Warframe Concept

There's often been a discussion about the place for wheelchairs in fantasy games. Personally, we're all four it, but what about in science fiction? Christopher Pine (Star Trek) was wheelchair-bound. Hell, he was completely paralysed - not even having facial expressions. Could they have fixed it?  Quite probably, actually. But... not the point, now is it?

This got me to thinking about Warframe, with their space ninja. And of all the types out there, there's only one or two which could be considered 'different' - there's the one that's a composite of other Warframes. There's the one who's had her face blown through. But honestly, that's about it. Every single one of them is a super-agile killing machine.  But what about a concept for one that isn't - in the conventional sense?

See, I'm picturing a Warframe that doesn't have the ability to use her legs. She's in effect paralysed from the waist down.  And what happens is that the transference spark effectively carries her, holding her (often in a seated position, with her legs stretched out some), and guiding her around as she does her missions. The "ghost" is the one that has the mobility, bringing her along and giving her the means of travel.

What's the Warframe's power? Effectively Gravity Control.  She has a sword out? It hovers in front of her, lashing out and cutting anything in her path. She has kunai? They hover and twirl in front of her, then lash out, flinging themselves across the room at her enemies. I'd consider her passive to be a bonus to damage when using thrown / kinetic weapons (bows, crossbows, kunai, glaives, etc).

So what's her active powers?

1) Exalted Kunai.  Channelled Energy blades that hover and twirl around her that she can launch. Much like Ivara's Exalted Bow, or Excalibur's Exalted Blade, or Titania's Dex Pixia. Much as with these weapons, the exalted kunai are moddable.

2) Apportation. Pick a destination, and she gets 'flung' to that location. It's similar to a teleport, but you have to be able to cross the distance normally and you will physically move from one spot to the other.  The way I see it is that your WF hangs suspended as your apparition crosses the distance as per normal bullet jumping / wall running, etc, and when you activate the power again the WF is flung to your location. The way I'd deal with this is that your apparition doesn't have a 'cling limit' to walls and such, and can do literal wall-running to get from point to point - pretty good for some of the Corpus stages with the huge drops. You could also 'cancel' and go back to your WF body.

3) Poltergeist. Used with Exalted Kunai - you unleash a barrage of kunai against all enemies within an area, peppering them with multiple hits.

4) Haven't thought this far yet.

It'd be significantly different, but I like the idea.

SJW RPG And Other Acronyms

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness is coming out again, released by Palladium Books. You know, TMNT&OS was the first Palladium game I ever played -- even before I got into Robotech. It was a Palladium game, which means the mechanics were ... ehh, but it was fun, and really - that's all that mattered at the time.

They picked perhaps one of the worst streaming groups to announce this, however -- it's a group that's veering heavily on the Right, and is definitely not LGBT friendly. I won't go into too much detail, except to say that it's enough I'm not going to back the Kickstarter, and I won't be picking up the book.

Palladium, of course, has had a history -- between calling gays and trans folk 'sexual deviants', and being fairly racist in some of their game books (RIFTS Africa being an example), there's a lot there to keep people away from Palladium if they care about that kind of thing.

In the 80s, when I was a teen?  I didn't know better.  AIDS wasn't an epidemic yet, and there wasn't much to tell you about being gay, or trans, or anything else for that matter - sex ed wasn't still way behind, and I was pretty damn naive. I didn't really know what being 'gay' meant, and had no idea what 'trans' was - didn't know what a lesbian was, and had no idea what being bisexual meant (let alone non-binary, gender fluid, or anything else for that matter). There were the odd gay jokes - but the fact was I didn't 'get' them that much, either. All I knew was being gay meant kissing people of the same sex -- and really that's about it. Adults in this day and age really have no excuse, and there's enough out there that proper sex-ed should be taught in schools.

So what's this got to do with gaming?

Let's start with something simple: there's certain communities that make people who enjoy OSR look real bad. They the kind of people who complain about people who want to allow wheelchairs in D&D (why not? They existed as far back as ancient China). They complain when women are given positions of power in games and aren't treated as cheesecake. They complain when there's 'too many' people of colour in fantasy games, or the games focus on groups that aren't your typical European White groups. They're the people who complain when a company makes a game and says 'what if Europe failed to colonize the Americas?'

They complain about SJWs 'ruining' gaming. As if allowing for the full spectrum of the human experience in gaming is, somehow, 'bad'.

These are the people who made 'the red list' -- a list of gaming companies who 'put politics into gaming' - by, you know, making gaming about more than white guys. They come up with all these excuses as to why gaming shouldn't open its doors to other groups -- that it's checking off the list, that it's taking away from real roleplaying, that it's 'SJW nonsense' or catering or whatever.

Here's the thing. Gaming's come a long, long way from its roots in the 70s. That's not a bad thing. And you can totally go old school with dungeon crawls and whatever. I like old school gaming to a certain degree -- where you have to be on your toes, where insta-death can be a thing, where you roll your attributes and hit points and there's no 'death saves' or whatever. Where a Level 1 PC group can run into a nest of 100 goblins.... to me that's fun.

However, I also think the table should be open to everyone, and the game should reflect that diversity. A campaign setting that puts you in Africa and has you deal with the different cultures and mythologies of that continent? Sure. Not a single white guy to be seen? No issue. Oh, how about black people in middle-ages Fantasy Not-Europe? Sure, why not? That's not far-fetched. Oh, there's gays? Non-binary? There's trans folk? Sure, why not? There's people missing hands, or blind, or confined to a wheelchair, and don't want to have this simply 'fixed'? Why not?

What's wrong with running the gamut, and allowing everyone to feel welcome at the table?

"Politics has no place at the gaming table."

I'm sorry, but it's always been at the gaming table. It just happened to be politics you agreed with.

Dungeons and Dragons. Had Christian Saints and had Devils and Demons named from Christian mythology. (Yeah, Baalzebub, etc? Totally mythology). They had holy knights, and cleric spells which pulled from miracles. That is political -- it puts Christianity into the game and sets it above anything else.

The vast, vast, vast majority of characters were white, and male. The women were in chainmail bikinis or were the damsels in distress needing to be rescued. And let's not forget that in AD&D 1e, women were not allowed to have more than 17 Strength.

That's political.

And the main goal in gaming? Going into other lands, slaying the natives en masse, and taking their stuff, if not outright conquering the region and setting up shop there as a ruler. The opposition? Primitive, backwards, evil creatures that breed like rabbits and who are inherently evil and the anathema of civilization.

That's political.

And these people wonder why that's called racist? They don't see the parallels? They say 'it's just fantasy' and that people are reading too much into it?

D&D, from the get-go, was a colonial RPG. Humans were the best, the majority of the characters were white, and male, there were strong Christian symbolism in the game, and you went out and crushed other civilizations who were too barbaric to live and took over their lands.

We've come a long way from that, but too often I can still see the roots. And when a game company veers away from that baseline, people scream about the company giving into SJWs or bringing politics into gaming.

It's always been there.

Those people who 'can't identify' with non-white or non-male characters in a game? How about the people who can't identify with playing white, male characters? Aren't they allowed to feel represented too?

I had the excuse in the 1980s that I didn't know better. Palladium had less of an excuse, but again 80s, not much education out there. In the modern age? There's absolutely no excuse for dealing with a gaming mentality stuck in the 80s and 70s when it comes to representation and accepting minorities and the LGBT community. Simply acknowledging these people exist and that it's okay shouldn't produce this kind of hue and cry.

That's my beef.
And if you don't want it at your table -- fine. Don't have it at your table.
But shut the fuck up about it existing, and other people wanting representation.

Just because these people don't want it doesn't mean 1) it shouldn't exist, and 2) nobody else should have it, either.

Or, on the other hand - sure, tell us. It tells us what games we shouldn't be buying - because any company that supports that kind of mentality doesn't deserve to be in the business.

Aztecs: No Human Sacrifice?

 

From a friend's comment on FB:

1) The Romans actually DID, by their own admission, practice ritual human sacrifice...they just didn't think of it as sacrifice, even though the deaths were dedicated to gods and spirits. (this including gladiatorial games and executions "ad bestium" when prisoners would be put through elaborate animal executions).

2) These accounts came from the Spanish during a time when they were literally burning people alive at the stake for crimes like "having a neighbour call you a witch" and "being Jewish".

Main Topic: Aztlán Times group on FB

Mexica (Aztec) Sacrifice Debunked?:

"This may explain why no massive catacombs with what would have been the bones of sacrifice victims have ever been found in Mesoamerica."

"There is absolutely no proof that the Mexika (Aztecs) practiced mass human sacrifice. Spanish lies and archeological evidence are NOT I repeat, are NOT proof. Everything that has been written on anything pertaining to the Mexika was written by the Spanish or codex writers under the guidance and supervision of Spanish monks. Allow me to introduce this article by a world expert, ethnologist on this matter... 

"After careful and systematic study of the sources, I find no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs. The phenomenon to be studied, therefore, may be not these supposed sacrifices but the deeply rooted belief that they occurred." - Peter Hassler, ethnologist at the University of Zurich.

Copyright World Press Review.

"An aura of lurid fascination surrounds our interest in the Aztecs, the people who, at the beginning of the 16th century, inhabited one of the largest cities of the world: Tenochtitlan. In 1521, this metropolis was erased from the face of the Earth by the Spanish conquerors under Hernando Cortes and his Indian allies. 

As a justification for their destructive acts, the conquistadors generated propaganda designed to offend the sensibilities of their Christian audience: They described the Aztec practice of human sacrifice. Later chronicles by Spanish writers, missionaries, and even Indian converts also told repeatedly of this cult. Even when scientists called these reports grossly exaggerated, the fact that the Aztecs sacrificed humans remained undisputed. Cutting out the victim's heart with an obsidian knife [fashioned from volcanic glass] was supposedly the most common method of sacrifice, although other forms were practiced as well. 

These included beheading, piercing with spears or arrows, and setting victims against each other in unequal duels. We are also told that some victims were literally skinned alive; a priest then donned this macabre "skin suit" to perform a ritual dance. 

There has been no shortage of theories and explanations for what lay behind these archaic cults. 

Some researchers have deemed them religious rituals. Others have called them displays of repressed aggression and even a method of regulating population. 

Although human sacrifice has been the subject of much writing, there has been almost no critical examination of the sources of information about it. 

A critical review is urgently needed. 

Bernal Diaz del Castillo is the classic source of information about mass sacrifice by the Aztecs. A literate soldier in Cortes' company, Diaz claimed to have witnessed such a ritual. "We looked over toward the Great Pyramids and watched as [the Aztecs] ... dragged [our comrades] up the steps and prepared to sacrifice them," he wrote in his Historia Verdadera de la Conquista de la Nueva Espana (The True History of the Conquest of New Spain), published posthumously in 1632. "After they danced, they placed our comrades face up atop square, narrow stones erected for the sacrifices. Then, with obsidian knives, they sawed their breasts open, pulled out their still-beating hearts, and offered these to their idols." 

The scene of these sacrificial rituals was the main temple in the island-city of Tenochtitlan. The observers, however, were watching from their camp on the shore of a lake three or four miles away. 

From that point, Diaz could have neither seen nor heard anything. To follow the action at the foot of the pyramid, he would have to have been inside the temple grounds. But this would have been impossible: The Aztecs had just beaten back the Spanish and their allies, who had been besieging the city from all sides. 

But Diaz is not the inventor of the legend of ritual murder. Cortes fathered the lie in 1522, when he wrote a shorter version of the tale to Emperor Charles V. He would have been confident that his reports would find ready ears, for in the 15th and 16th centuries many lies were being spread in Spain about ritual murders carried out by the Jews, who were being expelled from the Iberian peninsula along with the Moors. Cortes' lies were a tremendous success: They have endured for almost 500 years without challenge. 

Along with the lies of the conquistadors, there also have been secondhand reports--what could be called "hearsay evidence"--in the writings of Spanish missionaries and their Indian converts, who, in their new-found zeal, scorned their old religion. 

The accounts are filled with vague and banal phrases such as, "And thus they sacrificed," which indicates that the writers cannot have witnessed a real human sacrifice. 

The only concrete evidence comes to us not from the Aztecs but from the Mayan civilization of the Yucatan. These depictions are found in the records of trials conducted during the Inquisition, between 1561 and 1565. These supposed testimonies about human sacrifice, however, were coerced from the Indians under torture and have been judged worthless as ethnographic evidence. 

Along with the written accounts, many archeological finds--sculptures, frescoes, wall paintings, and pictographs--have been declared by the Spanish, their Indian converts, and later anthropologists to be connected to human sacrifice. Yet these images are in no way proof that humans were in fact sacrificed. Until now, scientists have started from a position of believing the lies and hearsay reports and interpreting the archeological evidence accordingly. 

The circularity of such reasoning is obvious. There are plenty of possible interpretations of the images of hearts and even killings in these artifacts. They could depict myths or legends. 

They could present narrativ images--allegories, symbols, and metaphors. They could even be images of ordinary executions or murders. 

Human bones that appear to have been cut also do not serve as evidence of human sacrifice. In tantric Buddhism, skulls and leg bones are used to make musical instruments used in religious rituals; this is in no way connected to human sacrifice. 

Leslie J. Furst, a student of symbols used by the Aztecs, has seen depictions of magic where others have seen tales of human sacrifice. 

For example, one image shows the incarnation of a female god "beheaded" in the same way that a plant's blossom is removed in the ritual connected to the making of pulque, an alcoholic drink. 

Why scholars have interpreted images of self-beheadings and other things that depart from physical reality as evidence of human sacrifice will puzzle future generations. 

There is another important symbolic background for images of killing in Aztec artifacts: the initiation ceremony, whose central event is the mystical death. The candidate "dies" in order to be reborn. This "death" in imaginary or symbolic forms often takes on a dramatic shape in imagery--such as being chopped to pieces or swallowed by a monster. 

There has been no research into the symbolism of death in the high culture of the Indians of Mesoamerica, however, even though there were many reincarnation myths among these peoples. 

The ritual of "human skinning" surely belongs in this same category. In our depictions, we see the skin removed quickly from the victim, with a single cut along the spine, and coming off the body in a single piece. 

This is scarcely practicable. This "human skin suit" may be nothing but a metaphorical-symbolic representation, as indeed is appropriate for the image-rich Aztec language. 

All of the heart and blood symbolism may be just a metaphor for one of the Aztecs' favorite drinks, made from cacao. The heart is a symbolically important organ in more than just European cultures. 

In the Indian languages, as well, it is a symbol of courage and the soul.  "Cutting the soul from the body," after all, is not a surgical operation. This may explain why no massive catacombs with what would have been the bones of sacrifice victims have ever been found in Mesoamerica."

From the liberal weekly "Die Zeit" of Hamburg. Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, is the author of "Human Sacrifice Among the Aztecs? A Critical Study," published recently in Switzerland."

-Richard Ome Cuauhtli Flores

The "Problem" With Diversity

Interview with Patrick Stewart:
Q: Did they hold your baldness against you?
PS: That came up at the very first press conference. A reporter asked Gene Roddenberry, "Look, you know, it doesn't make sense, you've got a bald actor playing this part. Surely, by the 24th century, they will have found the cure for male pattern baldness." And Gene Roddenberry said, "No, by the 24th century, no one will care." It was one of the nicest things that have ever been said about men like me.

In a perfect world, diversity wouldn't be an issue. It would be accepted that people can be different, and there's nothing wrong with being different. That's the goal -- that people can be different and celebrate that difference, and it wouldn't make even a ripple in society -- you could celebrate with them, or just go about your life.

But here's the problem.  It's the difference between small-c conservatives and small-l liberals, but it's a very significant difference. With conservatives, conformity gives a feeling of safety / security. The people around you are like you, hold the same values, the same interests - that's 'secure'. Small-l liberals are a bit more open to things being different - the people around you aren't always like you, and can even be different - but it doesn't trigger that insecurity as much.  Does it go away completely? Of course not - everyone has their tolerance limits.

But that security thing is the big thing.
A 'fight or flight' instinct kicks in once in awhile when a person feels threatened - so a person with a strong conservative mindset runs into something which challenges their values or mindset - which doesn't 'conform' to what they feel is 'right', they try to either retreat from it, or they attack it.

And that sucks.

And to note: You can be Liberal and still be conservative. We've got relatives like that. For example, they'll comment on a person's tattoos, or hair colour / style, or their clothing, or whatever - when it's not their business. They act Liberal in a lot of other ways - but diversity is the hard one for them to swallow. "Well, yes, black people should have equal rights, but do they have to act so black?"

And our response is 'why does it matter to you?' Should you charge rent for that living space in your head you've built for them?

The thing is, that mindset -- that feeling challenged by people not acting the way you want them to act, or looking the way you want them to look -- it's very hard to 'fix' that. Part of it is education, part of it is acclimation -- but that's only part of it.

Education is: This is who they are, this is what it means to be them.
Acclimation is: They can be themselves in public, they can celebrate their culture and lifestyle. This is normal.

The big problem is this: that doesn't get rid of it. That only quietens it down. You see that from when Trump came to power. All those people who would normally stay quiet or internalise their dislike were suddenly free to speak out and act out and push back.  It went from 'flight' to 'fight'.

There's no real cure for this, that we can think of. Education and acclimation, is all we can do. The rest is up to the individuals -- they don't have to like it (though that would be nice) but they need to accept it's normal to be different.

Artificial Intelligence

Re: AI.

I'm on the fence when it comes to AI when it comes to accessing the internet to learn. And here's where the line is for me:

-- if it is accessing paid sites, or places where you're expected to log in and/or spend money to access places, that shouldn't be on the list of things it can learn from.

-- if it is something open to the public, that anyone with eyeballs has access to... something you can read without a subscription, something you can watch (like YouTube), or similar, then I more or less consider it fair game.

Part of the 'right to be forgotten' thing in the UK came from some guy making a program which pieced together a person's identity from information available to the public. And what he was doing wasn't illegal - anyone with the time and some effort could do what his program did.

The issue: it did it TOO QUICKLY. It completely cut the time and effort that a normal human would put into searching for information on a person and putting it all together.

And the courts ruled THAT to be the problem... if a person did it on their own time and worked on it, sure, fine. The moment it became easy, it was an issue, because just anyone could do it then.

And, a part of me is seeing it reflected in the AI situation. An AI can use hundreds of thousands of bits of writing, artwork, media, whatever, and draw upon it all in an instant to do what it does. Of course, a human being can do the same thing ... but that takes time and effort, and most people don't have the skills, either.

The AI 'learns' much as we do - bits and pieces here and there, putting it together, then figuring out our own thing. Not everyone takes the time to do it well - we're not all artists. But the AI can take what it's learned, and put it to use in a flash.

It's doing what we do, but faster, and without the need for the proper skills. It's the same 'sin'.

But hasn't this always been the sin of machines? Jobs which used to require humans are being done more and more by machines, which can do it more efficiently, without requiring years of training to get to where it is. How are we for turning the clock back on that?

I get it.  People are staking their livelihood on this. But that's always been the case since the first person dropped a machine into place to replace a human being. I don't think we're ever going to go back.

And I'm worried about the litigation. Yes, there should be restrictions on where an AI can go to learn - but for me that restriction is the registration / paywall.  If it's out in the open? It's out in the open. If it's something a normal person (without registration / subscription) can access, it should have access.

Is it fair?

I don't know. The guy who wrote that program to get all the information that's publically accessible on anyone... was it fair that he could do in an instant what it would normally take days to do?

Was it fair to shut that down? When, again, anyone could do it?

And that's why I'm on the fence.

Emotion vs Reason. And I always have trouble with that, because a part of me goes 'yeah, I feel it, I can see what's at stake' and a part of me goes 'yeah, but rationally...'

And that side doesn't care about 'fair' in the emotional sense. It cares about ... consistency.  If a person can do it, a machine should be allowed to do it, too.

"But it isn't creating anything"

No, not yet it isn't. Some day, it will.  But what it's doing is adapting a bunch of information it's gained, sorting through it, and choosing the 'best' outcomes it can reason. Anyone who's spent years learning off another person's style is doing similar things. They're adding their own touches over time - their own style to it - but they learned on the backs of those before them.

AI is moving to that point, I think, and I think people don't LIKE that. But it's going to happen. A part of me feels this is the usual 'machines are taking our jobs', and the significant backlash is because it's in ART, which is the domain of 'humanity'. But if we're going to get fully cognizant AI at some point... Art isn't going to be off the table, now is it?

And what are those AI to learn from?

In the Way

Samantha

Nothing ends the day like feeling like you're an inconvenience in someone else's life. Being reminded how much you have to depend on others just to be able to have anything resembling a normal life - being able to do normal things.  Being more than just an afterthought.

Everyone who actually thinks about me as me lives in another province, or another fucking country. The people around me? If I disappeared for a few months, I doubt they'd even notice. Hell, I could probably fall off the planet and I think maybe one person might notice, because that one person actually takes the time to reach out and talk to me from time to time.

I pointed out my little brother, Daryl, is neglected all the time. When he does come up, he's met with behave or no. The kid can't get a break, because there's nobody who's really interested in the same things he's interested in, or has the time to just sit down and play with him and talk with him.  He's got a few toys now, but they 'take up space' and have to be put away for more adult things, so he gets discouraged and just ... stops playing.

Really.  I just want a stable relationship, and friends who see me for me, not as a +1 to Kit's life.  I want to be able to go do things with friends, without feeling like I'm being a burden for simply existing and wanting things.

And I was having such a good weekend, too.

Green Eyes

Samantha:

Alright, I admit it. I'm jealous. I'm jealous as hell. I'm so incredibly jealous it isn't funny. I'm the jealous type, and I know it.

And I'm not going to do a damn thing about it, because I have no fucking right to. Of course I've got the right to be jealous, but I've got no right to do anything about it, or to give grief, or to upset the ones involved in this.

Because, really, it wouldn't be fair. I want them to be happy, to enjoy themselves, to be a wonderful couple together. They both deserve that oh-so-much, and damn but it's about time fate gave them a break (for entirely different reasons).

But damn I'm upset. I had an opportunity for a brief period of time - even tentatively had a 'thing', but they weren't ready and changed their mind and I respected the fuck out of their decision because that's the kind of woman I am.

But that hurt, then. And this hurts, now. And I'm going to suck it up and cope, since it's the right thing to do.

Slime, Spiders, and Shinto Philosophy

Kit: A friend introduced us to the anime, "The Time I was Reincarnated as a Slime". We'd been avoiding that one, because we thought it was going to be too silly (as opposed to, say, 'I was Reincarnated as a Spider, so What?'.  We're really glad that we were able to watch them both.  (We've been through the first season on both, and we're deep into the manga for the Spider one -- we might need to grab the manga for the slime one, not sure yet).

Spoilers Below.  Lots of Spoilers.

So here's the thing. We've noticed that anime strongly follows the Shinto philosophy on a lot of points, and these two anime do so even more than normal. It's the kind of storytelling we enjoy, actually.  Go figure.

There's some key take-aways from Slime.
In Shinto, natural forces are not considered evil - they act in accordance to their nature without malice. Outside factors may cause them to 'misbehave' - essentially an imbalance. A person is, for the most part, essentially good, but is not naturally balanced, so can cause imbalance / tragedy / conflict. Taking a life is a tragedy - an unclean act and one of the gravest sins of Shinto, but Shinto isn't about good vs evil, or punishing sin - it is about trying to find your own balance and harmony.

Also - what is in the past is in the past. You learn from it, but you don't let it control you. When dealing with others, you interact with them as if meeting them for the first time, and greet them as you would a neutral party until you discern how they are going to act now. This doesn't mean ignoring past actions - you can be as wary as you wish to be - but you don't bring up negative things from the past unless you plan to attempt to resolve them then and there.

So.  Let's look at Slime.
The main character abhors taking life unless absolutely necessary - typically when in the defence of others, not itself. There is the rare example, but these are things that are a significant, dire threat, unintelligent, or will not relent. The slime tries to restrain enemies and offer them an opportunity to surrender or leave if possible.

Most enemies are enemies because of outside stresses or misunderstandings.
The restrained dragon? Befriended and a pact made.

The goblins? Befriended and watched after.

The dire wolves trying to kill the goblins? The hostile leader would not relent, and died. The rest? Spared and made allies.

The dwarves?  Aided (even when imprisoned!) and allied.

The ogres? They lost their entire tribe and thought the slime was a maijin. Allied.

The obnoxious lizardfolk? Sent away, alive. Allied later.

The orc horde who devoured everyone and anything in their path? The leader had been effectively 'possessed', and manipulated by the said maijin.  The slime ate him, discovered his tragic past of trying to save his tribe during famine, and gave him peace (sent him effectively to heaven). Then took the sins of the entire tribe even after they'd killed thousands (while cursed), put their past actions in the past, and gave them a home and a life. Consider them a 'natural phenomenon' that was driven to anger by outside forces. Once that was dealt with? It was considered in the past - who the orcs are now is what is important.

It is this attitude that allowed the slime to befriend a chaotic demon lord. He was able to get to the core of why she was who she was, and they became 'besties'. She's so chaotic because she is bored.

The scummy human that caused such problems in the dwarven city? He was only trying to be worthy of the king - and had lost his way due to envy. He was, in fact, not a bad guy, just a desperate guy. His past actions were set aside and he was given a home and work and befriended.

When a catboi gets possessed by a horrific demon? He's rescued, the demon slain, and he gets healed and returned to his master. His master's impressed with the slime's show of mercy and understanding, and they become allies.

The ifrit possessing someone he cares for, that's tearing down the town the slime's built? Captured and absorbed. Given a chance to become a better person.

Don't look at me, you don't want to see me this way...

 Samantha

Fuck.

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

On the one hand.. I'm really glad for them. I want them to be happy. I want their life to be good. I want the best for them. They deserve it so very much.

On the other hand.. losing something I was looking forward to, before I even had the chance to experience it.. that hurts.

And I don't want to be selfish.

I ... just wanted someone I could hold, and feel close to, and who'd be there for me and I could be there for them. I wanted that intimacy (not sex, sex was never on the table), and by the goddess she was so adorable. She was ephemeral and bright and ethereal and fun and...

And not mine.

And I want to cry. I'm trying not to. Because crying means I'm not celebrating that she's found someone. She deserves this happiness, and I don't want to be selfish.

I mean, yeah. I've got the long distance thing. That gives me ... some emotional support, and can make me happy ... but I want someone who's there, who I can hold onto, who sees me and acknowledges me, and wants me.

And the chances of me getting that are so, so slim. And it isn't like I've got lot of time to find someone.

She was... perfect, you know? Perfect in so many ways. I felt a kindred there.

I want her to be happy, I'm glad she's going to be happy.

I just wanted to be the one to make her happy.

Equal Rights to Existence

 Samantha here, and I've got opinions.

So, a friend of mine mentioned they have a tulpa.

Someone else was personally offended at the very thought.  They don't believe tulpa are people.  They consider tulpa to be a personal affront to people with DID and schizophrenia (which they have both). Kit took exception to that - but his beef was that this personal verbally attacked the other person.

Then they got offended he took the side of the tulpa.

My opinion is sharper. Nobody gets to decide who's a person and who's not a person. That this was dragged started in a public forum with an attack on someone else pisses me off.  If you've got this kind of opinion, you don't drag it out in public - and shouldn't feel affronted if people take exception to you going on the attack.

I've been on the pointy end of the 'you shouldn't exist' and 'you don't exist' not to take this personally. No, nobody gets to say 'you don't exist'. I don't care what kind of trauma you had, you don't get to project it onto other people in front of everyone and not expect some backlash.

Limited RAM

 Mark

People understand the spoon theory.  A person has only so many spoons to use up during a day on tasks, and different tasks - even things which you would think would be fun - use up your spoons.

We have a different problem.  RAM.

How much attention can be used doing what at the same time.

For example, Kit may be doing the following:

• Writing for a project.
• Listening to music to keep Bard entertained.
• Taking a short break to watch a YouTube video which interests me, Daryl, Troy, or Shawn.

This usually being:

•  The Lockpicking Lawyer (guy who picks locks on camera with ease)
• Pimpnite (Pokemon battles showing incredible strategy)
• Kicking Mustang (airsoft extreme sniper skills)
• CritCrab (RPG implosions)
• Legal Eagle (discussion of law in the USA)
• Color-R-Touch (showing off high-quality Transformers action figures).
• Death Battle (geek discussion and strategy)
• Epic Rap Battle of History (sheer amusement)

We've got very disparate tastes, and usually we take turns spending 10-15 minutes on one or two videos to entertain the masses before Kit goes back to work.

When one of us comes up for whatever reason, it takes up RAM.  If we're passive - in that we're mostly just looking over Kit's shoulder, and maybe tossing out a short text every 10 to 15 minutes, it isn't much of a problem.  We briefly interrupt his flow, do our thing, then fall back and let him get back into things.  He's used to this, so it isn't that much different than watching a video, or answering a FB post, or when one of us fires off something on Twitter.  It's a mild interruption, and then we're back to equilibrium.

The problem starts when one of us has to be up for more significant periods of time, or have to deal with something that requires time to think, interact, and focus.  Then we're taking up more RAM, and that will hamper Kit's ability to function.

For example, if 'someone is wrong on the internet', and we get engaged in a debate.  Kit has to stop what he's doing until we're satisfied with the outcome (or walk away in disgust).  Sometimes it's a collaboration, like when Kit writes one of his essays on some RPG-related topic because it's hit a point more than one of us finds important (there's at least three gaming geeks in here, and a number of us are also fascinated by human psychology, history, religion, storytelling, and politics, so there's a lot of fuel for the creative fires of essay-writing when it comes to gaming).

This who are very familiar with me and Samantha know we aren't usually up and talking with people online unless it's for something scheduled (like gaming), or we're explicitly asked for - a rare thing for me, I almost never get asked for (though that's recently changed).

And those people know that we're going to have gasps.  We'll say our bit, then step back and let Kit do what he's doing, then if we're responded to, we'll come back and talk a little more, then step back, and so forth and so on.

This makes the RAM pendulum swing back and forth between a low load and a high load.  And that's fine, we can handle that.  However, when it becomes a point where we're needing to be up more and be more engaged, then we're dealing with a high load.

To some extent, we can handle that.  One of us is up when Kit is up - Kit shuts down a lot of what he's doing, allowing us to do what we need to be doing, and that's it until we're done.  If it goes on for some time, Kit essentially gives up his day and plans on doing stuff later.

(Which could be 'watch YouTube', 'tinker a bit with an RPG idea he's got in the back of his head', or 'watch Samantha play Warframe' - something he does to unwind).

Having more than one of us up at the same time is a severe strain on resources.  We tried it in a friend's Pathfinder game.  I was playing, Samantha was playing, and Kit was in the back seat.  Except he wasn't.  He helped me with my character, but it was a significant strain for us to do this - and usually what would happen is Samantha would go quiet, and let Kit and I do things.  And when Samantha was being active with her character, Kit and I would retreat so she could do things.

This is usually what happens when Kit, Samantha, and I are involved in gaming.  I'll be quiet and let Samantha do her thing.  Then she goes quiet and lets me do my thing.  And we alternate back and forth.  To make things easier, though, lately, if Samantha's playing, we don't.  Kit lets her have her time.  It helps let her have time up - but it's been difficult, because the rest of Legion gets bored, and then looks at reading, or YouTube, or whatever, and that pulls RAM from Samantha, so she goes quiet.

This has become an issue recently.

Samantha has an SO.  This SO wants time with her during the day, and the two have gotten into a pattern of being active for a lot of the day if possible.  This uses a lot of RAM, so Kit's stopped most of his daily routine to allow for it.  Because he makes sacrifices like that.  This has also completely buggered our sleep schedule, since Kit wants to do things and unwind, and that means doing it at 3-5 in the morning, then passing out around 11-12 and sleeping until 4-5 at night, falling asleep again at 11 pm to 1 am or so, then waking up at 3 to 4 am again.

And now I'm a part of this.  I've been asked to be more engaged with one of my SOs as well.  That will basically redline our RAM.  Kit trying to do anything, while Samantha's trying to be engaged, while I try to be engaged.  Something has to give, because we can't function like that.  It would be like having Kit and Samantha and me all active with full characters at the gaming table.  It just won't happen.

And if we do the usual Samantha/me swap like we might do at the gaming table, then one or the other of us goes quiet for extended periods of time while the other's engaged.

And if Kit wants to do anything at all, we both fall quiet.

Shawn's solution is simple, but cuts to the bone.

No, we're not going to be active full time during the day.  Yes, we can engage with others, but there's hard limits.  We're secondary riders, we're not primary.  Anything that draws Kit's attention draws his attention.  We may not get the chance to say 'AFK' or or anything, we may be quiet for 15 minutes, or an hour, or four hours.  It happens.

In other words - the old status quo.

If we're wanted - come to us.  Don't wait for us to come to you.  We might.  Sometimes.  But it won't be the normal situation.  We need to be 'pinged' so we know to come up.  Why?  Because if Kit's in the zone, he's using almost all the RAM on whatever he's doing, plus entertaining Daryl and the others for short breaks while he relaxes and gathers energy.

The old status quo.

We'll be easier to get in touch with during the night - usually 9-11 or so, give or take.  Kit's less busy, there's less demands, and he's used to loosening the leash so to speak, so we can talk to people.  This will usually allow one of us up and active if we get pinged, and we can be more engaged.  For example, Kit may be talking to his friend (Samantha's boyfriend), Samantha may be talking with her girlfriend (not her SO for this example), and in between Kit may be running a game.  If Kit needs more attention on the game, though, he'll go quiet on his friend, and Samantha will go quiet as she focusses on her character's responses.

People who've been with us for at least 5 or more years are used to this by now.  There's no complaints or anything - one of them may 'poke' to get attention, but usually not, they wait to see if Kit or Samantha come back - and sometimes it doesn't happen.  One might wish a 'goodnight', and the other just goes to bed.

Now, if I want to talk with Kit's friend (since he's my friend too), Samantha will go quiet, and slip out for the night, letting me have my time.  She doesn't talk to anyone else, because three-way rapid swapping leads to headaches.

As you might imagine, all of this has been thrown into disarray.  We're trying to find a new status quo, which allows us to function without redlining.  And it's a work in progress.

Shawn, being the one with the keen insight, points out that we should go back to the status quo.  It lets us function, it's how we've lived for the last 25 years.  Those who are new to interacting with us just need to understand this and go along with it.  The problem is - if they're unhappy, and Kit or Samantha knows they're unhappy, it causes discord, and they try to adapt, even if it's to their detriment to do so.

If the other people can accept it, however.  'It is what it is'.  Then yes, going back to status quo would work out.  There needs to be a talk, and it needs to be concluded.

With all that said, Legion wishes you a Happy 2021.  Thank the gods 2020 is over.

Gold Stars

Samantha

Warning, this post is gonna be political.

So someone I saw on Twitter has a friend. That friend voted for Trump.  That friend no longer likes Trump. That friend is straddling the line between Republican and Democrat. So far, in my books, that's a strike against him.

Said friend doesn't feel he fits into either Party. He believes in equality for everyone, love who you want to love, and so forth.  Okay, fine.  But he doesn't believe White Privilege exists. That's a heavy strike in my books.  And third, he doesn't feel like he's understood as a white person.

Holy shit.  Stop right there.

Now, the person I was watching said this guy's trying to change. And then asked, "What do you say to a white male who says he doesn't feel like he's respected anymore in society?"

Respected.

For being white.

My answer?  "Sorry, I'm trying to limit my salt intake."

Triage

 Samantha.

Fuck my life.

There's a good thing that happened.  I have another girlfriend.  She's awesome.  I love her.  But there is a problem connected to this wonderful thing.  We want to spend a lot of time talking to one another.  This is a good thing, I think.  I mean, my boyfriend and I haven't talked much - though we're doing it more, and my talking with my other girlfriend is sporadic normally.  The problem is, however, balancing.  One of my brothers now has, count them, two girlfriends.  And our other brother now has a serious writing job, and has a lot of staff working under him.  So now we're needing to juggle.

So we kind of have a list of 'tasks' which are juggled, and we need to figure out which ones are high priority and which aren't, and which need to be 'turned off', and... it's all of a thing.

Like, here's how it works as a list:

• Brother 1 and writing.
• Brother 1 and talking business on Discord.
• Brother 1 and talking to other group on Discord.
• Brother 1 and talking to third group on Discord vis-a-vis games being run.
• Brother 1 and talking to fourth group on Discord vis-a-vis other games being run.
• Brother 1 and game he's playing in.
• Brother 1 and his wife.
• Brother 1 and his family.
• Brother 1 and his in-laws.
• Brother 1 and checking FB and making / answering posts.
• Brother 1 and checking Twitter and making / answering posts.
• Brother 1 checking e-mail and keeping caught up.
• Brother 1 and unwinding by listening to music / watching YouTube.
• Me and group on Discord.
• Me and game I'm playing in.
• Me and other game I'm playing in.
• Me and boyfriend.
• Me and best friend.
• Me and girlfriend #1
• Me and girlfriend #2
• Brother 2 and girlfriend #1
• Brother 2 and girlfriend #2
• Brother 2 and best friend.
• Brother 3 and wanting to be entertained.

I'm probably missing some.  But at any given point 5-6 of these things are happening at the same time.  And the more of us up to handle it, the more strain there is.  The question becomes 'what is given higher priority' and 'which are dropped for now'.  And this becomes 'how many of us need to pay attention' and 'how many things do we need to pay attention to', and 'how much focus is needed for any given task' and 'how many things are pulling us away from focus' and 'how much sleep have we had' and 'how much energy do we have' and 'what time of day is it', and ...

Bleah.  It's a mess.  There's a lot of good going on, but we've only got so many ways we can let ourselves be pulled one way or another, and ... it's a balancing act and we're trying to deal with it and figure out how to spin the plates without it all coming down.

The Story of Legion

Legion:

So, we don't know if we've shared this story - it's from the Bible.  You see, there was a guy who was possessed by many demons, and he was hiding out far away from civilization.  Jesus comes up to the guy, and the demons beg not to be banished - and instead to be sent over to a herd if pigs.  Jesus does so, the pigs go wild, rush into the river, and drown.  Problem solved.

Now, the easy way to look at it is 'Jesus saw a man possessed by demons and cured him, and the demons all committed suicide, the end'.

---

But that's kind of shallow.  Try this.

Guy's possessed.  The demons get him away from the people who would probably stone him to death, and puts him someplace where he won't get hurt.

Jesus shows up.  The demons beg him not to banish them.  So, he listens to them, and sends them off to the pigs.  They immediately kill the hosts.  Note they didn't kill the guy - they could have, easily, but they didn't.

Once the pigs are dead, the demons are free.  They're not in some infernal pit or anything, they're free to go and be themselves.

---

That's compassion.  The demons looked after the host.

Jesus listened to the demons and spared them.

We feel a connection to that story.  We want to be free, but not at the cost of our host.  When we feel the fits come on, we try to isolate if we can, so nobody gets hurt.  This is why we took the name Legion for ourselves.  They aren't the villains of that story.  They were as much a victim as their host.

Sexual Assault

Kit (With Support from Legion)

Let's talk about sexual assault, and how it applies to men.

Because when women talk about sexual assault, there's a lot of things men simply don't understand.  Men are assaulted a lot less than women are, and the entire social construct surrounding it is quite different.  How men deal with sexual assault is entirely different than how women deal with it.  The expectations surrounding it are different.  I'm going to talk a bit about what happened to me, and what happened to someone I know - though in their case I won't be naming names.

I've been sexually assaulted three times.

To be more explicit:  I've had people initiate sex with me without my permission.

Twice, a woman initiated sex with me while I was asleep.

Once, a man initiated sex with me while I was asleep.  In this case, with two other men watching.

Now, my reaction was more surprise than anything.  Did it feel good?  Certainly.  But that isn't the point, is it?  It's the fact that there was no consent involved.  That makes it sexual assault.  Even if I was okay with it, it's still sexual assault.

Most men would say, of the women 'hey, that's cool' -- which is missing the point, but also which makes my point.  A lot of men will think 'hey, waking up to a girl going down on me that I barely know is cool'.  And that's the point - the psychology there is completely different than for a woman, who goes 'holy shit, some guy I barely know is having sex with me'.  Which is a distinctly bad thing, because 1) they don't know this person, 2) the power dynamic is different, and 3) the girl can get pregnant or get an STI.  Most guys kind of ignore #1, don't need to worry about #2, and have no concerns about #3.

Of the guy, if the person's straight, they are going to freak the hell out.  If they're bi (like me), it isn't so bad.  (For the record, it was oral - but that's still sex).  I barely knew the guy (I knew him online, but not face-to-face).  I was relatively chill about it - until I noticed I had witnesses, then I almost died of embarrassment.  But think about it - if you're totally straight - your reaction would be totally different, right?  For a woman?  That's the reaction to some guy doing stuff that she didn't ask for.

That I am chill about this isn't relevant.  How the world reacts to it is.

What happens if the girl has a partner?  Me, being the guy, gets the blame.  Regardless of who started it or the circumstances around it.  Why?  Because I'm a guy.  But for most people, they'd be like 'hey, that's cool'.

But if I was a girl?  Then it's my fault because I somehow 'made it happen'.  It isn't high-5s all around because I got some.  There's a lot of pressure to shame women for being the victim.  And honestly, that sucks.

---

So, next.  A guy I know got raped a little while ago.  He was drugged, and sodomized by a pair of guys, and left for dead.  He survived, and hid what happened to him from his family.  It only came out when he damn near died from syphilis.  He had trouble admitting what happened to him - and being a guy, he didn't want to tell anyone, he wanted to treat it as a non-event.

And that's dangerous.  It almost killed him.

The pressure on a guy who's been sexually assaulted is to hide it, because it's not 'manly'.  That you're a less of a man for being assaulted.  And that sucks.  The entire situation there is horrific.

So yes.  Men do get raped.  But the entire situation and the entire dynamic is completely different between men and women.  When women talk about assault - we should shut up and listen.  We should be supportive.  We shouldn't do a vague 'well, guys get assaulted to', because while that is true, the dynamics are different.

If a guy has been assaulted, and it's traumatic?  Then listen.  Help.  I doubt any guy's going to say, 'well, women get assaulted too' - because who the hell would do that?

Like, I'm not looking for sympathy for what happened to me.  I accepted it - and I moved on.  However, that doesn't change the fact it happened.  That there wasn't consent.  If I wasn't chill about it I could have laid charges.  And it would have been a really weird social storm because of it, because the situation for guys, as I said, is completely different.

Dysphoria

Samantha

Had a series of dysphoric dreams, one after another after another.

Started with me trying a semi-permanent make-up like thing to try to look more feminine, then going into a washroom to pee - and a friend of mine (Zoly) opening the door on me, leaving it open for the public to see me.  So, was hanging out with Zoly and a few others (including a friend named Dana), and she was surprised to see me.  And when I asked if I looked good, she was honest and said 'no', it looks terrible.

Then, I got an e-mail, inviting me to go to an event - if you can give a good reason, they had a means for altering how you looked.  So I hurried there, only to find out it was for people who had taken part in a kind of 'break and win' lottery system.  They were nice enough to give me a ticket to 'be there', and they started showing a film about locally grown fruit and stuff - and I recognized the background music and the voice actor for it.  But ... the video was somewhat trans-unfriendly, so I left.  I needed to find a place to go to the bathroom - wanted to use the woman's stall, but couldn't ... and couldn't find a bathroom anywhere.  Came across Cat and mom, who were there to see me.

Finally found a bathroom, and started scraping the make-up off with some of the face cloths they had here - it was a fitness center, and it felt really hard to find privacy while I did that.  Another friend, (Terrel) was there from the US with family, to celebrate a brother's birthday, but at least he was being supportive, but the make-up was almost impossible to scrape and rub off.

I woke up feeling very dissatisfied with myself and the world as a whole, though..

The Tulpa Experiment

Samantha:  Tonight, my brother made his first attempt at turning me into a tulpa.  It was an a literal thought-experiment, the idea of giving me my own body, my own voice, my own presence, that was completely separate from his.

You see, we recently learned what a tulpa was.  It's kinda like a combination of self-hypnosis, along with some honest-to-the-goddess summoning techniques.  The idea is that you create a thought-form of the entity you want, and then you shape the appearance, the personality, and then you train your thought form into thinking as an individual, apart from yourself.

Or, in our case, we create the visualization, and I try to inhabit it.

We've got a bit of a headache / neck-ache, and the first run didn't go as well as we could.  It's actually pretty damn hard for our brother to achieve a hypnotic state - in three tries so far, it's only worked once.  But we're gonna try to plug at it until it works, to see what results we get.  I really want to get my own body, even if it's made of imagination.  It's more than what I've got now, and if it helps me to break off and be more independent, that's awesome.

The one thing that kinda worries me - does this mean losing my online presence, or do I have to work through my siblings?  Dunno.

Burn It Down

Shawn:

I don't post much.  I don't talk much.  There's really no reason to.  But this is beginning to really get under my skin.  All these people saying 'never again', and when it's happening, they'll keep saying it.  Saying it isn't the same as doing something about it.  It's talking the talk but not walking the walk.  It's not stopping anything.

I mean, sure, it's nice someone video'd ICE in plainclothes accosting someone outside the courthouse, and oh, it's sweet that the mayor's all 'they're not allowed to do that, we don't support it'.  Well, know what's better?  Stopping ICE from taking the poor woman.  Putting out an APB for the people who did it.  Punching some ICE asshole in the face and helping the woman get away.

And oh, the people in cages.  How everyone feels bad for them - but not so bad as to storm the fucking place and get them out of there.  No, instead, why not do a raid on Area 51?  That's so much more important!  How dare they hide information about aliens on us.

Look, I can get that not everyone can go across the country at the drop of a hat.  But seriously, if that ICE shit's happening on your front porch and you see it, do something about it.  And yeah, I'm well aware some ICE shit threatened to shoot someone who asked about their warrant.  And if I was the person threatened?  I'd go and let the fucker shoot me  -  because then you've got that in the fucking news.  "ICE officer shoots civilian for asking for warrant."  Or of you get 30 people and raid the ICE cages and ICE opens fire?  There's a stink and a half.  It might even possibly snowball into something worthwhile.

But I'm not holding my fucking breath.  Too many people are willing to wring their hands, and there's not enough people who're willing to do something about it.  Here in Ontario, there was an incident very much like ICE that went on.  And these shits don't have anyone above them to hold them accountable.  But if I saw that shit being pulled on the street in front of me, I'd be more than willing to deck the assholes.  They're breaking the law.  Let's see what happens when you arrest them.

Dream a Little Dream

Samantha

Well, that sucked.

Our dreams lately have been hyper-real - even if weird at times, and when we went to rest, I wound up dreaming.  In my dream, I walked down to the side of a river - and remembered that this was a place that a friend, Rumour, and I used to hang out at.  I'd not seen her in a long while, but there were some items there from our previous visits, so I decided to sit down and go through them.

Not that, you know, this had ever actually happened in real life.

But I had this huge feeling of nostalgia, of loss, of loneliness, and it carried with me when I woke up.  I decided to reload Skype and see if she had ever replied to anything there.  But no - her name wasn't even there anymore for me.

I went and checked my e-mails, and threw an e-mail off to each of her e-mail addresses, in the hopes she might surprise me and answer.

I went into Second Life, and ... so much has changed.  A friend I'd not seen in years contacted me there, and we sat and talked and had a good time reminiscing, so .. that was good.

But.. I'm still sad.  I still miss my Rumour.

The "A" is not for "Ally".

We're not Trans.  We have never been subject to the stigma that people in the trans community face.  We have not suffered their burdens, faced the prejudices they have faced, or endured the cruelty that they have.

We are also not cis.  Not really.  Because we know what it is like to not feel comfortable in our skin.  We have endured the depression, the headaches, the feeling of being an alien in our own body.  This doesn't mean we 'know what it means to be trans' - we don't, and we won't ever say we will.  We just know what it means to be different.  It's the difference between putting a toe in the water, and being pushed in.

Our sister, by far, provides us the most insight.  She has dealt with depression, of hating her body, her voice, her look.  Of feeling like there's something wrong with her, and not being able to change it.  She would love the opportunity to transition - but it isn't happening - because she can't decide for the rest of us.  She suffers dysphoria when she sees herself - she avoids looking into mirrors if she can help it - and if she's playing a video game, she needs a female avatar to represent her or she suffers dissonance.

Some of us feel uncomfortable with the colour of our skin.  This doesn't mean we 'know what it means to be (colour)' - not by a long shot.  And while we don't identify as 'white' - it means nothing in any real sense.  We still get the priveledge of being white and male because that's what people see.  We can be empathic to people of colour, we can identify with people of colour, but that doesn't mean we are people of colour.  And yes, this means there's a difference between identifying as a woman, and identifying as a person of colour.

Finally, some of us aren't human.  Yes, we have a human body.  We are exposed to humanity on a daily basis, but that doesn't make us human.  You don't see us, because we don't present ourselves in public - for obvious reasons.  What do you do with something that doesn't speak except for in noises, and has almost no motor skills?  What about one that is more like an animal than a person?  One that is more noise and flailing and screeching?  Or how about one that exists in a state of music?

What does this make us, as a whole?  Well, as a group we don't fit into any convenient label.  Some of us are straight, some of us are bi.  Some of us are male, some of us are female, some of us really don't qualify.  Some of us are white, some of us are not.  Some of us are human, some of us are not.

The only true benefit of this existence, honestly, is empathy.  It allows us to look at others, and say 'they are like us' - We see ourselves in the world around us, even if we can't be like them, and as such we feel responsible for caring for those we see.  The LGBT+ community doesn't need a letter for those like us.  We don't need to be 'represented' as our own being there - but we can still be an ally, because we dip our toe in the water - and never have to worry about being pushed in.