digital junk drawer

Christianity is supposed to stand for freedom, justice, compassion, and peace. But what kind of peace ignores the suffering of millions? What kind of moral leadership honors representatives of a regime responsible for brutal repression, executions, terrorism, and the destruction of countless lives across the Middle East?

How can the pain of the Iranian people be ignored so easily?

More than 40,000 young Iranian souls have been taken by this bloodthirsty regime. Mothers still mourn their children. Families still wait for justice. Entire generations have grown up under fear, torture, imprisonment, violence and executions.

And yet their representatives are welcomed, honored, and rewarded.

What message does this send to the victims? To the mothers whose hearts were broken? To the young people who sacrificed everything for freedom?

Peace without justice is not peace.

Dialogue without accountability becomes hypocrisy.

And honoring the representatives of oppression while victims remain unheard is not reconciliation, it is betrayal.

If religion is truly meant to unite humanity, it cannot do so by covering up crimes, silencing victims, or legitimizing cruelty. The world should stand with the oppressed, not decorate those monsters.

This is not dignity.

This is not justice.

And for many people who have suffered under this islamic regime, it feels absolutely disgusting.

Still the papacy let a child killing terrorist in that gathering, shook hands with him and included him among the recipients of that award instead of kicking him out or cutting relations with these blood thirsty mullahs all these years

If you check the articles, you’ll see that the award was not presented by Pope Leo, just some random employee. That’s a faked AI image meant to assert that the church supports the regime. The award was not even presented in person, if I remember correctly.

The papacy has been working against the regime in its ways for a long time, and this award isn’t really an award; the articles establish that it’s basically a participation trophy meant to maintain diplomatic ties the regime a bit in the hopes of encouraging peace instead of doing what the west did with North Korea and just leaving them alone to do whatever crimes they want. The papacy has to maintain a careful balancing act as the most powerful religious force in the world. I don’t agree with it, but that’s the situation.

where does the stereotype that women with bpd are bisexual come from anyway. im so baffled.

Women with BPD are stereotyped as very sexual/wild/kinky and needy/unstable/crazy in a way that augments this, making them allegedly good sexual partners but bad girlfriends/wives, but the illness isn’t understood legitimately and tends to be reduced to “hot but crazy” by tons of people.

Christianity is supposed to stand for freedom, justice, compassion, and peace. But what kind of peace ignores the suffering of millions? What kind of moral leadership honors representatives of a regime responsible for brutal repression, executions, terrorism, and the destruction of countless lives across the Middle East?

How can the pain of the Iranian people be ignored so easily?

More than 40,000 young Iranian souls have been taken by this bloodthirsty regime. Mothers still mourn their children. Families still wait for justice. Entire generations have grown up under fear, torture, imprisonment, violence and executions.

And yet their representatives are welcomed, honored, and rewarded.

What message does this send to the victims? To the mothers whose hearts were broken? To the young people who sacrificed everything for freedom?

Peace without justice is not peace.

Dialogue without accountability becomes hypocrisy.

And honoring the representatives of oppression while victims remain unheard is not reconciliation, it is betrayal.

If religion is truly meant to unite humanity, it cannot do so by covering up crimes, silencing victims, or legitimizing cruelty. The world should stand with the oppressed, not decorate those monsters.

This is not dignity.

This is not justice.

And for many people who have suffered under this islamic regime, it feels absolutely disgusting.

I have a personality disorder and a psych degree, so those are my qualifications when I say I think they’re all very normal boys affected by extreme circumstances (probably even Roger; kids don’t develop that kind of mindset without seeing/ going through something truly horrible). Pubescent boys are also categorically pretty wild, and these boys do see the tribalism on some level as a game. Some of the behavior isn’t THEM; it’s a character. That of course stops being an excuse somewhere around ritual sacrifice, of course. 😭

There’s robust evidence in real life of immensely stressful situations causing people to act in increasingly intense and often combative/cruel ways (think Stanford Prison Experiment). In my opinion, that’s most if not all of what’s going on, althoigh they'll presumably come out with major mental health problems. Leadership and control in particular are shown to foster machiavellianism, callousness, and even sadism under the right circumstances. This seems like what happens to Jack, which is a great combo with his arrogant and bossy nature. In turn, Maurice is a nice, funny guy but ultimately a follower who is easily influenced by the social corrosion. I don’t see anything uniquely pathological there.

Simon is just a quiet, consistently nice boy who is socially ostracized; I could maybe be convinced to see a few borderline traits in his vaguely obsessive/clingy/dependent behavior, but those could also just be signs of anxious attachment or other benign situations. I don’t see anything concerning. Nothing overt. I think that beyond his epilepsy he’s good.

Roger however I think is his truest self on the island and was instead conditioned to hide by regular life; obviously he’s intensely sadistic, affectively impaired, and erratic, but interestingly he’s also a follower—Jack’s enforcer or headsman, if you will. Antisocial/psychopathic and narcissistic traits track correlationally with sadism, as does boredom-proneness. But someone with NPD struggles immensely with not being in control, in charge, and looked up to; Roger doesn’t lash out at jack, so I don’t think that’s his deal. I think he has psychopathic traits, but you can’t diagnose a PD before age 18, as kids’ personalities are still developing and it could go many different directions.

I don’t think anyone shows HPD traits at all.

I think some of this is a generational mismatch; your generation (I’m 25) is generally eager to apply mental health labels to characters (and yourselves) VERY liberally by my standards. Kids love labels: that’s objective fact, and that attachment to them generally diminishes with age as the ideas of ambiguity and difference become less threatening to our social structures and identities.

I’ll also mention that “diagnosing” leaders/politicians/famous people is frowned upon professionally because it’s a) easy to make sensationalized and stigmatizing claims, and b) impossible to be accurate since we aren’t their clinicians, so I’m disinclined from using armchair psych theories about dictators to map onto Jack.

I think it’s much more interesting and less encouraging of stereotypy to examine this from the baseline of what healthy human minds (especially those of children, who are already lacking in many of the emotional and behavioral guardrails and foundations adults have) are driven to in intense and abnormal situations and THEN noting undeniable deviations, like with Roger. I personally think it’s way more interesting not to box them in with diagnostic or identity-based labels. For example, instead of “Roger is a psychopath,” I’m inclined to think, “Roger displays violent tendencies and a disregard for others—why?” without labeling it.

Jack is obviously an extreme case among the boys, but I’m hesitant to call BPD unless I see very obvious diagnostic criteria being met: I can see some, definitely (the hectic, fear-based, manipulative, jealous, controlling behavior that is associated with the worse side of BPD), but it all seems subclinical. I just nothing that is clearly indicative of a personality disorder and not just environment + childhood + being a bossy, privileged little guy in the first place. Plus, one of the core elements of BPD is identity instability, and 12 is just WAY too young to call that out, especially under the circumstances. OCD I don’t see at all; I just see subclinical perfectionism.

Darling is a 50/50. Unless it's country "darlin'" or british "dAHling" others can stfu. Anything that comes with "little", I'm calling the psych ward. Police can't do shit.

"Honey" and "sweetheart" is OKAY. 10/10. Sweet, soft. That's it. Don't change that. "Babe" is also okay. "Baby" doesn't sound as provocative as princess so it's still tolerable because that petname have stayed longer.

I have a personality disorder and a psych degree, so those are my qualifications when I say I think they’re all very normal boys affected by extreme circumstances (probably even Roger; kids don’t develop that kind of mindset without seeing/ going through something truly horrible). Pubescent boys are also categorically pretty wild, and these boys do see the tribalism on some level as a game. Some of the behavior isn’t THEM; it’s a character. That of course stops being an excuse somewhere around ritual sacrifice, of course. 😭

There’s robust evidence in real life of immensely stressful situations causing people to act in increasingly intense and often combative/cruel ways (think Stanford Prison Experiment). In my opinion, that’s most if not all of what’s going on, althoigh they'll presumably come out with major mental health problems. Leadership and control in particular are shown to foster machiavellianism, callousness, and even sadism under the right circumstances. This seems like what happens to Jack, which is a great combo with his arrogant and bossy nature. In turn, Maurice is a nice, funny guy but ultimately a follower who is easily influenced by the social corrosion. I don’t see anything uniquely pathological there.

Simon is just a quiet, consistently nice boy who is socially ostracized; I could maybe be convinced to see a few borderline traits in his vaguely obsessive/clingy/dependent behavior, but those could also just be signs of anxious attachment or other benign situations. I don’t see anything concerning. Nothing overt. I think that beyond his epilepsy he’s good.

Roger however I think is his truest self on the island and was instead conditioned to hide by regular life; obviously he’s intensely sadistic, affectively impaired, and erratic, but interestingly he’s also a follower—Jack’s enforcer or headsman, if you will. Antisocial/psychopathic and narcissistic traits track correlationally with sadism, as does boredom-proneness. But someone with NPD struggles immensely with not being in control, in charge, and looked up to; Roger doesn’t lash out at jack, so I don’t think that’s his deal. I think he has psychopathic traits, but you can’t diagnose a PD before age 18, as kids’ personalities are still developing and it could go many different directions.

I don’t think anyone shows HPD traits at all.

I think some of this is a generational mismatch; your generation (I’m 25) is generally eager to apply mental health labels to characters (and yourselves) VERY liberally by my standards. Kids love labels: that’s objective fact, and that attachment to them generally diminishes with age as the ideas of ambiguity and difference become less threatening to our social structures and identities.

I’ll also mention that “diagnosing” leaders/politicians/famous people is frowned upon professionally because it’s a) easy to make sensationalized and stigmatizing claims, and b) impossible to be accurate since we aren’t their clinicians, so I’m disinclined from using armchair psych theories about dictators to map onto Jack.

I think it’s much more interesting and less encouraging of stereotypy to examine this from the baseline of what healthy human minds (especially those of children, who are already lacking in many of the emotional and behavioral guardrails and foundations adults have) are driven to in intense and abnormal situations and THEN noting undeniable deviations, like with Roger. I personally think it’s way more interesting not to box them in with diagnostic or identity-based labels. For example, instead of “Roger is a psychopath,” I’m inclined to think, “Roger displays violent tendencies and a disregard for others—why?” without labeling it.

Jack is obviously an extreme case among the boys, but I’m hesitant to call BPD unless I see very obvious diagnostic criteria being met: I can see some, definitely (the hectic, fear-based, manipulative, jealous, controlling behavior that is associated with the worse side of BPD), but it all seems subclinical. I just nothing that is clearly indicative of a personality disorder and not just environment + childhood + being a bossy, privileged little guy in the first place. Plus, one of the core elements of BPD is identity instability, and 12 is just WAY too young to call that out, especially under the circumstances. OCD I don’t see at all; I just see subclinical perfectionism.

I have a personality disorder and a psych degree, so those are my qualifications when I say I think they’re all very normal boys affected by extreme circumstances (probably even Roger; kids don’t develop that kind of mindset without seeing/ going through something truly horrible). Pubescent boys are also categorically pretty wild, and these boys do see the tribalism on some level as a game. Some of the behavior isn’t THEM; it’s a character. That of course stops being an excuse somewhere around ritual sacrifice, of course. 😭

There’s robust evidence in real life of immensely stressful situations causing people to act in increasingly intense and often combative/cruel ways (think Stanford Prison Experiment). In my opinion, that’s most if not all of what’s going on, althoigh they'll presumably come out with major mental health problems. Leadership and control in particular are shown to foster machiavellianism, callousness, and even sadism under the right circumstances. This seems like what happens to Jack, which is a great combo with his arrogant and bossy nature. In turn, Maurice is a nice, funny guy but ultimately a follower who is easily influenced by the social corrosion. I don’t see anything uniquely pathological there.

Simon is just a quiet, consistently nice boy who is socially ostracized; I could maybe be convinced to see a few borderline traits in his vaguely obsessive/clingy/dependent behavior, but those could also just be signs of anxious attachment or other benign situations. I don’t see anything concerning. Nothing overt. I think that beyond his epilepsy he’s good.

Roger however I think is his truest self on the island and was instead conditioned to hide by regular life; obviously he’s intensely sadistic, affectively impaired, and erratic, but interestingly he’s also a follower—Jack’s enforcer or headsman, if you will. Antisocial/psychopathic and narcissistic traits track correlationally with sadism, as does boredom-proneness. But someone with NPD struggles immensely with not being in control, in charge, and looked up to; Roger doesn’t lash out at jack, so I don’t think that’s his deal. I think he has psychopathic traits, but you can’t diagnose a PD before age 18, as kids’ personalities are still developing and it could go many different directions.

I don’t think anyone shows HPD traits at all.

Your New Life is Going to Cost You Your Old One, ca. 2025.