldn't have worked on a neurotypical vampire child, but Stargazer has much more affective empathy than a neurotypical vampire, and seeing grandma contorting around like a possessed person in an Exorcist knock-off while exploding from both ends with shit, piss, and vomit before passing out was enough to make her decide she'd really rather not inflict that on anyone again. Heron's mother is very emotionally intelligent by vampire standards!

There might have been a mildly scary experience the first time Stargazer cried as an older child, past the age at which weeping normally becomes physically impossible for vampires. She might have been worried that something was wrong with her eyes, and her family might have been like "Is this a neotenous/human distress response or an eye injury or irritation or infection? Can't tell, guess we'll just have to wait for her to be less sad and see if her eyes clear up then!" An epidemiologically vulnerable species with low genetic diversity, ancient vampires were very afraid of infections!

Similarly, there was a bit of a Carrie moment when Stargazer reached her menarche; being closely related to humans, vampire females have a menstrual cycle, but they don't bleed like that; it was a little alarming for her until her family reassured her that, no, that's... probably normal for you? Human females do that! It was also a bit alarming because it made her smell a little like a wounded human, enough to arouse vampire predatory impulses; her family have the self-control to not attack her, but there's a kind of disturbing period every month when her mother and sister are very obviously fighting down the impulse to do that (the selection pressure this represents probably has a lot to do with why vampire females don't bleed like that).

Avatar

i dont know why people are like ‘we need to bully people so they are more normal’ when if the internet has been anything its been a series of longitudinal studies showing that prolonged large scale bullying tends to lead people to becoming increasingly weird, paranoid, sometimes off-putting, traumatized, emotionally troubled, ethically disregulated, etc. even unethical modalities like behaviorism don’t focus exclusively or primarily on punishment. like people should literally just be honest and say they want more bullying because they like to do it and have fun hurting other people

It’s not that bullying makes individual humans better, it’s that it makes a healthier culture in which those incapable of maintaining stable equinamity in the face of circumstance or attempts to dominate or suborn them are coded as unworthy, excluded from structures of power, and not catered to.

Though, I suppose it does also incentivize those who might have these vulnerabilities but are capable of suppressing them and acting as if not to do so, and bear the difference as internal psychic tension that they keep from affecting the broader world and eventually take to the grave with them.

this is the worst thing I’ve read lately. “Actually sadism means the Unworthy can be recognized :)”. does it occur to you that free engagement in sadism by the powerful has consequences? does it occur to you that cruelty isn’t cleanly confined in a glass box? Does it occur to you that people who are already wounded (in ways you have sympathy for, even!) are more vulnerable, and this doesn’t represent justice?

Like damn, man, the average abused child is generally easier to bully as an adult. Better make sure that guy’s adequately fucked over. Better stamp on anyone who trips.

Avatar
canmom

Ah, now there’s a kontextmaschine Take all right. How very daring and against the social dogma! Of course, km would never be visibly upset by accusations of callousness; to be callous suits their persona on here perfectly. Anyway, isn’t it all just ironic, until it isn’t? Just an interesting point for discussion?

Pay any attention, and you might work out that ‘equinamity in the face of circumstance’ is not an eternal constant generated at birth or early childhood that could be ‘selected’ for or against. We could better describe it as an emotional state that constantly varies, shaped by those circumstances. For example: the strength of a ‘support network’ of social relationships in multiple spheres to provide help and a release valve, the presence of compounding stressors (e.g. financial, living circumstances, hunger and medical factors), and as Amy wrote, past trauma. The same attack may be trivial to shrug off in comfortable times, but cause a total breakdown in difficult ones. Such contingent factors surely overwhelm any facet of ‘personality’.

So if this kind of resilience is something you wanted to cultivate - as some sort of bizarrely askew social engineering project - then maintaining a panopticon atmosphere of constant paranoia and endless contest for social domination would be severely counterproductive.

A competent bully intuits that given a suitable advantage and a target who can’t leave, they can deploy (and encourages others to join them in) a series of small but recognisably deliberate slights, a pattern consistent but deniable, to compound over time. Played right, and the bully will even enjoy the appearance of the high ground when their target breaks and retaliates, perhaps allowing that target to be punished further (officially, or by further ostracisation in that group). And the target? Selected more or less at random by the contingent and shifting power dynamics, they would likely have been just fine; such a group merely needs to designate a certain number of sacrifices to function and that means someone has to be the victim.

This is not a process of selection, but a process of introducing and expanding the vulnerabilities that you claim it would purge. If such dynamics produce anything, it is paranoia, denial of complicity, and the willingness and ability to defend with spectacular violence, supplant the role of the bully, cosy up to authority, or produce a more suitable target to absorb the abuse. Hardly social desiderata.

But, of course, that’s so obvious that you can’t be tantalisingly contrarian by saying it. So it’s not a stance the rat-adjacent milieu would ‘select for’, is it?

1) I think it’s pretty obvious if you look at actual bullying victims that the primary risk factors for becoming a bullying victim are social non-conformity and other forms of physical and social vulnerability; being “incapable of maintaining stable equanimity in the face of circumstance or attempts to dominate or suborn them” may be a factor in some cases, but I suspect it’s nowhere near the primary determinant of who becomes a bullying victim. I suspect that actually bullying victims as a group have above average “ability to maintain stable equanimity in the face of circumstance or attempts to dominate or suborn them,” because for bullying victims that’s often an important skill they have to cultivate to maintain their sanity and/or charm/manipulate/fawn their way out of even worse abuse. On the other side of that coin, I suspect that bullies are as a group below average in “maintaining stable equanimity in the face of circumstance or attempts to dominate or suborn them”: bullies feel entitled to privilege (bullying is the exercise of that perceived entitlement), and are used to having that entitlement catered to (being allowed to abuse others is privilege). I expect that often there’s nobody whinier than a bully getting a taste of what they dish out. I don’t have much personal experience with that in particular, but it’s a restatement of common folk wisdom and it certainly fits with my observations of the wider pattern of history; privileged people tend to react to attempts to remove or lessen their privileges with immense volumes of whining and literally murderous aggrieved entitled rage; the Confederate watching his slaves being freed cried loudly and copiously about what a wronged underdog poor little meow meow he saw himself as and how mean he thought those Yankees were being to him. So, y’know, if it’s some picturesque stoic chivalrycore/Depressioncore endurance under difficulty you want, an indulgent attitude toward bullying is likely shitting on some of the people who have the most of that quality (because they’ve had to cultivate it as a survival skill) while rewarding some of the most self-indulgent entitled spoiled brats in the world. Just saying. And if you think bullying is a good institution, just say you hate disabled people, neurodivergent people, queer people, religious minorities, racial minorities, etc. and go. Because I strongly suspect being one of those correlates with being a bullying victim a lot more tightly than being “incapable of maintaining stable equanimity in the face of circumstance or attempts to dominate or suborn them” does.

2) Bullying as the OP is talking about is a form of baronial power; it’s spontaneous coercive and/or sadistic behavior by randos acting according to their personal ideas of when and where that sort of behavior is acceptable (in a sense, enforcing their own private law with themselves and maybe their friends as police, jury, judge, and administers of the sentence). You can think of every bully and thug as an amateur/wannabe cop who enforces their own private law on the people around them. I don’t fully agree with that “Freedom is Slavery” essay I just linked to, but what I do agree with it on is that baronial power structures often suck and are often worse than more stereotypical despotic tyranny - and all the arguments for why apply in spades to bullying as crowdsourced social conformity enforcement. Baronial authorities are much more likely to have a relatively intimate relationship with the victim, and therefore are likely to oppress them in very intimate and intrusive ways. With bullying there’s also the added factor that it’s often experienced by bullies not so much as a job or a responsibility but as a form of entertainment, so often any pro-social function takes a back seat to literally just sadism, which is about the worst set of incentives and motivations a person with power could possibly have. We’re literally talking about power relationships where “the cruelty is the point,” it’s hard to imagine a form of social enforcement that more naturally lends itself to being way more cruel than it has to be. There’s also a common problem with baronial power, which is that each bully or bully clique is enforcing their own private law, and each one may have a different private law that reflects their own idiosyncrasies. One bully may be outraged by loud music, sneezing, coughing, etc. (because they’re undiagnosed autistic and have sensory sensitivities), while another may be fine with noise but hate gays (because they’re a social conservative), and a third may be fine with noise and gays but hate Muslims (because they’re a different flavor of social conservative), and so on. At least with a centralized despotic tyranny the rules are usually more-or-less consistent. An inconsistent and tyrannical social landscape imposes great cognitive and emotional burdens of wariness, as it presents a mine-field of complex and often obscure dangers.

3) I just very strongly doubt that bullying has any serious benefits besides the benefits to the bullies of being able to exploit others and have fun indulging their sadism, which is a set of impulses I don’t think society should be catering to. Meanwhile, bullying obviously inflicts an enormous amount of pain on its victims, which is an enormous cost that any supposed benefits have to be weighed against, and any supposed benefit would have to be pretty fucking huge to be worth the amount of pain that bullying produces. I suspect bullying is going to be like homophobia or that old Medieval prejudice against left-handed people; someday we’re just going to eliminate or at least hugely reduce this huge source of suffering (we’re in the process of doing so now), and basically nothing bad will happen as a result, we’ll have just pretty unambiguously made the world a better place by doing the collective equivalent of realizing we could just stop hitting ourselves, and we’ll look back with astonishment and horror at how long it took us to do that, how we just kept this huge source of totally pointless pain around for so long, how we inflicted terrible “pain stays with you for the rest of your life” harm on literally millions of people for generation after generation for basically no good reason, and how many people actually fought to keep this basically useless source of suffering around, often for reasons that sound tragicomically stupid in hindsight. That’s usually how it seems to go with these things - previously oppressed people getting freedom, equality, and protection usually seems to basically just make the world a better place, with the suffering involved mostly being direct and indirect consequences of how hard powerful incumbents fight to preserve the old cruel status quo (e.g. like 99% of the suffering involved in getting rid of slavery in the USA was the war that the slave-owners fought in a thankfully doomed attempt to preserve their right to keep owning people). I guess this is my truest objection, or at least my truest objection that isn’t just “as a former bullied kid, fuck very much anyone who tells me that it was good that I was abused!”; making previously oppressed/subaltern people’s lives better usually turns out to be very obviously positive-sum in hindsight, and I see no reason de-normalizing bullying would be an exception to that.

Avatar

Tangent from my last post: reading over this and thinking about it, I’ve pinpointed a disagreement that I think reveals a fundamental disagreement I have with the ideas I was responding to there.

Seph’s essay talks about liberal sexual consent practices as requiring a shift toward a more Culture A style of social interaction; requiring a willingness to actively assert your own interests instead of engaging in Culture B accommodationism. And that’s true, but I immediately recognized that it’s incomplete in a way that I think fundamentally distorts what’s happening, though it took me a while to think out exactly how. Saying “no” involves a degree of Culture A type assertiveness, but respecting that “no” and pro-actively making sure your partner is enjoying things involves an attentiveness to feelings, an accommodationism, and an attentiveness to maintaining harmony that’s more Culture B.

Like, if you drew up two columns, one labeled “Macho Republican Dad Boomerpost Stuff” and one labeled “Softy SJW Stuff,” and started sorting things into those columns by which group they’re more stereotypically associated with (bacon, guns, capitalism, Christianity, complaining about “cancel culture,” and calling people sissies as an insult into the Republican Dad column, tofu, queerness, feminism, socialism, veganism, accusing people of microaggressions, and being a Wiccan into the SJW column, etc.), I think liberal sexual norms placing a high premium on explicit consent would definitely stereotypically belong in the “SJW” column. And in this context I think that’s revealing.

I think what’s happening here is fundamentally orthogonal to Culture A vs. Culture B. I think, like a lot of left vs. right divides, it fundamentally comes down to hierarchy vs. egalitarianism. Liberal sexual norms emphasizing consent are a rejection of the pecking order method of simply resolving sexual conflicts of interests in favor of the person with more power, whether that power is social status, physical strength, emotional intelligence, or just being more willing to press for their interests. Culture A vs. Culture B is fundamentally orthogonal to what’s really going on here; trying to understanding this issue through that lens is at best like trying to understand the US Civil War through the lens of doctrinal disputes between different types of Christianity (you may get some genuine insights, but you’ve mistaken the fringes of the conflict for its core), and at worst like trying to understand the US Civil War through the lens of doctrinal disputes between Sunni and Shia Islam.

Actually I think the “trying to understand the US Civil War through the lens of Christian doctrine disputes” may be a good analogy, because I think this does tie back to the “the left/liberal side of the culture war is waging a war against Culture A” hypothesis in a way that reveals how that idea is not exactly wrong but misses an important dimension of what’s happening. I think what’s happening is that hierarchy is more explicit and explicitly enforced in Culture A, and therefore as society becomes less like a pecking order hierarchy tends to assume Culture B characteristics.

Culture A is where you find the human hierarchies that look the most like actual pecking orders, which are maintained by literal physical pecking. It’s where you find the openly brutal world of bosses screaming “the leads aren’t weak, you are!” into a cringing subordinate’s face, cops quietly taking an uncooperative suspect into a convenient alley and roughing him up a little to “teach him to respect our authority,” gangsters beating somebody up for being insufficiently deferential to them, some 6′3 250 pound guy in the grips of road rage punching some 5′7 150 pound guy in the face over a smashed bumper, teachers disciplining students by giving them hard blows on the palm with a ruler, a swaggering thug threatening a woman with physical violence because she had the effrontery to object to him groping her, and jocks having some fun inflicting casual physical abuse on the nerds in the locker room and on the playground. Hierarchies in Culture A are often maintained by physical violence and the threat thereof and put-downs and other explicit verbal bullying. When somebody in Culture A thinks you’ve gotten a bit above your station and wants to put your in your place, they’re likely to either actually use physical violence against you, explicitly threaten you with it, or explicitly insult you. Abuse in Culture A tends to look like our stereotypical picture of some swaggering thug openly terrorizing somebody who has some sort of vulnerability.

By contrast, hierarchies in Culture B tend to operate under more polite fictions of relative egalitarianism, cooperativeness, and non-violence. Enforcement of Culture B hierarchies tends to be less overtly violent. Culture B hierarchies are more likely to be covert and legible only to somebody with inside knowledge (e.g. you’ve ostensibly got a group of equals, but some are more equal than others because of advantages that mostly aren’t explicitly acknowledged). Culture B tends to have more of an ideal that coercive power can only be legitimately exercised for moral reasons, while Culture A tends to have more of a “master morality” culture where power is seen as worthy of respect in itself (Culture A is what gave us “Chad” and “alpha” as aspirational ideals), which is why bullying in Culture B tends to have a moralistic and fearmongering nature (see: Tumblr call-out posts) while bullying in Culture A tends to follow a more “master morality” logic of “our victim is weak and aesthetically displeasing to us, and that in itself makes them deserve punishment” - though much like “Culture A rewards strength and technical skills, Culture B rewards social skills and popularity” that’s a dichotomy that can easily be overplayed; most human hierarchies come with a hefty dose of community-minded moralism (even if the community is a pirate ship or criminal gang or something like that), and social skills and popularity are hugely important in almost any culture. Culture B is for people who wouldn’t dream of doing anything so barbaric as yelling at you or punching you because they’re mad at you; they’d complain to the human resources department who’d force you to spend a Friday evening listening to somebody lecture you about the need to “make our store a welcoming environment for our valued customers.”

An archetypal abusive Culture A authority figure is the macho thuggish “respect mah authoritay!” cop. An archetypal abusive Culture B authority figure is the gaslighty Nice Lady Therapist. The former is more-or-less open about the fact that he sees himself as above you in the pecking order and if you dispute that he’ll be delighted to enforce the pecking order in approximately the way chickens do it. The latter pretends to be your friend (and perhaps believes themselves to be that), and expends a great deal of effort tailoring their pecking order enforcement to not look like pecking order enforcement - significantly, they might like to be as openly brutal as the “respect mah authoritay!” cop is, but in strong Culture B that social strategy just doesn’t work; their social strategy represents a compromise with socially influential ideals of egalitarianism and non-violence, a tribute that vice pays to virtue (less charitably, it may simply reflect playing to different strengths and trying to minimize different weaknesses, e.g. the thuggish cop may have chosen that social strategy because he’s a physically powerful but not particularly socially intelligent Biff Tannen type, while the Nice Lady Therapist may have chosen that social strategy because she’s a socially intelligent and Machiavellian but physically feeble 4′10 woman).

In short, Culture B tends to both meaningfully soften the blows of pecking order enforcement and obfuscate them. It follows that as equalizing movements gain ground and explicit pecking order logic becomes more taboo, hierarchy will increasingly take on Culture B characteristics. In 1700, if you angered your boss in some petty interpersonal way he might have whipped you, which was his right as your master. Today, if you anger your boss in some petty interpersonal way she might think a little about how to get revenge on you in a way that doesn’t risk blowback if you take it up with the union, and then find some excuse to arrange for you to have to attend some mandatory HR remedial training that isn’t officially a punishment but let’s be real, totally is. Maybe in 2200 you won’t have a boss because you’ll work in an officially egalitarian syndicalist union, but there will be some union members who are “more equal than others” because of personal connections or charisma or some combination of both, and if you anger one of them in a petty interpersonal way they might through whisper networks arrange a quiet campaign to make sure the union votes against your requests for your favorite foods on the workplace lunch menu.

I guess I’m staking out a position as a hedging kind-of partisan of Culture B here. There’s a lot of talk about how Culture B gets an undeserved good reputation and can be just as unfair and cruel as Culture A but in a more insidious way, and I’m sympathetic to that and I think there’s a lot of truth to that, but, y’know, if I had to choose between pecking order enforcement that has to maintain a plausible veneer of being something else and just open undiluted sadistic pecking order enforcement, I think I’d prefer the former. I think even just adding in a requirement of hypocrisy improves things, because it forces pecking order enforcement to optimize for plausible deniability instead of sadism and effective tyranny. Admittedly, as somebody who finds this very relatable I have a strong personal bias here.

An illustrative personal anecdote: the usual stereotype of high school is that bullied kids (or at least bullied boys) suffer a lot of casual physical abuse, but I noticed that in my school there was a lot of verbal bullying but mercifully little physical abuse; the worst that was likely to happen in terms of physical violence was somebody tripping you up or throwing a box of kleenix at you or spitting their drink at you or something like that. I suspect the reason was that blatant physical violence was pretty much the only form of bullying the school administration would reliably punish (though they’d likely punish the victim right along with the perpetrator), and that’s why it usually wasn’t done. I suspect what happened is that stereotype of chronic casual physical abuse reflects what schools were like when the baby boomers were growing up (and boomers then wrote fiction etc. that reflected that experience that shaped the pop culture stereotype), but then anti-bullying reforms came along and by the late ‘90s and early ‘00s they’d achieved one great success: mostly eliminating that schoolyard culture of casual physical violence. And that was a very incomplete fix, just addressing the tip of the iceberg of the problem and probably often redirecting bullying into psychological abuse rather than actually reducing it... but, y’know, I’m really glad my middle and high school experience didn’t conform to that pop culture stereotype of the school dweeb getting regularly beaten up by four or six bigger kids. I had an awful time in middle and high school, but judging from pop culture stereotypes it could have been so much worse, and if suspensions for kids who punched other kids is what created that difference, then I’m profoundly grateful for that reform.

I think the left is kinda-sorta waging war on Culture A as a side-effect of its war on pecking order culture, in which high-status people enjoy the advantages of Culture A while low-status people labor under the disadvantages of Culture B. It’s not an accident that Culture A is associated with men and Culture B is associated with women. Accommodation (sometimes to the point of self-harm) is a survival strategy for low-status people in a social structure that resembles a pecking order; if you’re going to lose the fight, it often makes sense to pre-emptively accept a settlement that favors the interests of the stronger person (often to the extent of trying to anticipate the stronger person’s wants, performing even the brain work of figuring out their preferences for them). Competitiveness is a social strategy for upward mobility in a pecking order society or defense of a place near the top of the pecking order (it also has more pro-social functions so we probably want to keep it around in some form, but social competition is very much part of its function). Women tend to be reluctant to openly advocate for their personal interests because for much of history a woman openly advocating for her personal interests was likely to provoke status-guarding retaliation from men. Men tend to be reluctant to show vulnerability and see doing so as feminine because for much of history other men were likely to perceive a vulnerable man as an opportunity to increase their own social status by lowering the vulnerable man’s social status, and as a rule of thumb to lower a man’s social status was to give him a social status more like a woman’s. In the context of a pecking order society, a lot of Culture B makes sense as social strategies for people at the bottom of the pecking order with little realistic shot of escaping its lower levels, and a lot of Culture A makes sense as social strategies for people at the top of the pecking order and people at the bottom or middle of the pecking order who have a realistic shot at using high-risk high-reward social strategies to move up in the hierarchy. I think there’s some complicating factors around reproductive dynamics that explain why this is a gendered thing instead of just a class thing, but I won’t get into that here. So it makes sense that as society becomes less like a pecking order that process will involve shifts toward Culture A in some areas and shifts toward Culture B in other areas, because those cultures are probably both somewhat maladaptive in a more egalitarian social context.

A relevant example is that for much of history vigorously advocating their own sexual interests was often very risky for women, so Culture B primes women to pre-emptively accept a settlement that favors the man’s sexual interests, so liberal consent norms work better if women develop more assertiveness about their own interests, which looks kind of Culture A-ish. At the same time, women now have more leverage to effectively demand that men perform pro-social Culture B behaviors of accommodation, empathy, and consideration for the feelings and interests of others in the context of heterosexual sex.

----------

Tangential aside: I think thinking of hierarchy as the fundamental tension point of the left vs. right conflict illustrates a way that post I was responding to might be kind of too meta and you might get an illuminating perspective by stepping back from all that meta-level theorizing about fundamental epistemological differences and looking at the object level.

If you analyze left-wing “cancel culture” at the object level, what does it look like it’s trying to do? It seems to me that it’s trying to lower the social acceptability of what leftists perceive as defenses of hierarchy. Who are the stereotypical targets of campus “cancel culture”? They might be a “race realist” who’s very eager to tell you about how he thinks certain human groups have lower IQs or other congenital traits maladaptive to modern society and darkly hint about political implications. They might be a business libertarian economist who wants to stump for the gospel of the free market. They might be somebody who has a habit of delivering the academic equivalent of boomerposts about kids these days with their coddling and their trigger warnings and their genders. They might be some principled “free speech” type who seems to spend a lot of their energy white knighting for neo-Nazis and other far-right types. They might be somebody who you’d think would be relatively unobjectionable to leftists but who’s said something that can be uncharitably interpreted as bigoted at some point. Besides raw factionalism, the obvious common point is something that can be reasonably interpreted as a defense of hierarchy. The “race realist” at least implicitly says “some groups are smarter or otherwise better than others and may therefore be rightfully deserving of privilege.” The business libertarian economist at least implicitly says “if you’re poor because you can’t get a job or can’t get a job that pays well, that’s basically your problem and the system working as intended; a society with great inequalities of wealth and status may not be ideal but it’s at least better than all the realistic alternatives.” The academic boomerposter at least implicitly says “some people struggle in our education system because of personal emotional sensitivities; their weakness is their own problem and us more functional people have no obligation to accommodate it, if that harms them it may be regrettable but it’s basically the system working as it should to weed out those unfit for it.” The principled free speech proponent at least implicitly says “wanting to kill the Jews and re-enslave the blacks and have white Sharia should be a tolerated opinion in our society, at least insofar as it should not be legally persecuted, and I am willing to devote considerable efforts to defending that principle.” The basically unobjectionable liberal who happens to have a dodgy comment or three in their social media record at least implicitly says “I don’t think I should get too much blowback for once implying that [insert group of concern here] maybe deserves the jackboot to the face.”

And sure, you can dispute the fairness of such judgements, but the over-arching project outlined by these targets seems fairly obvious: to raise the social costs of what leftists perceive as defending pecking orders.

And, like, yeah, there’s some meta-level differences about the role of tolerance and debate too, but I suspect a lot of the disagreement is really more object-level, over how objectionable certain opinions actually are, e.g. a lot of the dispute over “cancelling” the business libertarian guy is probably going to be over 1) how objectionable defense of hierarchy actually is, 2) whether libertarian beliefs are actually defenses of hierarchy.

Avatar

“I really think this “strong emotions” angle is a bad one for space aliens from another galaxy for all the reasons I listed above. But I guess if it was my job to make this work I’d imagine a planet of people that act like teenagers from a Shakespearean tragedy. They would be prone to feuds. They would probably suffer from a lot of one-on-one public duels over personal honor. You’d have to be careful to avoid wounding their pride, but they would be fierce allies once you won them over. They would constantly be professing undying love and then losing interest when the next wave of hormones hit and sent them after a new mate. They would be full of lust for life and prone to debauchery. They would have countless holidays and all of them would be an excuse to drink and feast. Dwarves are often portrayed as rowdy drunks who love food, and you could probably borrow that idea for these guys. They would be very serious about honoring the dead. Perhaps they should have intense familial bonds and build a lot of their identity around their heritage.”

I imagine this is what Vulcans would have been like pre-Surak (by implication it logically would be what Romulans are like, but we never see that).

Which makes the idea of some Vulcans being prejudiced against Spock cause he’s half human and therefore maybe more emotional kind of funny. Vulcans are naturally more emotional than humans, their logic schtick is compensation for that. If anything a human-Vulcan hybrid like Spock would be naturally less emotional and more chill than full-blooded Vulcans.

I guess it wouldn’t be the first time a racial prejudice makes very little sense when you think about it. The writers associate Spock’s emotionality with his human side too though. It’s one of those things that makes sense as drama but doesn’t make much sense in-universe.

Man, if I were writing fanfiction that touched on Spock’s childhood and went the “Spock was a bullied kid” route I’d write it as Spock quickly learned to fight back very effectively by weaponizing the fact that he’s actually got more natural emotional control than the full-blooded Vulcan kids.

Given some reasonable extrapolation of Vulcan culture I think that might be a devastating strategy. I remember Mike Wong on SDN once came up with an interpretation I like: that the Vulcan word that usually gets translated as “logic” actually means something more like “not acting like a savage.” I read the whole Vulcan logic thing as a reaction to a searing collective trauma, they’re very afraid of themselves and their own impulses, and losing control and acting violent is one of the worst nightmares and most shameful humiliations the average Vulcan can imagine, and for Vulcans socialization into that mindset starts early.

You know that mediocre scene in that NuTrek movie where other Vulcan kids are bullying Spock by trying to get him to show a visible emotional reaction? I’m imagining something like that but Spock does the same thing back and it goes maybe three or five rounds and then one of the other Vulcan kids goes full monkey mode and tries to rip Spock’s face off and has to be dragged off Spock by his friends and then breaks down bawling in shame and gets led off to the Vulcan equivalent of the principal or school psychologist while sobbing “I am in control of my emotions! I am in control of my emotions!” and Spock just raises an eyebrow and says “Fascinating,” while that kid’s friends all stare daggers at him (yes, I’m imagining Spock was a little mean as a child/teenager in this scenario; that’s a common reaction to bullying).

On that note, I think if Vulcan schoolyard bullying happens it would be super passive-aggressive. Like, you know how girl bullying looks different from boy bullying cause femininity doesn’t allow the same leeway for open violence and sadism that boys and men have so girl bullying tends to take the form of mind games and ostracism and “I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil!” psuedo-moralism? I think Vulcan bullying would look like girl bullying but moreso. Because they would have it drummed into their heads from a very young age that open violence and anger are not allowed and low-status, and they would tend to internalize this well before they internalize more complex moral rules and principles.

Avatar

*whispers* “bullying” is what we call it when kids treat each other the way adults treat kids

I mean, I kinda see what you’re saying but like, if an adult had treated me the way other kids did it would’ve been called abuse not just “the way adults treat kids.”

(I don’t really know how to express how angry the way kids are treated makes me but non-abusive adults don’t treat kids the way bullies do. I’m not saying that that treatment is necessarily better just different.)

I’m not trying to dismiss the experiences of anyone who’s a victim of bullying from fellow young people. but I think it’s worth acknowledging the hypocrisy of the fact that dynamics that are problematized among age peers are normalized across generational lines. adults berate and belittle kids, use fear and strength to control them, hit them, talk over them, gaslight and victim-blame them, mock their interests, target them for their identities, embarrass them for their flaws and failures, use their insecurities as pressure points…and most of it never gets called abusive.

Yeah no I totally get what you’re saying, and I agree with the principle I just disagree with the comparison. I understand you didn’t mean to sound dismissive but as someone who was bullied for most of my life it /feels/ dismissive.

I also think it’s worth mentioning that bullying is absolutely not taken even remotely seriously. so I would disagree that it’s hypocritical, because I think some of the things you described are frankly probably more likely to be taken seriously than bullying.

Bullying is never called abuse, it’s “kids will be kids” it’s “oh okay nice kids” it’s punishing the victim for daring to fight back, it’s putting the victim and their abuser in a room together so they can “talk it out”, it’s “oh they only want a reaction, just ignore them” on repeat three million times it’s every teacher you’ve ever had knowing exactly what goes on in their classroom and not taking it seriously enough to bother to put a stop to it, bullying the but of a million jokes on TV, or the origins story of countless “bad guys.”

ultimately, bullying’s just seen as a normal and expected secondary/high school experience, in exactly the same way that a lot of those behaviours are just seen as normal and expected parenting technique.

that’s…probably a good perspective for me to hear. because as a teacher I hear a lot about anti-bullying strategies and initiatives, and it’s usually from the same people trading tips about how to enforce control over kids in ways that sound remarkably similar to what those things are trying to stop. easy to forget there are so many people who are less hypocritical because they really don’t care about either problem.

This post made me kind of uncomfortable, and I’ve figured out why. This model implies that bullying is just kids using the social strategies that adult authority figures use on them. I think that biases people away from noticing a very important difference between the way adults inflict unpleasant experiences on other adults and on children and the way kids inflict unpleasant experiences on other kids.

It’s true that adults often subject kids to highly unpleasant experiences, but they usually do so instrumentally. A teacher will punish you for getting bad grades, or for breaking the rules, for instance. There’s a fairly straightforward cause and effect, and fairly obvious things you can do to appease the authority figure (you may not actually be able to do them, but at least there’s a clear instrumental aim). The closest mainstream adult hierarchical relationships come to bullying that I can think of is stereotypical drill instructor and PE teacher techniques, but even there there’s a clear instrumentality to it; the drill instructor doesn’t just yell at and degrade the recruits for the lulz, he’s working to establish dominance and modify their minds and behavior.

Abusive interactions I experienced from peers was something quite different. The descriptive term that comes to my mind for it is casual recreational sadism. Here’s the kind of stuff other kids in middle and high school would do to me:

- Take advantage of periods of forced proximity to trash-talk me at length to my face, and engage in spontaneous mockery.

- Deliberately lure large numbers of pigeons toward me by throwing scraps on the ground at lunch (I have a weird disgust/phobia thing about pigeons).

- Steal my things (pencils, pencil sharpeners etc.).

- Throw things (e.g. a kleenex box) at me, mark me with pencils, spit soda on me etc..

- Suggest other girls were interested in me sexually, or pretend to be sexually interested in me, which was hilarious because the idea that anyone would be attracted to me was clearly absurd.

- Trip me up or engage in low-key physical intimidation. I was relatively lucky here that stereotypical “let’s beat up the nerd lol!” stuff didn’t seem to be really a thing at my schools; there seemed to be a tacit understanding that physical bullying should be kept to a level low enough that it could be dismissed as no big deal, I’m guessing because it was one thing the administration would take seriously.

These things rarely seemed to be direct responses to “bad behavior” or attempts to achieve some instrumental aim. I’m sure there was an important dynamic of these things being considered OK because I was seen as weird and annoying and a bad person and therefore vaguely deserving of it, but there was no direct instrumental goal. Rather, these acts seemed to be a form of entertainment. It was simply amusing to hurt and humiliate me. I remember reading a self-defense site years back that talked about various motivations for violence, one of which was predatory violence, in which the violence itself is the goal (the guy wants to beat your ass in order to experience the pleasure of beating your ass). Teenage horizontal abuse as I experienced it was like that.

The moralistic logic to schoolyard bullying as I know it isn’t “if you do thing I don’t like, I will punish you” it’s “if you do things I don’t like, I will reclassify you as a social/moral untouchable, and then I will have moral and social license to hurt you whenever it amuses me.”

The best adult analogy to how schoolyard bullying works that I can think of isn’t parent/child and teacher/student relationships, it’s the relationship between online trolls and “lolcows.”

An adult who openly related to children this way would be considered weird and awful and creepy and more than a little pathetic and probably mentally ill, and would probably be kept away from children. I’m sure there are abusive adults who relate to children under their authority this way in their hearts (the psychological mechanisms that underlie casual recreational sadism don’t just magically disappear at 18), but I expect they usually disguise it under a veneer of instrumental punishment, because being too open in indulging their sadism would harm them socially.

Which kind of gets to the important thing here: I notice people started treating me radically better when I left high school, and I think a big part of that is casual recreational sadism is much less socially acceptable in the adult world. There’s probably adult subcultures where you can get away with it (such as, I suspect, subcultures that are big on machismo), but generally the adult world seems to have stronger civility norms than the teenage world; civility norms strong enough to preclude a culture of normalized casual recreational sadism. Adults experience more pressure to hide their sadism (behind closed doors, behind moralistic outrage, behind instrumental punishment), and that circumscribes it.

The toxic culture of middle/high school probably does have a lot to do with the way adults treat teenagers (e.g. the way they’re given few sources of status besides popularity games), but I don’t think teenage bullying is an extension of the logic of the way children are treated by adult authority figures. I think it’s feeds on its own, unusually toxic social dynamics.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net