#-that they should be treated differently because of inherent capability or lack thereof.

[rocaillefox]

can people please stop turning furry worlds into fantastical racism/making up furry stereotypes. i do not want to read 'all cats are troublemakers. all bears are police. all rabbits are caregivers.' like, peoples features and bodies do not signify anything about personality, morality, political stance, etc. and the bioessentialism inherent to that concept absolutely reeks. this is not a politically neutral thing jsjfbvj

[mild-lunacy]

YA and the Bane of Adulthood

On the one hand, there's the recent post in reply to Maggie Stiefvater, with the idea that YA as a genre is changing. Here, the idea of 'adult' content and what it means is relatively broad. In the case of The Raven Cycle, it's mostly about the audience and how that audience alters the available content on the genre level in the long term. Some people have critiqued Six of Crows characters for being too adult in their thinking or abilities, but overall most readers don't seem to care about realism in fantasy YA, per se. So if Kaz talks like an adult and is improbably powerful as a major gang leader, it's more or less OK with both teenagers and adult readers. No, the critique of 'adult' readers or content goes three ways: as with the original blog post Stiefvater was responding to, one issue is the different needs and monetary resources teenagers have, and the way the industry focuses on adult interests and needs instead. A very valid point. With some YA books like Six of Crows, the problem becomes (at least potentially) the sexualization of Kaz, at least according to @krugerevengeinej. To be honest, though, online fandom doesn't get too excited unless it's a question of race representation and/or sexuality, though. When most people say certain YA books are 'too adult', they mean they're too sexual.

It's definitely awkward, isn't it? I'm not here to claim Sarah J. Maas' books are 'really' YA, and you could certainly argue they shouldn't be marketed as such, though it's hardly an issue unique to this one author or even initiated by her individually. Still, you wouldn't argue Aelin can be 'too sexualized' by adult readers, even though she's nineteen. She's having plenty of sex, after all. It's easier to talk about Kaz, because he's seventeen and sexually abstinent, so he seems more like a teen at first glance, though I'd question that. Both characters are old for their age and have experienced a lot of violence, taken care of themselves from a very young age and suffered extensive personal loss: stuff that is way out of the average teen's experience. It's pretty arguable that the Throne of Glass series is more adult than Six of Crows in any but the sexual content sense. Of course, that's what most people seem to care about, even if one reply to the @sleepingfancies SJM critique mentions that being interested in smut is normal for older teenagers. The idea is that this is the wrong kind, since smut for teens should be educational, I guess? Even though not much else about either series is really educational, in my opinion. And also it's still not properly classified as YA, which is possible but more than likely moot since it's a marketing strategy and not an inherent reflection of the subject matter involved.

Sex is always treated differently, though. It's somehow more important to be educational about sexual mores than other types of morality or ethics, which both Six of Crows and Throne of Glass consistently fail at. Kaz and Inej on the one hand, Aelin, Manon and Rowan on the other-- let's just say, do not do what they do. But no one's concerned with the authors glorifying armed robbery or assassination here. The most common source of fan concern with the changing YA market is about social justice or representation issues and the smut, like I said. Even if one has to twist the text quite a ways to make it queerbaiting, the logic goes that if we can imagine the subtext and 'symbolism', surely this is proof enough. For example, Manon loved battle, killing men and the taste of blood on her teeth, etc. Surely this means she didn't want to have sex with them, right? I mean, she wouldn't kill women unless they were Crochans... oh, wait. And of course, passionate friendship between men or women is only believable if it's hinting at a future romance. Not that any this excuses the lack of queer representation, by any means. I'm just saying, there's a difference between that and queerbaiting that overly enthusiastic fans may miss. Although I suppose that's just a separate issue and has nothing to do with adulthood or the lack thereof, honestly.

In general, I have observed that the protestations about unhealthy relationships happen no matter what, even in response to actual erotica and/or NC-17 fanfiction. It's just so neatly justified and 'obviously' relevant with the YA genre. It's extra ironic because Sarah J. Maas goes out of her way to portray an actual abusive relationship with her ACoMAF contrast between Rhys and Tamlin's behavior with Feyre. And of course, even if Rowan is Aelin's mate in the Throne of Glass books, she clearly remains super close to Dorian and Chaol, her earlier love interests. But it's easier to make fun of the educational value of the popular (and common) 'fated mates' trope and suppose it's somehow meant to disparage a girl's early relationships, or wonder if twelve-year olds should know about bodily fluids and dirty talking. In general, I think it all comes down to taking words out of context and purposely imagining an audience that doesn't exist. I mean, it seems like most twelve year-olds aren't even reading The Raven Cycle according to Stiefvater's poll, let alone the Throne of Glass books. But they *could*. They could also go looking beyond the YA shelves, as I myself did, but it's the principle of the thing, I suppose.

As a teen of thirteen and up, I read smutty romance novels, and it didn't harm me beyond exacerbating my existing tendency to idealize romantic love. I can't imagine the only thing that saved me from trauma is the silly euphemisms and lack of explicit reference to bodily fluids in those books, though I agree that individual teens are all different in terms of their readiness. Those who are ready will seek things out. Those who aren't, won't. People wouldn't enjoy a book with a multitude of adult themes and then suddenly get shocked and traumatized by Rhysand being a little too toppy and arrogant about flirting and sex, even though he's actually patient and caring with Feyre in many other ways. Older teenagers lack life experiences, but most are fully capable of reading and understanding such behavioral subtleties. Plus, teen boys in real life are certainly bigger assholes than Rhys and their talk is uglier and/or dirtier, any day of the week. And if these inexperienced or younger teen readers can't make sense of it, they're more likely to be confused or bored than to suddenly change their whole understanding of relationships to reflect this book they're suddenly reading. That takes both a broad trend and some corresponding experience in their real life, as well as a total lack of guidance from the adults in their life. Books aren't so dangerous that any exposure to the 'wrong' ideas is somehow tainting.

The bottom line is that books don't have the power to brainwash young people (or older people, for that matter). They are more likely to simply seem boring to those who aren't ready or interested in the 'adult' content. If there's some reason to keep reading, a book is certainly capable of stretching young minds and eliciting curiosity about all sorts of things, and that includes sexuality. Even if teens often think in black and white terms, good books can stretch their understanding. Reading a bit above one's understanding or experience level is something I'd recommend for that reason. Overall, though, both teens and adults are most likely to stick with what they know. People's fiction interests are essentially self-sorting, marketing strategies aside. That's *how* the genre is changing.

[beerrito]

yo, hey -- i want you to take every single one of those asks, all of them, all 50 of them, and i want a full report on Neicoi, chop chop

YOU CRAZY NUT. Ok, here goes a long fuckin’ thing on my drunk asshole.

1. How does your character think of their father? What do they hate and love about him? What influence - literal or imagined - did the father have?

She doesn’t really think much about him, because she never knew him. She has no respect for him because to her he was just some guy who came around and didn’t care enough to stay for her or her mother. Even though he did love her mother, he isn’t there now, so to Neicoi he’s scum. He’s had zero influence on her life.

2. Their mother? How do they think of her? What do they hate? Love? What influence - literal or imagined - did the mother have?

Though they disagree heavily on most things, Neicoi loves her mother dearly. She sees her when she can, and although a lot of the time they end up arguing (in other words, Neicoi arguing while her mother sits by peacefully), she secretly enjoys all the time they spend with each other, little as it may be. She admires how strong her mother is, though she’d never say it to her face. She takes that as an example of how she should be.

3. Brothers, sisters? Who do they like? Why? What do they despise about their siblings?

Neicoi has no siblings. At least, not that she knows of. There could be someone out there, a half sibling, but who knows?

4. What type of discipline was your character subjected to at home? Strict? Lenient?

While Neicoi’s mother wasn’t as strict as many of the other Gerudo women, Neicoi had a very strict upbringing by the rest of the tribe. She was trained since she was very young, and there was little room for error and no time for play.

5. Were they overprotected as a child? Sheltered?

Hardly. It’s a cruel world, so deal with it.

6. Did they feel rejection or affection as a child?

Her mother was certainly affectionate towards her, so there was no rejection there. However, she didn’t get along well with much of anyone else so she didn’t exactly get the same feeling from others.

7. What was the economic status of their family?

Neicoi’s mother is a higher-ranking individual, so they did well. Not that it would have mattered anyways. Thievery was always part of it. It wouldn’t have mattered if they were the lowest of the low, because she would have gotten what they needed.

8. How does your character feel about religion?

While she follows the same beliefs as the rest of her people, she hardly worships by any means. Neicoi prefers to pave her own path rather than pray to a goddess that may or may not answer. She’s the type to make a smartass remark to the sky as if speaking to someone up there.

9. What about political beliefs?

I’m so fucking brain dead right now I don’t even know how to answer this one right now.

10. Is your character street-smart, book-smart, intelligent, intellectual, slow-witted?

She’s street smart, and as far as all things battle and war-related you know she’s got it down. But as far as anything else goes she’s exceptionally dim-witted.

11. How do they see themselves: as smart, as intelligent, uneducated?

Neicoi thinks she’s the smartest cookie in the jar of course. Even though that’s far from the truth.

12. How does their education and intelligence – or lack thereof - reflect in their speech pattern, vocabulary, and pronunciations?

Perhaps her inherent need to insult everyone? Rofl–

13. Did they like school? Teachers? Schoolmates?

What little schooling she had she hated. She was always causing problems. Most of her time was taken up by training, which she loved.

14. Were they involved at school? Sports? Clubs? Debate? Were they unconnected?

Doesn’t really apply.

15. Did they graduate? High-School? College? Do they have a PHD? A GED?

N/A

16. What does your character do for a living? How do they see their profession? What do they like about it? Dislike?

She’s a thief and a drunk. Seriously she does nothing anymore, and she hates it, which is why she drinks so damn much. She misses having a purpose. She loathes her life because of it. 

17. Did they travel? Where? Why? When?

She’ll move about Hyrule as she pleases, but mostly she moves between town and the desert.

18. What did they find abroad, and what did they remember?

Disappointment and booze.

19. What were your character’s deepest disillusions? In life? What are they now?

Just because you have it good now doesn’t mean it will always be that way.

20. What were the most deeply impressive political or social, national or international, events that they experienced?

Ganon’s fall, haha.

21. What are your character’s manners like? What is their type of hero? Whom do they hate?

She has no heroes, and she hates virtually everyone. She’s an extremely moody, rude person. She treats no one with respect unless it’s earned, but there hasn’t been anyone who fit that description in a long time.

22. Who are their friends? Lovers? ‘Type’ or ‘ideal’ partner?

Neicoi doesn’t really have friends anymore. Differences in opinions and beliefs saw to that. Eventually in this reboot (IF WE EVER GET TO IT, SNOOF–) there’ll be a thing with Dark Link. She doesn’t really have a type, as relationships aren’t really a thing for her. But ideally someone who’s strong, who doesn’t back down, and is a challenge for her.

23. What do they want from a partner? What do they think and feel of sex?

She wants and expects nothing. Sex is nice, but she doesn’t think much of it.

24. What social groups and activities does your character attend? What role do they like to play? What role do they actually play, usually?

AHAHAHA–

25. What are their hobbies and interests?

Drinking. Fighting. Is there anything else? She’ll pick a fight with someone just because.

26. What does your character’s home look like? Personal taste? Clothing? Hair? Appearance?

She doesn’t have a home anymore. She stays where she pleases. As far as appearance, she has a stupid amount of red hair that she wears up, dark skin and gold eyes, and dresses similarly to the rest of her people, but in black because she’s a moody outsider. Jewelry varies. She’s built pretty nice, curvy and toned, but admittedly isn’t as much so as she used to be.

27. How do they relate to their appearance? How do they wear their clothing? Style? Quality?

She gives zero shits about her clothes. It’s whatever, really.

28. Who is your character’s mate? How do they relate to him or her? How did they make their choice?

Once DL makes it into the picture again– They hate each other? LMAO. Shit just sort of happened. After lots of bickering and hate.

29. What is your character’s weaknesses? Hubris? Pride? Controlling?

She’s stubborn and prideful.

30. Are they holding on to something in the past? Can he or she forgive?

Forgiveness is not her strong suit. She’s still bitter about the current state of Hyrule and the fact that she no longer has a place in it.

31. Does your character have children? How do they feel about their parental role? About the children? How do the children relate?

Neicoi as a mother scares me deeply.

32. How does your character react to stress situations? Defensively? Aggressively? Evasively?

Aggressively, for certain. She will lash out heavily.

33. Do they drink? Take drugs? What about their health? 

Point her to the nearest bar. She’s always drinking these days.

34. Does your character feel self-righteous? Revengeful? Contemptuous?

She shows contempt for every living thing, tbh.

35. Do they always rationalize errors? How do they accept disasters and failures?

Failure isn’t really an option. She’ll see to it that she makes it happen. And nothing is ever her fault.

36. Do they like to suffer? Like to see other people suffering?

YOU WOULD THINK SHE DOES but no she doesn’t like to suffer. She likes to see those suffer whom she thinks deserves it.

37. How is your character’s imagination? Daydreaming a lot? Worried most of the time? Living in memories?

Neicoi would prefer to forget. And she rarely daydreams.

38. Are they basically negative when facing new things? Suspicious? Hostile? Scared? Enthusiastic?

Always negative. Always hostile. She goes into things expecting the worst and isn’t surprised when it happens.

39. What do they like to ridicule? What do they find stupid?

Everything and everyone?? If she finds anything to pick at she will. And if she can’t she’ll call you names anyways.

40. How is their sense of humor? Do they have one?

What humor–

41. Is your character aware of who they are? Strengths? Weaknesses? Idiosyncrasies? Capable of self-irony?

She thinks the best of herself. She thinks she’s the strongest, the smartest, the best looking. Her ego is huge. She thinks she has no weaknesses, which is often her downfall.

42. What does your character want most? What do they need really badly, compulsively? What are they willing to do, to sacrifice, to obtain?

She just wants to have a purpose again. She needs that. She doesn’t really have anything to sacrifice, so she’ll go all in. Unless her mother came into the picture, then that might put a halt in things.

43. Does your character have any secrets? If so, are they holding them back?

No secrets.

44. How badly do they want to obtain their life objectives? How do they pursue them?

She sees no way to get what she wants, so she does nothing.

45. Is your character pragmatic? Think first? Responsible? All action? A visionary? Passionate? Quixotic?

All action. She never thinks first, so she ends up in trouble a lot. It didn’t used to be that way. Tactical decisions were her strong suit.

46. Is your character tall? Short? What about size? Weight? Posture? How do they feel about their physical body?

Average height and weight. She’s pretty proud of her body.

47. Do they want to project an image of a younger, older, more important person? Does they want to be visible or invisible?

Currently she wants to be invisible. Just get by. Survive. Leave her alone. But when she does interact, she wants people to be scared of her.

48. How are your character’s gestures? Vigorous? Weak? Controlled? Compulsive? Energetic? Sluggish?

Depends. Sluggish and delayed usually, since she’s often shitfaced. But when she’s sober she’s very controlled.

49. What about voice? Pitch? Strength? Tempo and rhythm of speech? Pronunciation? Accent?

I’ve been trying to find a voice actress for years I’m so pissed– She has a very deep tone of voice. She speaks harshly.

50. What are the prevailing facial expressions? Sour? Cheerful? Dominating?

Resting bitch face.

[maximuswolf]

What are your thoughts on this philosophical/theological argument an ex-pagan Christian used in favor of Christianity? And is there anyway to debunk this claim? via /r/pagan

What are your thoughts on this philosophical/theological argument an ex-pagan Christian used in favor of Christianity? And is there anyway to debunk this claim?

I personally wanted to know the pagan take on this argument.

Anyways here it is:

“As someone who was a practising pagan when he was younger and is now a practising Christian, I can perhaps answer this for you (not to convert you or start a debate - simply in the interests of better mutual understanding, because there are too many misconceptions and bad theology-history on both 'sides').

When Paul the Apostle went to Ancient Greece in the 1st Century, he found in Athens a city in which there was a great deal of religious fervour and diversity; something contemporary records testify was the case - for example Pausanias' account of Athens in the 2nd century describes the Athenians as a people "conspicuous not only for their humanity but also for their devotion to religion", with some unique devotional practices. Pagan contemporaries found this both pleasing and alarming depending upon their own beliefs - the Bible tells us Paul was challenged as a spermologos by the latter, a term that effectively translates to 'someone who believes new things as indiscriminately as a bird picks up seeds'. For some the problem was that many of the gods were not Greek or otherwise compatible with Greek civic values (a charge also levelled against Socrates in his lifetime according to Plato); for others the problem was the intensity of the religious devotion these new quasi-faiths commanded. Some scholars think that when Christians arrived in Greece the Christian faith was mistaken by many to be a dualistic one, with a male God (Jesus Christ) and a female Goddess (Resurrection), and so there may have been debates about whether Christian teachings could mesh with Greek public life.

The Bible tells us that Paul was summoned by the Athenian authorities to explain exactly what he was preaching and why he was preaching it, to resolve their confusion and satisfy their curiosity. Acts of the Apostles records Paul's response to the questions he was given in that meeting, and it is here that we get the basis of the Christian understanding of our faith's place in the world as we understand it. Paul begins his sermon by proclaiming his genuine and sincere admiration for the level of religious belief in Athens (Acts 17:22). From here, he moves essentially into an argument against polytheism from the Christian perspective: Paul argues that if there is an ultimate power in the universe, an ultimate creator of all things, then it makes sense to believe "he does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things" (17:24 - 25). It's important to understand this isn't Paul coming into the high authorities of Athens and mocking them: this was the kind of philosophical problem with which Greek society wrestled, and many in the audience would have already agreed with this proposition and been critical of religious practices that put a great deal of emphasis on specific rituals and the use of shrines and idols.

He argues further that all human beings are the same - that we all must be descended from a common ancestor and share a common blood (Acts 17:26). We have, all of us, been given an inherent desire to seek out the Divine and understand the nature of the universe - and God has never been far from us no matter what we believe (Acts 17:27). Here Paul is recalling much older Jewish teachings represented best in the 13th chapter of the Wisdom of Solomon, which describes most pagan beliefs - especially those rooted in nature - as coming from a place of good faith and a genuine desire to understood the Divine, but which focuses on the creation rather than the Creator. In other words, Paul conceives the worship of, say, a god of oceans and storms as a well-meaning and sincere attempt to understand God that takes the right evidence to come to the wrong conclusions. Paul quotes Aratus' Phaenomena, a piece of literature written centuries earlier, which (with Paul's quotation in bold) says:

From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood

In other words for Paul and the early Apostles, the existence of Zeus as the ultimate authority within the Greek pantheon - and who many Greeks believed gave the gift of life to humanity - logically invalidated the need for any other, lesser deity. If Zeus could have the power and authority to control the other gods and assign the boundaries of their rule then it therefore follows that Zeus must be capable of powers at the very least equal to, or greater than, those lesser gods; they become redundant. Again Paul is not just coming in and pronouncing all of this: he is engaging with philosophical and theological debates that the Greeks themselves were having about their own religion and the nature of the divine. He essentially sees in Zeus and the beliefs some Greeks have about Zeus a representation of the monotheistic God of Christianity - incomplete in understanding but identical in substance. So Paul is not challenging the sincerity of their belief or even the realness of their deities: instead, he is respectfully challenging the nature of the Divine they believe in, and calling into question the internal consistency of mainstream religion in Athens.

Paul describes this pre-Christian period as the time of ignorance (17:30). Ignorance is a word that seems harsh in our modern English language and is best understood in the original Greek the New Testament was written in: the state of being in agnoia, or lacking knowledge in a subject. The exact same word is used earlier in Acts of the Apostles to describe Jewish monotheistic beliefs about God (3:17). In other words the ignorance Paul speaks of is not stupidity and it is not a unique and special wrong that comes from believing in Zeus over the Jewish God: there was simply a time for much of human history when God engaged with humanity on different terms and in different ways, and during which it was easier for human beings to come to the wrong conclusions about the nature of God. As it is put in another place in Acts, "in past generations he allowed all the nations to follow their own ways, yet he has not left himself without a witness in doing good" (Acts 14:16 - 17). Where there has been good and righteousness, God has had a hand in it, but in the past He has not been concerned with the specifics of religious faith or belief.

Paul concludes his sermon with the turning point in God's relationship with humanity: the coming of Jesus Christ, through who, as the living incarnation of God, the true nature of God has been revealed. For most Christians this has to be understood within the context of a world view in which human beings as a whole (not necessarily as individuals - I, like many, do not believe in original sin) have built a degraded society with strong inclinations to promote behaviour that is selfish, greedy, violent and destructive, and in which it is impossible to life a morally perfect life. For us if God is supreme in intelligence and power it therefore follows that God is supreme and infinite in love and moral goodness. In the incarnation of Jesus Christ, God chose the perfect moment in the course of human events to reveal himself to the world with the greatest possible impact on it; the incarnation of God in Christ represents the end of one chapter in the relationship between humanity and the Divine and the opening of a new chapter. Through Christ is is possible to understand God's truest nature as a being of complete and unconditional love with a design to save human beings, both in this life and the next, from the mess of a world we've made for ourselves.

Within this framework, it is perfectly possible for Christianity to take certain elements of traditional cultural practices and remodel them in a Christian fashion to better help people connect to and understand the Gospel; simply because something has pagan origins does not mean it lacks the ability to connect with or be relevant to God. But there is, conversely, a balance in considering what can be authentically Christianised - what can be taken up within our faith as a celebration and modernisation of historic interactions with the Divine - versus what practices or beliefs take someone away from understanding God as He was revealed in Christ; i.e. as one singular, supreme, all loving deity. At the same time however it is a very clear warning to Christians to not, as too many people do, treat pagan and other religious beliefs as simple, demonic or evil; they are still to some extent the product of many hundreds of years of authentic encounters with divinity and with the works of God. The Christian perspective embodied by Paul in Athens instead emphasises that we should treat other faiths as sincere attempts to understand and have a relationship with God, with followers who are just as intelligent and devout as ourselves, but instead view those faiths as incomplete rather than maliciously false.

Like many progressive Christians, I accordingly believe that the Bible preaches that very, very nearly everyone who has ever lived or ever will live on Earth will ultimately end up in Heaven - a faithful Christian life on Earth is simply a matter of getting to that eternity of love and paradise a little bit faster, and getting to share in the joy of Christ in our Earthly lives. But as Paul says, wherever there is sincere faith, God is always near. Sincere faith in another religion or belief is for someone like me a matter of delayed, not denied, salvation. I hope that gives you a richer understanding of how some Christians can reconcile the age of pagan practices versus Christian faith with belief in a single supreme God.”

Submitted September 13, 2020 at 10:55AM by Competitive_Bid7071 via reddit https://ift.tt/2RnbZsx