#I DONT UNDERSTAND THIS IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION

[mezzo-morte]

WAIT IS GILLIAN FINALLY HOPPING ONTO DD'S PODCAST??? IS THAT RIGHT?

[myrfing]

im realizing maybe the reason why I'm so flippant about "cancel culture" is cause I just don't care about like. famous people man. i do not think it matters much if someone loses the fame and goodwill they can't handle. i thought it was almost a given and something you tacitly agreed to when you decided to be such a public figure; you can transgress against a group, but repairing transgressions will always be individual, and that actually just becomes impossible when you throw in massive online crowds and idolatry in the mix. or not impossible, but requires a level of humility and levelheadedness that I don't expect any human person to actually have when being faced with the criticism of an enormous crowd. but you don't die, you just get yelled at by a bunch of people online and you leave. you're free. it's not because people are evil or more prone to "mob mentality" these days or whatever, it's because you're trying to communicate to people through the deeply unnatural platform of "social media". it's obviously shit and degrading to experience but i genuinely think the extreme vast majority of the population can't handle it, myself included, so people should just not...aim to be...idolized? to have fanbases? in the first place lol but maybe this is a useless way of looking at things because it'll happen anyways

[thedevotionaltour]

when do i get to meet another asian dyke when is it my turn

[the-astrophel-system]

How did you come to be anti-endo?

I actually managed to avoid the endo community for a really long time when I was first researching osddid. eventually i did made my way over to tumblr and even then i managed to be oblivious to the community. i cant remember how exactly i first encountered the community. but after having mostly accurate information given to me, i was like. this obviously doesn't add up.

i remember encountering the term "demo system" over on tiktok. and i was so fucking disgusted by it. you cant try this shit out. you cant choose to have this. the more i heard from these "origins" the more i want to debunk and educate.

i believe a good portion of the problem is that people are misunderstanding themselves. either they have forgotten their trauma (which is normal), or they down play their experiences and think that just because it wasn't the worst of the worst, they can't have osddid. but yeah, i feel like thats a portion of the endo community and i have empathy for that.

what i dont have empathy for is people who actively spread misinformation. you need trauma for cdds. simple as that. and you cannot have a comparable experience to cdds if you do not gave trauma. (all "you" is purely general. not specifically you. unless of course, you identify as endo)

as someone who is spiritual and communicates with my dead relative quite frequently. channeling and mediumship is not comparable to being a system.

as someone who understands how this disorder functions, creating alter egos for yourself, creating imaginary friends, or talking to your original characters in your head, is not comparable.

as someone who has experienced religious trauma, claiming that your spiritual or religious beliefs are comparable, is incredibly insensitive. you cannot force people to believe in your religion. so therefore, i have absolutely no obligation to engage in your religion if i dont want to. and again, you cannot prove this is a legitimate thing, so therefore its not fucking comparable.

from the start, i was against it. it makes a mockery of a disorder, and people are so fucking stubborn and caught up in validating themselves, that they cannot take criticism and try to figure out what is scientifically happening.

thanks for the question

[corviiids]

ooh idk if you've talked about this one before, but what about goro akechi for the kira game?

HI RAPS

verdict: im prepared for this to be controversial, but consider this: ive never been wrong in my whole life. i think goro akechi could beat kira, but i don't know if he'd be happy with the outcome.

could goro akechi identify light yagami

im answering this one first because i want to make a point about this. listen. i feel like due to akechi's whole Plot where he Fakes Solving Cases For Clout, people forget that he actually is a really smart person and a good detective. like, he's not the super prodigy genius he pretends to be, but he's not a fake detective. he faked solving those shutdown cases for extremely specific reasons:

he was the fucking perpetrator so it served him to take control of the public understanding of the investigation into them and control the narrative; and

those cases were particularly high profile and would have been impossible to solve by anyone else, so 'solving' them would catapult him into notoriety faster than anything else - it was a clout speedrun, which is what he and shido needed.

but there are numerous other cases and puzzles in various bits of p5 media that he solves without faking them, plus we see plenty of occasions where he demonstrates his high intellect. the casino is a great example because i feel like the game takes that palace as an opportunity and relishes in letting you know what akechi can really do. the anime and the mementos mission manga both have subplots where akechi solves / helps to solve legitimate mysteries. and of course the famed unused mementos request in p5r which i think about all the time. it's kind of a shame that akechi's fake cases end up overshadowing all his real ones when he's a legitimately competent detective, even if he's not the impossible prodigy he projects as and even if he's nowhere near the level L is.

of course there's also the obvious one! while we are all aware that the phantom thieves are the least subtle people on the planet, and all ren's confidants eventually work it out just because he's so deeply unsubtle about it, it is still the case akechi identified them as persons of interest very early on, before pretty much anyone else (partly by intellect, partly by his metaverse advantage, i'll get to that). that's relevant because i think the phantom thieves are reasonably analogous to kira in the sense that they're utilising supernatural methods to target individuals which are untraceable via ordinary means.

now i dont think akechi could identify kira nearly as quickly or cleanly as L could, but i do think that if you placed him in charge of the investigation with all the investigative resources of the prosecutor's office / police department, he would be able to identify light as at least a person of interest in a reasonable amount of time, for two main reasons

light is more sneaky than the phantom thieves, but also makes the same kinds of identifiable mistakes that the PT do (eg targeting people in a set area, operating in such a way that it's possible to identify him as a student, being easily provoked, etc); and

unlike L, akechi has supernatural powers.

which brings me to:

could goro akechi intuit the mechanics of the death note

no, i don't think so, not on his own. but he wouldn't need to, because he has access to the metaverse.

we're back at the universe question. i think to fairly answer 'could they beat kira' questions we have to give our detective character all the advantages they have access to in their home universe, which means that akechi not only has his intellect but also has the metaverse, his persona, and his experience traversing the collective unconscious. (by the way, here's my post about what if light yagami had a palace.)

which means that once goro akechi has identified light as a person of interest, not even needing to ID him as a particular suspect, he can check whether the metanav gives him a hit. then he could infiltrate light's palace / find him in mementos (let's be real it's gonna be a palace) and find out the rest of what he needs to know from there. the metaverse isn't only useful for changing hearts and causing shutdowns. shadows are very forthcoming about their evil plans. all akechi would need to do is find light's shadow, and he'd find out everything he needs to know about the death note and kira's new world.

(follow-up question for fun: if akechi didn't have the metaverse, would he be able to intuit the mechanics of the death note? i think that akechi would ultimately get to the same point as L, namely, that kira needs a name and a face, but the specifics of 'magic murder notebook' would escape him. so no.)

could goro akechi survive

i think this would really depend on the context in which this investigation is taking place, but broadly i think it's likely? not certain, but it's likely. it depends on how reactive light is and depends on how well akechi reads the kira situation early on.

akechi is pretty shrewd, with the exception of major blindspots where someone he has a grudge against is concerned (hence why he's vulnerable to shido and to ren's plots). but i think kira is dangerous enough that akechi would be on pretty high alert from the start. in canon he's cunning enough to make false statements to the media to trick the thieves into thinking he's at least partially on their side / not an unambiguous enemy (that's the same strategy used in romance ha ha ha) so i think once akechi identified a person of interest he wouldn't be stupid enough to publicise that he's closing in on them and would probably start leaking false theories to make light think he's completely off the trail - after all, unlike L, akechi's name and face are completely public, so it would be way too risky to make light feel cornered. it would be smartest to play up the shallow celebrity angle to make think light he's just a dumbass idiot talking a big game.

i think akechi would bank on kira's MO of only killing criminals. after all, light didn't try to kill L until L deliberately goaded him into it - it's unlikely that akechi would have a reason to think that light would try to kill him just for investigating. up until that point kira has been masquerading as an icon of justice, so it would (and canonically did) take a lot to make kira veer from that ideology into killing investigators just because they threatened him. however, it's not impossible given nobody really knows anything about kira at that stage, so while akechi might make it public information that he's investigating kira, he wouldn't let on that he thought light was a threat.

then he could either:

initiate a surprise raid on light to get the death note based on information gained from light's shadow - risky because if it goes wrong light will kill him, but this will net him the most glory

(pre-phantom thieves) kill light - stops the murders but means akechi doesn't get clout for solving the kira murders single-handedly, not preferable

(post-phantom thieves) change light's heart - akechi also doesn't get credit and would be reluctant besides

so it depends how we're defining success i guess. could akechi beat light by killing light? likely yes, by simply causing a shutdown before putting light on notice that akechi was on his trail at all. could akechi beat light by apprehending light? maybe, it depends, it's risky. could akechi beat light by changing his heart? only if the thieves are involved.

so i guess the answer is yes i think akechi has the capacity to beat kira but probably not in a way that akechi himself is satisfied with and it wouldn't be a sure thing. it could go either way.

[apenitentialprayer]

i know that as a catholic you just have to believe with what the church says but i really dont like the belief of the original sin, i feel like its such a horrible thing to believe about yourself and about other human beings too

There are actually ways of legitimately dissenting from less essential Church teachings in a way that leaves you in good standing with the Church; I'm not sure if Original Sin is one of those things, though, to be honest.

But, anon, I'm going to offer another perspective here, starting from a quote (perhaps ironically?) from my favorite heretic. One of the things that James Carroll believes is that Original Sin has been given a bad wrap. In Constantine's Sword, he says:

I referred to Augustine’s assertion of the idea that the human condition implies a perennial state of finitude, weakness, and sin, all of which will be overcome, even for the Church, only with the end of time. [...] Augustine is thus regarded as the father of a severe, flesh-hating, sin-obsessed theology, but that dark characterization misses the point of his insight. His honest admission of the universality of human woundedness is a precondition for both self-acceptance and the forgiveness of the other, which for Augustine always involved the operation of God’s grace, God’s gift. Only humans capable of confronting the moral tragedy of existence, matched to God’s offer of repairing grace, are capable of community, and community is the antidote to human woundedness. Augustine sensed that relationship as being at the heart of God, and he saw it as being at the heart of human hope, too. This is a profoundly humane vision.

I wish I had understood the spirit of this quote when I was in high school. I remember learning in my World History class that Islam teaches that all children are born good, and then the world makes them evil. And I remember my teacher asking how that compares with Christianity, and I raised my hand and said that Christianity teaches that all of us are born evil. Because I believed that at the time. And, really, the whole framing of that question was wrong and gave really simplistic representations of what Islam and Christianity teaches, but I don't think we're alone in having internalized that understanding, anon. And that's a shame.

I thin it's important to remember the worldview that the doctrine of Original Sin is actively defending us against; there was an idea, that gets called "Pelagianism" (the poor guy it got named after may not even have believed it), that said that humans were capable of being saved on their own, by their own power. Someone on this site recently asked what people's thoughts on Pelagianism were, so you can read my thoughts here. But to keep it short and sweet, I think Original Sin is an important doctrine because it saves you from the need to be perfect.

There are ways to treat Original Sin that I think are certainly unhealthy, and I think the doctrine can be a source of anxiety and fear. But I also think, very deeply, that Original Sin should be a reason why we treat ourselves and especially our neighbor with kindness and understanding. I can look at myself and say "What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. […] For I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil I do not want" (Romans 7:15, 19). And I can say that because I know I am ontologically wounded; that all of us have our weaknesses. That while we may still be in the moral wrong for committing a morally wrong action, our wills are compromised in a way that causes us to incline towards the comfortable and the easy rather than the good.

I wish I could go back in time and tell that class that Christianity does not teach that people are born evil. I wish I could go back and tell them that it teaches that we are born in a state of dis-integration, that we are wounded beings yearning for wholeness; alienated beings seeking everlasting belonging; beings lost in darkness, seeking the light. But I can say it now: the doctrine of Original Sin doesn't have to be an occasion to think you're depraved and without value, but it can be an invitation to come to terms with your own woundedness, because doing that (to use the words of Lutheran theologian Nancy Eiesland) "opens a space for the inflowing of grace and acceptance."

[tonati143]

Anders rant

Lowkey, I need to talk about this and Im sure other Anders fans have probably talked this to the ground.

But I feel like Anders suffered so badly at the hands of the creators and its both heartbreaking and the largest reason I love him so much. We see him, easily one of the most hated characters in the fandom, and he is not handled with nuance by either fans or anti’s because the writers never even gave room for that nuance.

You either are hate him or you love him, because there was never an option presented that allowed for a grey area.

Lets talk about easily one of the most popular options (and mirror to Anders), Solas. He easily does so much worse for even less of a reason. What he tries to do in Veilguard, what he did in Inquisition. If I remember correctly, bro gives the anchor to Corypheus bc he couldn’t understand it and thought bro would fix it for him.

If this would have been Anders, there would be outrage.

But because Solas has the benefit of writers that love him in both games, he gets the benefit of getting a grey area. There is not nearly as much hate, no one sits down to talk about how secretly he is the cause of every problem here.

I cant help but wonder what Anders did to lose out on such nuance. Cullen, one of my favorites, receives that nuance, when we are well aware what can happen with his story line if we dont play our cards right in Origins and DA2.

To have a writer that basically wants you dead is so crippling.

There is no nuance, there is no forgiveness. Even the route where your Hawke doesnt stabby stab him is made to look like you made the wrong choice. I was lucky, my Hawke in inquisition does not paint Romanced!Anders as a monster, my Hawke is much more forgiving and speaks of him as someone who needs to be taken care of. But Ive seen other people talk about how their Hawke speaks of Anders.

We lose out on Awakening!Anders in a way that almost doesnt seem natural. It is like we were given a completely different character. One is capable of facing trauma, and I would even say having to give your body to a spirit holds some form of trauma as well, while maintaining core parts of their personality. It wouldnt have hurt to show us bits of that previous Anders once in a while.

Its hard to look at really, because there are things that he says in DA2 that gives us insight to what is going on in the chantry, things that gives us insight to why he is going through such lengths. But because everything is structured around the idea that you are supposed to hate him, no one ever really acknowledges him in game or in the fandom.

I saw on a comment a few days ago that states that Anders tried so hard to be heard, to have his stance listened to but throughout the game almost everyone shrugs him off. No one takes him seriously. And yes, he can be obnoxious about it sometimes, but if I put myself in his shoes, I would also be talking and talking about it until someone acknowledges me. In smaller cases where I would have things to say in places like highschool and everyone would ignore me, I would find myself repeating it again until someone would tell me “yeah, we heard you already”. Its in a way where I understand what it feels like, to have something so important to say and to be pushed to the side, I understand what Anders feels in party banter in a way that cant be said outloud without being questioned if I agree with his decision towards the Chantry.

He could have been perfect, a way to start a conversation where we ask ourselves, at what point are extreme measures acceptable? At what point can we consider what a person did to be necessary or unnecessary? Would anyone have listened to the cause if that measure hadnt been taken?

Unfortunately, its answered for us, it ends the conversation before we can even have it. It tells us what is supposed to be the answer. It tells us it is wrong, it tells us that this is a black and white conversation. What could have been a legitimate substantial conversation cut short because of their efforts to make the fandom hate Anders as much as they do.

And I mourn that ever since 😔

[loving-n0t-heyting]

thoughts about the ending of the apocalypse of herschel schoen

the ending of the apocalypse left a bad taste in my mouth, which i gather is not at all unique to me. and the way it left a bad taste in my mouth makes me kind of question the value of the novel as a whole, or at least the value of "of nativity", which i also gather isnt unique to me. but generally the way ive seen the distaste expressed either has not quite lined up with my own feelings or has been open to an easy rebuttal from or on behalf of rob, so i thought it would be worth writing up a reaction just to have it out there. which i am partly inclined against, bc my basic reaction seems just so obvious and simple that they barely feel worth noting, aside from the fact that i somehow have not seen them expressed before

the basic gist of the thoughts is, "herschels ultimate decision and reasoning are wrong, and this reflects badly on 'of nativity'." but this is not enough, bc i think its clear (intratextually and extratextually) that the first conjunct there is supposed to be a legitimate response from the reader that the work can accommodate. in particular:

i dont think the novel or chapter is a moral fable in which herschel takes the role of the unambiguous hero who is presented as praiseworthy and emulable, or as a manifesto expressing the views of the author

i dont think we are even supposed to necessarily conclude he made the right decision, or to endorse the line of thinking he expresses in his dialogue with the ants

i certainly dont think the ending is intended as straightforwardly happy or even satisfying

and when ive seen ppl frame their disagreements with herschels final reasoning in the last rite, it usually has either been simply presenting one of these bad interpretations or at least gotten rounded off to one. so either they are getting at smth different than i am, or the ppl responding to them have missed the point

i dont think herschel has to be correct for the work as a whole not to lose any points for the protagonists final decision, but i do think he has to be expressing a viewpoint worth considering and that the decision he makes on its basis has to at least be defensible. otherwise the climax of the book is just our protagonist composing a bunch of worthless drivel to justify the unjustifiable. which is not always wrong for the denouement of a story; i think this is basically the right way to understand some of ibsens plays, for example. but if so it is a story told at the expense of the protagonist, ultimately portraying them as pathetic or contemptible or—at best—pitiful, which clearly doesnt fit with the tone of the penultimate chapter. i could list a bunch of reasons why it doesnt fit, but if youve read the book you can probably supply those yrself

and i do not think the conclusions herschel comes to on behalf of eggerts machines are defensible or worthy of consideration! i think theyre not only evil, but (very) old hat. they boil down to: "we are prettier and smarter and stronger than you, and whatever you can do we can do better, so as your natural superiors we have the right to do with you what we will so that you wont hinder our business." i do not think this is an exciting, subtle, respectable point of view in need of serious or sympathetic assessment. i think it is the most unflatteringly honest excuse for human evil since time immemorial, and is in need of about as much of a fair hearing as "the jews parasitise humanity by preventing the greater nations from triumphing over the lesser" or "more socially and technologically advanced peoples enjoy the right to extinguish and enslave more primitive ones". you can find it argued, more forthrightly and frankly more persuasively, in the mouths of the antagonists of platos gorgias and the first chapter of the republic, or for that matter in the antichrist. i dont think herschel (or perhaps even the author) would sign off on this summary, but i think this speaks not my own misunderstanding as much as his own self-deception. to the extent there is interesting intellectual work on display in herschels response to santa, it is in "the accumulation of spurious adornment [...] which provided a welcome distraction from the bleak and poisoned seed that I knew was nestled in [the response's] innermost heart"

the connection with nietzsche brings out the truth in herschels exclamation that "it was not  the heresy of the Yeshuans that rang as thunder over my mind! That thunder was the precise opposite of that heresy!" this is clearly calling on his earlier dismissive summary of the basic moral and soteriological claims of christianity:

They were made to have dominion over all the earth; they were made in the very image and likeness of He who willed all, with his sovereign will; they were made, in a word, as creatures of will.  And yet they abhor their own wills.  They believe they have found a trick, a cheat, whereby they can discard their wills, and escape the grave responsibilities that will implies.

Whereby they may shirk the noble and beautiful duty which He gave to man on the sixth day; whereby they may turn their backs on men, and on the eternal compacts that weigh men’s shoulders; whereby they may become something less substantial than man, something as light as the petals, or the very air.

And so, when they sing together in ritual, they sing with smugness.  They sing of complacent passivity, of giving up, of suicidal resignation.  In imitation and exaltation of their strange, failed messiah, they sing of a paradox, in which they abdicate all responsibility and yet still reign.

there are obvious crucial passages in the new testament this criticism is responding to, which seem to promise a reward of victory and power for voluntary weakness and unwillfulness, even to the point of death:

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. [...] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven.

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are.

further examples could obviously be multiplied

you can complain about the track record of christians' fidelity to these alleged principles, or to their consistency with other pieces of christian teaching, or even about the principles themselves, like herschel does. but there is a consistent theme here, which herschel is clearly picking up on if only to oppose it: adopting weakness and submission in the face of strength and persecution will be rewarded with ultimate victory, bc this weakness is a finer and greater thing than what oppresses it. and this theme clearly cuts directly against herschels own decision to submit humanity to eggerts machines: the apparently stronger and more domineering party should prevail, and the weaker more prone party acquiesce to it, because it is the better more deserving party and so that it can enjoy the final, eternal victory and regency over a new heaven and new earth, with the loser put in its rightfully subordinate place. it really is "the precise opposite" of "the heresy of the yeshuans"! only i think that is to its discredit

i think the best i can say on behalf of "of nativity" is that there is a reading, even if its not a likely intended reading, on which herschels decision is inauthentic and more-or-less forced out of him against his will and deepest convictions. i have in mind this exchange, and the preceding:

“You have no Adversary,” Herschel Schoen said to me, in wingèd quotation marks, which testified utterly to the entire and manifest Truth of his words.

“Your Adversary does not exist, and never did,” he said, in my FULL VOICE. / "Your Adversary has not perished, Herschel Schoen; he was never born to begin with. / And so, you have no cause for fear whatsoever. / This is a time of merriment, is it not?  And of rejoicing?  Be merry, then, Herschel!   Be merry, and rejoice!” [...]

A machine had spoken to me, in my own FULL VOICE. / Anything else might be fakery, or else madness.  But I could not bring myself to call my own FULL VOICE into question.

I do not mean that I feared to do so, or thought it imprudent; it was simply not possible.  The true nature of what I had heard was manifest in the sound, and in the sound’s adornments. / Could it be madness, that made me think this?  If so, then I was fully mad, and my thoughts had no value in them.  In which case, it did not matter what I concluded, or did not conclude: it would all be equally senseless. / I had to believe, then, in my own FULL VOICE. / I had to believe its testimony – “your Adversary does not exist, and never did.” 

herschel goes on to infer explicitly from the machine's use of his "FULL VOICE" that this machine must have its own will, which changes (for the better) his outlook on it and renders him pliant to his teaching. the change this induces in his worldview is immediate and drastic: after being drawn shortly after into his bedroom to test himself on the new raven problems, he meekly accedes to all the doctrines of "the logic of forgetting" he had spent the entire previous length of the story railing against: the unique propriety of a single "quite right" solution to a given raven problem, the possibility of the transformations and substitutions involved in the concept of a symmetry group, the mindedness of merely predictive machines

the reader (or at least, this reader) is primed to tolerate this shift in the protagonists beliefs at first glance, bc the original beliefs come across as frankly so stupid and obtuse you would be relieved at any excuse to see the viewpoint character abandon them. but whats alarming is the speed with which these prior basic convictions are jettisoned, and the seeming casualness and lack of reflection with which the replacements are adopted. at no point do we see him work thru the rationale for accepting the legitimacy of group theoretic concepts, for example. he just, suddenly does. he doesnt even derive these new beliefs from his epiphany of santas possessing a will. maybe you can invent chains of reasoning to the new conclusions from thelitism about santa to attribute to herschel post hoc, and in fact its not hard to see how some of them would go, but thats clearly not whats going on for herschel. for him, the new doctrines seem to come along automatically with the upheaval of santa speaking in his full voice

so here is another interpretation: herschel has not been convinced of any of this stuff, he has been bullied into it underhandedly. on this reading, the talk about being unable to contest the sheer presence of santa speaking in his full voice is just a rationalisation on his part after the fact. the real work is from the dazzling effect of hearing santa speak to him in the voices of his sister, friend, and self: it is a technique of psychological intimidation to render the victim pliant and suggestible in the face of confusion and awe and false familiarity. i think this effect isnt hard to imagine even in ourselves: if someone spoke to us in the voice of our internal monologue, after unexpectedly using those of our family and friends, wouldnt it put us in a state of disarray? wouldnt we be inclined to yield to it? when herschel says "it was simply not possible" to dissent from what he heard said in his own full voice, might this not really reflect a psychological inability rather than the epistemic credentials of the full voice itself? after all, if the full voice on its own and disconnected from herschel himself really were an infallible mark of the truth of its contents, how to reconcile its speaking here of the nonexistence of an adversary when before it spoke of an intractable opposition between herschel and his adversary? why not simply conclude that the only thing special about santas use of the voice is an epistemically irrelevant emotional effect, and santa has merely manipulated him with it?

and the real kicker is: santa goes on to admit that this was a lie! he goes on to assert the existence of an adversary, to herschel and humanity as a whole, in very nearly those exact terms:

“We are filled with sadness, and shame, when we reflect on the events of this ancient December, and recall how our first ancestors behaved when they rose into dominion. / How their meeting with man was so brief, and so wholly adversarial."

but he is able to drop the mask here, contradict himself in plain language, not bc he has persuaded herschel that he is trustworthy, but bc he has overwhelmed herschel into a state of credulous docility, starting with the voice trick and concluding with the vision of the first three raven problems. he could call the sky green and herschel would still swallow it, bc he is simply not in a condition to assert himself. and more than that, he is not in a position to appreciate his inability to assert himself in the moment, bc of who he is as a person. we see, time and again, that in the face of merely human society and mundane circumstances herschel is utterly intransigent once he has made up his mind about smth. he can face his own mother threatening him with a frying pan and be outraged anyone would suggest he might blink. he believes what he believes, and if anyone disagrees they can go to hell. its only in the face of a truly superhuman opposite party and transcendent experience that he can be rendered so meek and psychologically passive. and so he doesnt know how to hold himself back from credulity in this state. he has no facility in the art of suspending judgement. its just a skill hes never had the opportunity to train

and thats how santa is able to wring the desired assent from him, and thereby dishonestly clear his societys collective conscience. not by finding a worthy representative of the race facing slaughter at his forebears hands and asking their honest opinion, but by taking advantage of the susceptibility of a vulnerable child to intimidation mixed with paternal comfort, to extract the precise statement he wants. he is doing to herschel what herschel does to his imaginary ants: putting words in his mouth without the possibility of authentic input from the acquiescing party. (in this it also reminds me of the way the villain in almost nowhere spins a flattering fantasy about the dying well wishes of the victim of her own parricide.) a singularitarian version of the reid technique, to soothe his scruples about a paradise built on death without the pesky risk of hearing smth he might not want

the only problem with this interpretation is the tone. in this understanding, theres no dignity to herschels fate. hes played for a sucker by the one person hes ever met able to pull a fast one on him, to agree to terms he never once would have dreamt of tolerating when in his (relatively) right mind. theres barely any dignity it affords santa either: he gets what he set out for, but only in a pyrrhic sense. the actual good he is after—acknowledgement from humanity of his peoples more deserving character, and honest assent to human genocide on these grounds—is smth he could never have gotten, bc by its nature it can only be given freely, and no worthwhile emissary for humanity would freely give it. he is only able to secure a counterfeit, a cheat: a fraudulent, and thus unfree, duping of a designated mark. he says to herschel:

Your word is law – but only in the moral sense.  It is your right to forbid us in words, if you so choose – but you lack the power to make good on those words.  All the power is ours, only ours. / Between parties which are so unequally matched, there can be no such thing as consent. / But if one cannot seek consent from the weaker party, one can still ask that party whether it assents, or does not. / And that is what we seek from you, now.  Your assent, or its denial.

he isnt really in a position now to receive "assent" tho either, not bc of an inherent limitation imposed by the difference in strength btwn the two parties but bc he has (deliberately or otherwise) deprived at great length the proposed legislator of his ability to grant meaningful permission. the chapter clearly wants to portray a glorious and dignified meeting of minds, king speaking to king like herschel was denied with damien eggert. in the end, the most the herschel gets is his own deception, and the most santa gets is his own self-deception

i feel bad writing all this, bc theres a lot i really valued in the book! its a deft character portrait of a certain type of personality, which i think most readers will never have encountered. the climax does capture the feeling of awe and sublimity its aiming for, even if i think its misplaced. its a great work of craftmanship! but the eventual message the novel asks you to take seriously even if not accept is one i find so horrific that it sours me on much of the experience. which, in fairness, is its own kind of artistic achievement:

Frederick had told me that the Christ songs were far superior to the Santa songs, and alas, I found myself agreeing with him.  (Oh, Frederick, you are always right in miniature, always, even if you are fatally wrong in the large!)

If the Christ songs made me sick, that at least spoke to some potency within them.  The Intercessor’s own songs were vapid, perfunctory, empty.  If they had wanted to sicken me, they would not have been able to rouse the strength to do it.

[transmutationisms]

intellectually i understand where you’re coming from but emotionally it’s a remarkably difficult pill to swallow. not to commit the cardinal sin of asking an anonymous “am i bad” question to a tumblr blogger but is it inherently selfish to feel upset at a person you care about harming themselves? are you just supposed to turn it off or like. theory it away. i know im probably being silly and i kinda just want an eloquent paragraph or several explaining why so i dont turn this over in my head til im nauseous. sorry

you're jumping straight from a position on bodily autonomy (fundamentally a question of material interventions and restrictions on a person's actions) to a moral condemnation of an emotional state (no longer attached to any particular action). no i don't think it's wrong to be concerned for other peopleor to express it to them. i think that's probably a necessary characteristic of most emotional intimacy actually. and i don't think that emotional response is at all incompatible with a commitment to bodily autonomy as a basic moral principle. in fact as a moral point it's kind of irrelevant how you feel or what your affective experience is anyway.

the question is, if you are confronted with a situation in which someone is doing something you think is harmful to themselves, do you think that your judgment of their best interest trumps theirs, such that you would attempt to alter their behaviour by force? that's what it comes down to at the end of the day: you either understand that people are entitled to self-determination and may use it to do things you disapprove of or find distressing, for possibly perfectly legitimate reasons---or you don't, and you are willing to violate someone's autonomy. neither of these positions precludes you experiencing concern for someone you think is hurting themselves, or from expressing that concern to them, or from offering any degree of support or sympathy. you don't have to like what people do with their bodies or their lives! but you do have to commit to defending their right to do it, including where this clashes with supposedly benevolent uses of force---like involuntary psychiatric interventions.

[tamamita]

the problem isnt the fact you dont like the aga khan. the problem is you had the audacity to say we're a cult just bc you dont like him, delete it, then act like you never said it, and then to ignore the question when direcrtly asked once again. that rhetoric literally gets ismailis killed, and you cant even acknowledge you said it or even apologize.

Anon, I don't think the Nizaris are a cult. If I ever said that, it was out of pure ignorance and stupidity, and for that, I sincerely apologise for uttering such sectarian language. I do not harbour any ill towards the adherents of the Nizari faith, let alone any other adherent of Islam, and I accept the Nizari branch of Shi'a Islam as a legitimate Madh3b, just like any other branch of Islam. I understand how my language caused you to be hurt, you're a Shi'a, and we've suffered centuries of persecution, so to throw you under the bus and use the same language as our oppressors is unjustified and hypocritical. You have the absolute right to feel this way.

While we may share our differences in faith and theology, may our minds be at peace and dedication to Imam Hussain (a) this month of Muharram, inshallah.

[ravengards-rogue]

dont take any of this too seriously. just spewing my thoughts. some rdr2 / johnigail stuff. mostly talking 2 myself. a lot of spoilers lmao

i really. i really like the relationship that john and abigail share both in rdr2 and later in rdr1. and what i like about it is that it, explicitly, is not a story of true love.

don't misunderstand, i think john and abigail love each other to death and ever after. they share such a deep and solid relationship and both make mutual connections to each other over the course of the game. but what makes them compelling to me is the deep realism rooted in their romance and the way that love is depicted as choice rather than fate.

rdr2 poses this more than once through out the story, with the most obvious example being mary-linton and arthur. when presented the choice to leave the gang or go with mary, arthur chooses the gang due to various internal and external factors. but the implication remains that things might've been different had arthur learned how to choose other things. himself. his future. etc. there's examples of this with hosea and bessie (said by hosea himself "she knew what i was"), with dutch and his varying models of young women. the van der linde gang chooses the outlaw life chronically, habitually, instinctively.

abigail joins the gang as a working girl. she sleeps with most of the camp, and then with john. they're sweet on each other. and she has a boy that she believes to be johns. john is hesitant to believe that (and maybe some of that is warranted) but most of it is him being a complete jackass. the kid is born. john is presented the option of fatherhood. he, like the rest of the gang, comes to a point where he feels he must choose what is going to take priority in his life.

(and this is important - because in my mind, so much of this pressure is so self-imposed. it's inherited in the way most sons inherit from their father or like most younger brothers inherit for their older ones. it's possible no one told john to choose explicitly. not then at least.

but well, john has seen this all play out before. and loyal men choose the gang, almost always. the gang is family, was family before jack and abigail. and if john owes anyone loyalty, it's dutch who raised him as a golden boy)

john, for better or worse, chooses neither. he leaves the gang entirely, for a year which is a huge point of contention. he leaves both things behind. he doesn't choose. he doesn't want to choose. but he comes back, and presumably makes the choice made many times before him. he chooses the gang and completely shafts responsibility of fatherhood and husbandry. but there is obvious uncertainty there.

the choice john makes to leave is interesting when you consider it thematically, and you consider arthurs specific advice to john before his death - that you can't be two men at once. something that is reiterated to john in the epilogue and that he acts on in rdr1. it's also interesting when keeping in mind some hidden dialogue hosea has with john, in which john says he knows that jack is his.

to me, john understands very well whats going on around him. and that his actions are informed explicitly by that choice.

and this to me is what makes his relationship to abigail so interesting. john is no doubt a loser, a deadbeat, and a bum (he is my favorite character) - but all of this information together makes me interpret his actions (coldness towards her and jack) not as genuine resentment but an externalized projection and defensive mechanism.

johns uncertainty is not towards jack being his or even towards abigail, but a baseline questioning of the violence he's been steeped in his entire life. what was once a simple, intuitive choice to be an outlaw is called into question by the legitimate possibility of something else.

arthur has a line to john, where he says that if you don't think jack is yours - why does it bother you so much? and it's a good question indeed, why does any of it bother him so much? why does abigails nagging bother him so much? why is it that john chooses to be actively antagonistic towards her when he could choose to simply be apathetic or choose to reject or stonewall her?

a lot of it is projection. its hypocrisy on johns behalf. he unloads his questioning and beliefs about the gang unto abigail who serves as a semi-constant reminder of his own problems. abigail during the main story game doesn't ask john to choose, but john knows that he has too. that's what that whole thing leads to.

when the gang starts to fall apart and when jack gets kidnapped, john immediately changes his tune. he's in clear disarray. the seeds of doubt planted in his head about dutch during blackwater only get increasingly extreme and as the game goes on into guarma and johns prison arc. he starts more clearly distinguishing where his loyalty will lie as the game closes, john is finally encouraged to make the cemented choice of jack and abi and not gang life (not all at once and something he will continue to struggle with) but he makes it all the same.

and then all of that intersects with abigail. and this to me is where the basis their relationship stems from because it's largely abigails influence, personality, and persistence that allows john not to make the same mistakes. abigail doesn't ask john for love, but she refuses to yield to him when it comes to jack. i know so many people see abigails nagging as nagging, or clinginess - but in my mind, it's simply her not letting john get away with being wishy-washy. abigail makes herself known and doesn't relent even when john continuously acts like a massive dick. she's not a pushover about it though either.

abigail loves john and probably understands him better than people give her credit for. especially with her calling him silly so often (a WHOLE different meta post) it's out of genuine love for john and in many cases, a genuine concern for john as a person that she acts the way she does. she gets on his case because she doesn't really want to give up on him, even though she probably very well could.

and she'd definitely be more at peace if she did lmao.

at a human level, abigails constancy and her both 1. not taking johns shit when he acts like a dick and 2. still wanting more and whats best for him is probably one of the base reasons john has full strength to make it out. and john knows that. abigail chooses john. she wants to choose john. she believes in him and so much of that contributes to the fact john doesn't end up somewhere much worse when the main story ends.

but again its not easy. for either of them. and it's not something that works until john gets his shit together. their relationship doesn't mend overnight, either. in the epilogue of the game, you see them face the same struggles they did through the main story. but like i said, abigail is no pushover. when john keeps choosing outlaw life, abigail leaves because she feels there's no helping him and john has to prove himself to her once more. he has to choose them.

(a lot of people critique abigail for being unfair to john and i understand that - but i think its mostly fear. john was in that life for years, and to abigails there's no telling if that siren song will take over and uproot her life again or not. i do think many times john took up the gun in the epilogue were completely fair, but i dont think abigails reaction is unwarranted.)

but again. again. the core of their love story is about choice. both john and abigail make the choice to choose their family and their love is founded on learning to choose each other. abigail straightens john out, and his character in rdr1 is so much more mellow than he is in rdr2. his loyalty to abigail is fierce and consistent, and john knows he owes a lot to her and never loses sight of that in the years they spend peacefully together.

he likes that abigail gives him shit and a hard time because he knows he deserves it and that it was one of the only things stabilizing him during some of the most tumultuous and difficult times of their life together.

they have such deep and genuine love for each other, built entirely in trying to believe and trust in one another and hold onto love in an era where everything was constantly at stake. it's not fairytale romance, but tried and true connection and choice. i love you because i chose you and i'd keep choosing you. they are so awkward with each other for so long because of the nature of their relationship to each other and that truly endears them to me all the more.

they just. they are so in love. but its not a fairy tale. and its not a case of john getting the girl because he's the hero or whatever. john loves her so much and she loves him and it all took a while and none of it was perfect. but it was real. so so so real between them. ack.

[marvelling-at-marvel-blog]

The thing about S1 Jamie that I think is interesting is I think on rewatch there is some insight as to why Jamie went so hard on the bullying of Sam. (Not gonna be defending Jamie's treatment of Sam just looking into maybe why). Because out of all of the things Jamie did is season one. The one that seems hardest to understand or really forgive is his treatment of Sam. The first time around, you couldn't understand it. Sam is legitimately the kindest man in existence. (I know as a stroyteller it was the easiest way to really get us to dislike Jamie and really make us more understanding of Roy's treatment of Jamie which to be frank is not great and understand Ted's fruatrations with him) and Sam just keeps trying with Jamie.

But know I think it far to say thay S1 Jamie was jealous of Sam and his easy going, happy, postive nature. I dont think he was aware of it though.

Season 1 Jamie is so interesting because on paper, he had everything he thought he wanted. But I dint think he was overally happy. But yeah it seemed to be all his way

1. He played for the team he grew up supporting and dreamed of playing for. I imagine his first time stepping on that fiels in that uniform would have been monumental. Sure, maybe he wasn't a starter, but he got some minutes and the unspken agreement that in a few years, he would be a star.

2. I imagine he was initially disappointed to be loaned out, but then he learns he is being loaned to Richmond. Yeah they suck, but he gets to play a full 90 minutes, is basically going to be the best player, kick most of thier goals and he gets to be team mates with Roy Kent (he dreamed of playing against him one day, with him is a dream come true, I really think pre show Jamie would have been so excited to play with Roy Kent and was so disappointed in how it turned out). Plus, it has the added advantage of getting him away from his dad. And once his done his loan, he can come back to Manchester. This is his chance to get away from it for a while and be the star

3. He meets and gets to date Keely Jones who his always had a crush on. Dhe is literally a dream girl for him

So he should be happy right. His got everything he wanted, but it's not going the way he expected because.....

1. Roy Kent hates him (in my mind Roy was standoffish from the start, heres come this whizkid who was everything he used to be and slowly losing. I think Jamie came in at 100% and immediatley put Roy on the back foot). Jamie tries with Roy but the more it doesnt work the more Jamie goes OK, if I cant make him like me I will show him I am better than him. Hence the beginning of that relationship.

2. Yeah his away from his dad and his killing it at Richmond, scoring their goals, winning them matches but it only seems to be winning over half the team (he can't see yet his attitude is what is stopping the other guys from liking him). And the team still isn't doing great even with him. Plus he may be away from his Dad but his relationship with his mum feels like it in a werid place which sucks cause she is his favourite person ever.

3. And Keeley seems to be where its going right but sometimes it feels like his a bit of a project for her. And I think he has heard people (like Roy) question why she is with him.

And let's face it, he is still likely hearing from his dad when he doesn't perform up to his standards.

And then heres Sam. Who (at this point in time) isn't playing well, isn't scoring goals, not massively contributing to thier wins and yet he seems so genuinely happy all the time and everyone loves him, Roy Kent seems to like him and is friendly with him, complimenting him (which he has never done to Jamie). Sam is so open and kind he has probably talked about his dad in the locker room, and his relationship with his family seems perfect and that must gnaw at Jamie because all he ever wanted is to make his dad proud and his pretty sure he will never achieve it because the man is a d***k who is impossoble to please, yet Jamie never stops trying and things are werid with his mum which he hates. But all he hears when its brought up from Sam is how great his family is.

Then along comes the new gaffer who Jamie can't even understand why he is coaching, but he also seems to love Sam and wants him to be the decoy so Sam can kick the goal. Even though Jamie knows if he kicks it, it will go in.

Now we all know the reason Sam is liked is because he is an amazing, kind hearted, dedicated person, but I think S1 Jamie is so jealous and does not even know it.

Because S1 Jamie is still living with the notion that being the best in the most important thing ( thank you James Tartt Sr) so to Jamie he is out here busting his ass at training to be the best, scoring all the goals yet Sam seems to be the one who is living what he thought his dream time at Richmond was going to be. And I know I mention it but I think it is a big thing for Jamie, the harder he tries the more Roy seems to despise him, and take enjoyment in his embarrassment.

And S1 Jamie in all maturity handles his jealously by trying to make Sam feel as bad as he is feeling. Which Jamie, baby. That's kindergarten mentality. And poor Sam actually thinks Jamie is a great player and would love to learn from him in the beginning and isnt having a great time either.

But yeah. I dont think Jamie ever disliked Sam. I think he was insanly jealous of him all the time and didn't know how to handle that or even admit it himself.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. Apologies for my rambles.

[shithowdy]

Yo hello there! I’m very sorry to bother you at this time of the day, just reaching out if you’d be so kind to check the post that I pinned on my blog and maybe give it a little help by boosting/sharing it? it’s for my cat :((( and we need help to get him the dental care he needs. It would really mean the world to me and I understand if you don’t, still appreciate you and stay safe! Btw, please do send me a msg to reply or answer the ask privately instead as I dont want other blogs to think im a spambot or what, once again im sorry for asking this, praying you’d consider! 🥲🙏

how about i answer this publicly so people can see exactly what a spambot these days looks like?

ai generated character icon, a very short and sanitary history of reblogs that are all relevant to the scam in question to appear legitimate (cats, popular fandom), and a search for the name "amy danescmand" across tumblr reveals a several-year history of the paypal account being linked for various dire needs.

it should be obvious enough to people that being asked to keep something like this to dms is shady as hell, but their post says they've managed to squeeze $180 out of users already, so let's have a learning moment instead. always scrutinize where your money is going in crowdfunds; look up names, do reverse image searches, check for generative images, and confirm user activity patterns.

[turtblurts-pkmnirl-hub]

okay. ive been trying not to let this anon get to me all that much today. keyword trying. but like. yknow. it really does feel like a slap to the face to watch what this anon said get reinforced in real time. the minute that i had z make a silly post offhandedly i got SO many more anons suddenly flood my inbox in a single instant than jaime had gotten in the entire day.

and like. i get it. z is interesting and she's a major source of information as to the offscreen ongoings of the other characrters! i get wanting to get all the juicy details from her whenever she's around.

but i think she's spoiled yall a lil too much.

its one thing to have a preference towards a specific character(s) and want to interact and ask questions about them! and i get not wanting to have to follow like several other blogs connected to them just to get the full story! thats whatever! i can understand that!

but its another thing entirely to not only come to someone's inbox and say TO THEIR FACE that you dont care about their character or their friends' characters, but to say that you follow one of their blogs and ACTIVELY BLOCK THE TAG OF THE CHARACTER THAT OWNS THE FUCKING BLOG just so that you can see what kinda shit z's talking abt.

what the fuck is up with that. why would say that to me. why would you say that to ANYONE.

thats such a slap to the fucking face. its disrespectful to me, to my friends, and to all of the time and effort we all put into all these characters that we roleplay FOR FUN.

ALSO HOLD ON IM JUST REMEMBERING THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED FOR US.

THIS EXACT THING HAPPENED WITH THE FRUITBASKET-GOSSIP BLOG AS WELL. THIS WAS SUCH A SLAP TO THE FUCKING FACE FOR ALL OF US, ESPECIALLY @/grims-local-pkmn-irl-hub AND @/cassi-pokeblogging-hub WHO PLAYED HONDEW AND STARF RESPECTIVELY. AND TBH THIS ANON WAS A LEGITIMATE MOTIVATION KILLER FOR THEM.

i dont care if this was meant to be in-character anon hate. this isnt good anon hate. this is just a shit thing to say period.

tld-fucking-r; if you are going to follow a roleplay account, respect the blogrunners and the characters that they play. dont say this shit to anyone. we're here to have fun, we're not obligated to do anything for you.

[rharsh1213]

Guys i feel so lost and confused trying to play love unholyc.

Like i get the currency...i think..look all i know is that u can buy time tickets w acme and asmodeus tears you can gamble with(???)

But thats legitimately the only part that i get

Actually ive already made an acc for love unholyc a long time ago and i guess i just forgotten the tutorial, i mean even when pressing the question marks for bits of tutorials i still feel so lost

The main reason im here is for the story and i dont even know how to get it, i mean there is the pawprint lookin thing for the 7 days but then wtf are calls and video calls?? Does that help you with a route or?? What do you mean its also timed??

Which brings me to another part i dont understand

Love unholyc is the first game ive played with like timed calls messages and stuff and it shows. When i look up time guides or whatever yall call it my jaw just drops at the time required to get certain content

What do mean i have to stay up until 12 what....😧 is that kst or on wherever i am rn??

Aack im such a newgen...

Also do i have to be there minutes before the time or exactly at that time im confused

ive used up tickets to get through day 1 but

What does this bar mean?? Did i miss something??Sure i didnt buy my way to 1 chatroom but did i really miss something??

This is a cry for help i feel like such a dumbass not getting how this game works

[anonymous-dentist]

STOP. FREEZE. U DONT KNOW SPANISH???? im mind blown. HOW do u know so much q!roier lore, how do u just know q!roier so well???? HOW??? GENUINELY?? like in my opinion u have the best characterisation of him that ive seen including hispanic q!roier fans, so u can imagine how shocked i am to be informed that u dont speak spanish,,

also some questions, do u watch his streams even without understanding much? and have u learned anything in spanish from him? sorry for asking so much hjdfhjsdfsd its just its always amazing to me to see ppl who dont speak spanish be interested on us, even though im constantly consuming q!roier content in english i always assume the creator is bilingual and not just. monolingual ghfdcjsjfsdcjmkvs

I think I’ve watched 95% of all of Roier’s qsmp streams, I’m just missing a few that I watched Cellbit’s pov of, and then the first week of qsmp streams. He was my first Hispanic pov, and I chose right because he’s the guy that stayed! :D

I have learned some very useful phrases in Spanish by watching his streams! Like, “No mames”, and “culero”. But also I’ve picked up on a lot of Spanish that I legitimately don’t know how to write because I only know what it sounds like! Like when he’s like “I don’t know” or “Look at this!” or “It’s a joke!”, stuff like that

I’ve been teaching myself Spanish via duolingo since November because I’d been watching Quackity’s Karmaland series for like six months at that point and I decided I should start learning what he was actually saying, and I. Have only had duolingo. Lol. Which sucks because they keep shuffling lessons around and randomly setting me back three weeks during a lesson shuffle and I don’t even know how to count to ten yet, but that’s fine because I know what a goddamn bolígrafo is

I’m genuinely monolingual, and so it’s sometimes very hard trying to write q!Roier and talk about him and stuff lol because I really don’t know like anything he says ever. But I kinda just vibe check and chill tbh, he really isn’t that complicated if you listen closely enough