Love Is All

The infuriating part is that people apply the pop-psychology definition of "trauma-bond", but apply the actual psychology judgement of it, as in, "obviously bad, duh, everyone knows that".

In pop psychology, "trauma bonding is when you're bonding with someone over shared trauma or similar past experiences." In actual psychology, "A trauma bond refers to the situation where someone develops strong feelings of sympathy, loyalty, dependance, and attachment towards their abuser."

In pop psychology, "Gaslighting is when someone lies to you, questions you, or disagrees with you over what happened." In actual psychology, "Gaslighting is an abuse tactic where you are manipulated to question your reality, memory, or sanity—not just a disagreement over what happened."

In pop psychology, "Being triggered means that something makes you uncomfortable or annoyed." In actual psychology, "A trigger is something that causes a sudden increase in symptoms—like flashbacks in PTSD or compulsions in OCD. Its not just a source of general discomfort."

In pop psychology, "Intrusive thoughts are random impulses you might want to act on; e.g. wanting to do something unexpected like dye your hair pink or eat cake for dinner." In actual psychology, "Intrusive thoughts and unwanted, involuntary thoughts that go against your real value and desires. You dont want to act on them, and them coming true would be your worst nightmare. They can be very prominent and distressing in disorders like OCD and PTSD."

I am not uptight about privacy because I'm hiding something. I'm uptight about it because the people who dismiss my right to privacy are dangerous to you and me and our families, personally, all the time.

1) the U.S. entertainment industry (especially animation) is run by older conservative types who make up offensive terms and get really mad about them.

2) the people who run Disney would be the first to fall in line with a fascist regime.

3) most of the media we consume is tailor-made and watered-down to appeal to the tastes of older, deeply religious conservative audiences.

And published it in Penthouse, to force those same censors to buy a skin mag. The editor there asked, why Penthouse?

That one is from his autobiography, Becoming Superman. See also:

When he was making Pulp Fiction, he was worried that the MPAA would object to the high level of violence in the film, so he shot a bunch of extra-gory stuff that he didn’t actually want in the film, and added it in before submitting it to the MPAA. Predictibly, they asked him to cut most of it (without even commenting on some of the things that had him worried, like the bits of Marvin’s skull that lodge in Samuel L. Jackson’s hairpiece). The resultant cuts were actually more permissive than he’d expected, so he cut a little more and submitted it, and it got passed with an R.

The second story is about that artist on Morrowind whose name escapes me (I’m not a big ES fan tbh) who figured out that if he made two creature designs, one weird and what he wanted, and one even weirder, he could get Todd Howard to agree to just about anything by showing him the whopper first, then going back and “working” for another few hours on a second, “toned-down” version, and it worked every time.

The reason I bring these up is that the thing that drives censors isn’t some extant physical rubrick of what is and isn’t acceptable, it’s the idea that they can have absolute power over someone else’s creative work. It’s about the social dominance of the interaction.

There is nothing so innocent, so clean, that a censor will not find some fault with it. Because they must find something wrong with it to justify their existence, and because it makes them feel powerful.