My clusterfuck of ideas

being completely and utterly against censorship is the main core principle of ao3.

ao3 was created specifically to host and give a platform to fics that were banned on other platforms.

therefore the most disgusting and shockingly vile fanfic you find is the exact reason why ao3 was created in the first place.

Sometimes when an action makes NO sense to us ("he's like a stupid alien"), it's bc we are not understanding its true motivation/purpouse. If his goal was control, financial pressure and limiting her options due to lack of funds, it makes perfect sensie to buy the truck.

Therefore, here is an alternative explanation based entirely on his impulsive feelings:

She's getting near the end of her degree, she's going to be making a lot more than him when she finishes. This makes him angry and jealous. The closer she gets to finishing, the stronger his anger and jealousy gets.

Well, if she's gonna be making so much more than me, the least she can do is pay for my truck. And maybe if she had to pay for this truck she wouldn't even be able to finish school. Then I'd still be man of the house. That would really show her whose boss. Now I feel more in control and less jealous.

"Honey, I bought a truck."

I think we often talk about abusers like we talk about evolution. We say polar bears evolved to have white coats for camouflage. We talk about evolution like it has a plan and is doing things on purpose. But evolution doesn't care about camouflage. Birth rates are all that matter, but evolution doesn't even "care" about them.

I think the majority of abusers don't actually plan things out. They just act impulsively on malicious feelings. It makes them feel good to have lots of power, so they take whatever power they can find. It makes them feel good to make their victims uncomfortable so they do that.

Most abuse tactics can be explained (and should be defended against) as if they are strategic. Just like evolution, it's just easier to talk about that way. But I think most abuser tactics are really just the consequence of impulsively acting on malicious feelings.

Strategy is big picture. It’s about asking “what do I even really want here?” You say you want to Win. What does Winning mean? What does Winning look like?

In an argumentative context, Strategy is about the frame around the picture, so to speak. Are you approaching the conversation as a confrontation or a confession or a Conversion?

Tactics are about individual goals. In wargaming, Tactics are things like pincer attacks and flanking maneuvers; things like armor penetrating ammo and anti-cavalry fortifications.

In an argumentative context, Tactics are things like making an attack ad hominem, or shifting the goalposts, or turning the tables.

Abusers tend to be excellent Tacticians but terrible Strategists. They often do not even recognize good/healthy relationships as such. Their Strategy is a mess. They would not recognize victory if they stood in the midst of it.

But. They are very good at not losing. They are very good at making sure that the other person doesn’t win.

A good relationship is win-win; both parties benefit mutualistically from the symbiosis.

I reasoned that if I couldn't do my groceries without being stared at like a carnival curiosity, then I might as well dress the way I really wanted to.

And here's the thing, that comes across as confidence, it comes across as radical authenticity, because it is, and that shit draws the right people to you. I drew the attention of my now partner by being my gothic self in a casual setting.

The Swedes have these adorable cakes called Prinsesstårta aka Princess Cakes.

When I saw this I thought “Oh! I know those! We have the same thing here in Denmark!”

The same thing? These beauties.

I persent to you, the Kajkage aka Kaj Cake. They’re smaller but pretty much made of the same ingredients and they have fan clubs dedicated to finding the ugliest versions at bakeries. They’re named after the frog Kaj from an old children’s show.

Therefore I posit: having a missing person declared dead in the Shire requires the consent of their next of kin. Whoever Bilbo’s next of kin was at the time of the Hobbit (possibly Otho? I’m not sure) had him declared dead at the first opportunity but Frodo refused to ever do it.

Frodo had anxious hobbit bureaucrats knocking on his door every couple of years like ‘Mr Baggins… blease… it’s been 10 years… he was eleventy-one… can we fill out his death certificate yet’ and Frodo was like ‘absolutely not’.

After all, last time they declared Bilbo Baggins dead— which involved filling out all the paperwork necessary to declare somebody dead without a body— he had the rudeness to show up again, forcing them to do a lot more paperwork, and this time with an indignant Bilbo having a go at them while they did it.

As a result, the magistrates have decided that they’re not going to declare Bilbo Baggins dead a second time unless they have a body, a coroners report explaining the cause of death, and a three day wake to make sure that he doesn’t get up and walk away again.