#Anti-Christian sentiment

[9ofspades]

Opinion:  I'm an Anti-Specsser and Everyone Else Should Be Too

Why are you wearing glasses?  

No, seriously.   Why the fuck are you still wearing glasses?  

The epidemic is over.  I don't know anyone who worries about nearsightedness anymore.  Do you hear anyone talking about it?  Do you see nearsightedness germs flying around?  No, because it's OVER.  

Look, I don't know how to break it to you, but a thin piece of glass in front of your eyes isn't going to help protect you from macular degeneration.  It's a false sense of security, an illusion; like if you just keep looking through them you can pretend that the world has crisp sharp edges.  Well, guess what?  The world is blurry.  You don't know where empty space ends and your body begins.  In fact, it doesn't.  Your body is mostly empty space.  

Everything happens for a reason, anyway; so if you get into an accident because you can't drive without your glasses?  Tough cajones; take your punishment like God intended.  It's your fault for having bad genes, which you got because of... original sin, or something.  I don't know, I didn't actually read the Bible.  I just believe vehemently in every word of it, except the words you use to disagree with me.  Because that's wrong.  

I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by yelling at glasses-wearers on the street.  It just fills me with such visceral, incandescent rage when I see a pair of pince-nez balancing on someone's nose.  It's like they're sending a direct fuck-you to people like me, who choose not to wear glasses.  So of course I have to yell at them; it's just simple self-preservation - if I don't, pretty soon everyone will be wearing glasses, and ganging up on those of us that don't, because we're "jeopardizing public safety" or "a danger to the common good."  I don't need to listen to that.

When you declare you're on the opposite side from me with that flag you wear right on your face, you shouldn't be surprised when I treat you like an enemy.  "What sides?" you ask?  "There's no 'sides' here; everyone is just choosing-" oh, shut up.  You're so naive.  Of course there are sides.  There's sides to everything.  What about a circle? you say.  Inside and outside.  There.  Now don't you feel stupid.  

And those circles you wear on your face mark you as being on the inside.  I don't like that.  Nobody likes being left on the outside.  So stop wearing them.  That way I can find something else to be angry about, like freckles.  I think I'll take on freckles next.  If you have them, stop having them.  You're being too different from me and I don't like it.

[spitblaze]

No no, I don't think sex is bad because it's evil and dangerous, I'm not a puritan. I think sex is bad because its something men like to do, because they're evil and dangerous. Completely different.

[songsofwaterandnight]

Imposter syndrome leaves my body so fast when Christians start telling me how "blessed" I am. Yeah no I actually did work hard for this now that you mention it.

[the-microphone-explodes]

There seems to be a lot of argument between people as to whether we should be allowed to use blanket statements such as “I hate men”, “I hate white people”, and “I hate Christians”. To be clear, in places around the world, these people tend to be the oppressors, heavy emphasis on Christians being oppressors in the Western World. It’s not bad to vent your frustration of these classes, but when does punching up actually just become punching down? I’ll give a few examples (ones that I have actually seen and heard in real life)

“I hate men, so I think gay men should be stoned to death!”

“I hate white people, I don’t care what’s going on in Ukraine, let them die!”

“I hate Christians, so I actually think it’s a good thing that Palestinian Christians are being killed by Israel!”

It’s when these banal phrases are used as obvious bigotry that they become problematic. You can say your blanket statements, but you should not use them to justify atrocities or encourage them.

[shezit]

What an opportunity to not exist. Do you know how much freedom there is in that? You're free from Lucifer, Earthly body, and God. I hate how humans tarnished the most peaceful experience yet, which is dying.

Eternity literally is a prison. I don't care if heaven is filled with peace and love, I'm not looking for that. I don't want that. My peace and love is being as devoid of concept like whatever binds the universe together.

[maddie-grove]

I think you can have your early-seventeenth-century devout English Protestant heroine legit think Catholics are bad news for at least a part of your novel. Not only would she almost certainly believe that, but also I'd like to think that most readers could handle that level of imperfection.

[folaireamh]

old people in the comments of an episode of midsomer murders calling it christophobic

[mirielvairenen]

Having a yard is bringing out more of my inner cottage core- I’ve got milkweed fizz fermenting on the counter, I had ‘yard salad’ as a side at supper, I’ll be making bread and fridge pickles later this week, the spinning and weaving is going well…

and tomorrow I go back to my engineering job that pays the rent and everything else

[wunkmanson-ofhousedickerson]

I mean it does matter. You are claiming they killed them because they were Christian when that is not the case.

[littleapocalypsekitten]

I just want to say, after seeing some of it come across my dash again, because after all, people reblog and reblog and reblog... I feel that guilt-tripping readers is ineffective at best and gets them hostile at worst. I know that this is the time that we all scream into the void at the encroaching dark and holy shit the world's messed up and in the Information Age we all get to know a lot more than our ancestors did, but with apologies to the mutual I saw reblogging things he cares about (and I reblog the same subject matter from them and others), just... the way one post was worded just got me thinking on a long philosophical track. Some of us are doing what we can in light of the situation, which is not much, because we are not in power. All we have is our personal vote / no vote / I trusted you and you let me down lists in our heads. Some of us have written congresscritters whom we know aren't listening. Some who can give money and are sure they are giving to organisations that won't be intercepted and the money gobbled up have been giving. Some are afraid that's going to happen and are living paycheck to paycheck so all we have is our griping. (And some of us have disabilities physical, psychiatric and transportational that keep us from attending protests). So some of us might be doing what we can, but it's not enough and can't be. Anyway, the philosophical train of thought that my brain got onto:

I don't think it actually does much to tell people "What you're doing now is what you would have done during the Holocaust!" or "What you're doing now is what you'd be doing during slavery!" - this is used as a guilt trip, or perhaps a mirror to hold up to people who like to pretend that they are more heroic than they are. What about those of us who do not think we are particularly good? A friend of mine and I got to talking once about old books and how some people want to cancel or censor old literature, or who will look at you funny if you say you enjoyed old lit. The "Little House on the Prairie" books got brought up. I used to read those as a kid. I think I got up to the 4th or 5th book? And the last time I was reading them was when I was 8-9? My friend read them more recently and was talking about how one of the characters / protagonist's mother said "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," which is horrible, but honestly was a common sentiment among white settlers at the time and probably something that the author's mother had said. We agreed that censoring books isn't a good thing, instead, teaching children critical thinking skills and discernment is better. Kids ought to know the shit parts of history. My friend further went into the chilling conclusion that if we had lived in that time and place, we'd probably have the same sentiment, because a lot of your environment influences you. I agreed that it was a likely scenario, but maybe not - as some people are ahead of their time and I have put away a lot of bigotries I was raised in / encountered early on and used to have as I have grown and met people and have had life experiences. (Ex-Evangelical). Also, the above "guilt trip type of tumblr / twitter post" made me think to something I said on a blog commentary pretty soon after tRump was elected about how I'd expected that if shit really hit the fan, that I might just keep my head down. We all like to think that we would go down fighting the establishment, every one of us a Katniss Everdeen with a bow in our hand or something, but the reality is, most people just keep their heads down and survive. And I'm not a proud enough person to think that I am going to be doing anything else. "If I was a German during the Holocaust" - depending upon how much I knew and my living/financial situation, well, yeah, I expect I'd be doing what I am doing now: Writing a lot of fiction short stories with symbolism indicting horrible leaders and political and cultural situations that said leaders are too stupid to get the symbolism of (hopefully) and sadly, hardly anybody reads. Slavery days? Am I a Southerner or a Northerner? Most of my ancestry comes from Sweden, so I'd say I'd be there... but if American then... writing stuff with fantasy-ized slavery among varying castes of magical woodland animals or something in order to gentle the reader into seeing reality? And otherwise just kind of keeping my head down, surviving, not materially being able to do much?

[ceescedasticity]

So just to clarify — we are saying here that people who did not belong to the Church of England enjoyed equal rights in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England, Scotland, and Wales? (I have to assume we're only saying this about non-C-of-E Protestants.)

We are saying that being fined for not attending Anglican services was not religious oppression? We are saying that being excluded from holding government office unless you belong to the Church of England was not religious oppression? We are saying that people opposed to the state religion weren't targeted for anything? (Just checking: Are we also saying the Quakers weren't oppressed?)

The Puritans started oppressing other religions given any opportunity to do so, both in the colonies and also during the period in England when Oliver Cromwell and associates executed the king and took over. (Among other offenses: mass murder and suppression of Catholicism in Ireland.) Large parts of their philosophy seem aimed at feeling miserable and righteous all the time. I hate Puritanism.

But that does not mean that they weren't oppressed.

I'm not defending the Puritans here; I'm saying that you can condemn the Puritans without exonerating the early modern Church of England which very much was oppressing everyone who wouldn't follow the party line.

[opencommunion]

looking back on how liberal political analysts talked about donald trump during his 2016 campaign, I notice two very important insights that have vanished from the conversation this time around.

1: the dire warnings about the rise of fascism were really centered on trump's followers, not the man himself. what concerned scholars of fascism in particular was that the already well-established neonazi presence in the US was openly rallying around a presidential candidate. trump's campaign emboldened neonazis, but the neonazis were already there — this is why we saw an astronomical rise in hate crimes against many marginalized groups during trump's campaign, before he was elected. trump himself was understood as an opportunist riding the wave of rising fascist sentiment — the wave itself was a bigger concern than the surfer. trump was replaceable. liberals now seem to have forgotten that trump's followers won't disappear if harris wins. the heritage foundation (originators of 'project 2025,' blue maga's favorite boogeyman) won't disappear if harris wins. extreme right politicians — many of whom I would argue are even further right than trump, and more embedded in the establishment — won't disappear. even if you mistakenly see the republican party as the sole provenance of usamerican fascism, republicans won't disappear if harris is elected.

2: the people centered in the crosshairs of trump's agenda were migrants and asylum seekers; chiefly those from south of the US border and from majority muslim countries. the intensified demonization of these groups led analysts to draw parallels with fascist parties that were on the rise in europe. hatred of migrants and muslims is indisputably the primary driver of 21st century fascism, from the UK to India. so tell me why the conversation in the US has shifted to revolve around white trans people? yes, trump supporters are obviously transphobic, but you have to trace this particular manifestation of transphobia to its source, which still comes down to white supremacy and anti-migrant sentiment. when you actually look at the way fascists talk about trans people, it all comes back to the idea that hostile foreign elements invading the country have degraded white christian values. trans people of color have already been targeted for a long time, because we're seen as a sort of vanguard of non-white perversion; this isn't new to us. white trans people are now experiencing increased persecution because transness is seen as infiltrating white families/communities and corrupting their whiteness. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about the rise of transphobic policies; of course we should. what disturbs me is that anti-migrant sentiment has been shunted to the sidelines of discussions of 'trumpism,' when it is still very much the center of his platform. and that's the part of his platform that the harris campaign has adopted to try and pull voters from him! that's the part of the republican platform that the biden administration advanced with the excuse of 'reaching across the aisle.' and what more extreme manifestation of an anti-migrant anti-muslim platform is there than committing genocide in gaza and then refusing to let gazan asylum seekers (or even gazans with US citizenship!) into the US?

the entire US government, red and blue, is unified around the anti-migrant, white supremacist crux of so-called 'trumpism.' large swathes of the american public, whether they vote red or blue, are enthusiastic about genocidal foreign and domestic policies. none of this stops when trump is gone

[allthegeopolitics]

Last week, President Joe Biden amplified a dangerous myth when he claimed that the Middle East has long harboured an “ancient hatred for Jews”. This assertion, made during Holocaust Memorial Week, suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the region’s history. By alleging that Hamas is “driven by an ancient desire to wipe the Jewish people off the face of this earth”, Biden not only spreads falsehoods but also engages in a troubling revisionism of history. It is no exaggeration to suggest that the rhetoric of the US President serves to justify Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza and its takeover of historic Palestine. Biden’s statement effectively transposed the historical anti-Semitism prevalent in Europe and the ancient animosity toward Jews within Christendom onto the Middle East. How can Hamas, a group established in 1987 in response to Israeli occupation, be attributed to an “ancient hatred”, especially given the absence of a historical precedent for such animosity towards Jews in the Middle East compared to Europe? In fact, for centuries, Jews found sanctuary and co-existence in Muslim-ruled lands while facing persecution in Europe. This fact is attested to even by some of the staunchest critics of Islam and Muslims. “The coming of Islam saved [Jews]”, an essay in the Jewish Chronicle concluded.  The author goes on to state that Islam provided a new context in which Jews “not only survived, but flourished, laying foundations for subsequent Jewish cultural prosperity.” The historical reservoir of anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust did not originate in the Muslim world, but rather in Christian Europe. Contrary to Biden’s assertion of “ancient desires”, the Middle East, where the three Abrahamic faiths were born, was not the breeding ground for such sentiments. In fact, Muslims and Jews have a rich history of peaceful co-existence and mutual support, dating back to the time of Prophet Muhammad. As early as 622 CE, the Prophet ratified the constitution of Medina, a ground-breaking pact that unified Muslims, Jews and others into one community, as part of the Ummah, demonstrating a long-standing alliance and shared heritage.

Continue Reading.

[nukacourier]

Okay so I've gotten a couple of comments here and there whenever I complain about the anti-native american sentiment (aka racism) that's baked into Honest Hearts asking "how is it racist??", which I know it's not my job as a native american fallout fan to teach ignorant white people how something is harmful but I'm gonna spell it out anyways because it's annoying when people constantly act blind to it

First of all, the dlc is very heavy handed with the "uncivilized savage" depiction of native americans. The fact that they had to be TAUGHT how to use guns and use their own natural resources to make medicine are already two examples of this right out of the gate

Plus, the fact all the tribe members wear rudimentary hides, hardly speak english, and sleep on the ground without any buildings (where Joshua and Daniel get to wear normal clothes and Joshua has his own work station) are more examples of this troupe (and its especially stupid since iirc a lot of southwestern tribes were known for making buildings that still exist to this day)

This also ties into the white savior troupe, since as said, the Dead Horses and the Sorrows both had to be taught to take care of themselves and have to be protected by another tribe by two white men (Joshua and Daniel), and that they practically worship them for it because they apparently would've died off if these two white guys didn't intervene

This, plus the fact they're both missionaries who are trying to convert the tribes into a Mormonism is downright offensive as Christianity as a whole has been used as a tool to justify committing genocide against us for centuries. Do I even need to explain this?

And speaking of them needing protection, the White Legs themselves are a whole shitty can of worms, falling right into the (what should be) long-dead idea that if we're not stupid mud people, that natives are bloodthirsty, cannibalistic, warring savages (which. Again. Another tool of propaganda used to literally kill us for as long as white people have been here). Which in turn loops back around to the whole white savior thing with the problem of the White Legs only being solved because Joshua uses his mighty hand of God to take them out or whatever. No matter if you try to end the dlc peacefully you STILL have to do that! It's fucked up!

This post is already lengthy and there's a lot of things I haven't covered (such as the native characters in the dlc generally falling into the "noble indian" troupe), but these are the most glaring issues I can come up with from the top of my head

Tl;dr - quit heralding Honest Hearts as the pinnacle of good writing when it's all built off racism. Listen to us native fans for once, please

[11thfempachi]

what post girl friend

"You can't object to drag without being called homophobic & conservative these days!!!" that's because objecting to drag is homophobic & conservative lmao

[astral-herald]

Viktor's (subverted) Aristotelian Tragedy

A common sentiment I’m seeing throughout post-finale Viktor discourse is an understandable concern or distaste for the element of choice lost throughout his story. I know a lot of us – myself included – expected more time spent on his transformation, along with emphasis on the anger/rage/betrayal fueling it. But seeing him allow Singed to “begin the process” in episode 8 reminded me of Arcane’s origins – tragedy. Bear with me for another long analysis :)

Aristotle wrote the following on the tragedy: “A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself…with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions.” He also emphasized that the true tragic hero couldn’t be perfect, and his downfall into such catharsis-inducing circumstances was reliant on a fatal flaw, oftentimes pride.

Viktor fits this mold, as do many Arcane characters, and it stands to reason that this was intentional since the writing team has reiterated that the show is a tragedy, at its core.

Regarding Viktor’s fatal flaw, I’d argue it’s pride, but it manifests very uniquely. He never makes any grand declarations about his success and doesn’t draw attention to himself in any clear way throughout season one (“Progress Day” comes to mind). Instead, his pride manifests as staunch independence and self-reliance that lead to his downfall; his unwillingness to break his stoic mold arguably led to his use of the Hexcore…so it goes.

Fascinating caveat: Viktor’s pride is a defense mechanism, a necessary tool he built in order to survive and succeed in a hostile environment to people of his station. His self-reliance is increasingly desperate as his illness worsens. He’s cornered by fate but banks on the sanctity of choice at every turn – in season one, Viktor is bound by the conviction that we all have a choice. It’s why he’s so distressed when Jayce makes the wrong one regarding weaponizing Hextech.

“There is always a choice.”

Viktor’s choice to fuse with the Hexcore is the classic Aristotelian fatal flaw moment, the singular incident that opens the flood gates for eventual catharsis. We watch Viktor make an irreparable choice, one that we know to be bad, and endure the repercussions. He then makes the choice to abandon the Hexcore, and end his life, but audiences can’t shake the feeling that those consequences aren’t leaving anytime soon.

So why is Viktor so anti-choice in his final season 2, act 3 form?

Choice is Viktor’s weapon. Pride is what leads him to abusing it. Despite how uncomfortable and depressing it is to watch, Viktor’s slow descent into the Herald is a perfect twist of fate. The Arcane is even so insidious that it meshes with his original intent, to help those suffering in the undercity, while convincing him that their subservience is healing. He becomes responsible for their choices. He knows what’s best because he’s relieving the Gloriously Evolved of their suffering, right? The utopia is for the greater good, yes?

Admittedly, it was really hard watching act 3 Viktor descend fully into his choiceless ethos. But we can still relate it to his tragic flaw – his pride has mushroomed into coldhearted omniscience; not only does he know what’s best for everyone, evolution, but he also has the sense to make the choice for them to supersede their “baser instincts.” The grief we feel upon seeing this perverted, violent version of himself, as far removed from Viktor as possible, is the culmination of Aristotle’s treatise on tragedy. The catharsis is the rock-bottom Machine Herald.

"Choice is false."

But then Arcane decided to basically make Jayvik canon (get out of here, Christian Linke) and destroyed the early drafts of this post. I’m going to rapid-fire this next bit:

Jayce forces Viktor back to life. Viktor has no agency in his season 2 inciting incident. Again, it’s distressing when we mourn his agency, but it remains in accordance with Aristotelian tragedy.

Viktor clings to humanity as long as he possibly can. When Jayce calls out Viktor’s trajectory, alleging that his old partner had died in the Council chamber, whatever is left of Viktor gives way to the Arcane because his last tether has been snapped.

Jayce knows the game – Old Man Jenkins Mage Viktor told him so. Jayce becomes the linchpin in subverting Viktor’s tragedy. He knows what must happen. He understands now.

Machine Herald Viktor is given the chance to undo his fatal flaw, to reverse the catharsis, when he sees Old Man Jenkins Mage Viktor. With Jayce’s help, he takes it.

Given that it’s a version of Viktor who ultimately frees him from himself by empowering Jayce, we can gather that Viktor has liberated himself from his tragedy.

Aristotle’s catharsis is rapidly transformed from something based in release to something healing – Viktor’s tether to humanity returns. He grasps it. The walls of his pride and self-reliance collapse. He accepts Jayce’s help, finally being seen as the full individual he is. Catharsis ensues, for sure, but I don’t think it’s based in the typical tragedy genre.

All this to say, I think Viktor’s arc was, in fact, carefully constructed. He represents the Aristotelian descent into a fatal flaw and that’s very distressing to see unfold, especially since he embodied the tragic hero archetype so well from day one. However, Jayce undoes this narrative and we’re given an incredibly subversive ending that I, personally, never saw coming.

I’m sure that Mage Viktor has a much larger bearing on this analysis than I’m accounting for. But for now, suffice to say that he is Viktor’s way out of the tragedy. TALK ABOUT CHOICE!

This doesn’t erase anyone’s discomfort for Viktor having less and less agency, but I’d like to emphasize the logic and literary precedent behind the story decisions.

PS: here's a quick source I looked at about Aristotelian tragedies. I hope to re-up on Greek tragedies so I can get more specific about the parallels Arcane draws from them.