#I cause people harm simply by existing as a concept

[juniperpyre]

misconceptions about real world history and how they affect interpretations of wizarding world history

misconception of magic and witchcraft in western europe pre-modern era

application in HP world building a: inconsistencies in the text b: what this means for magical history (feat: Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco)

1: misconceptions of magic and witchcraft in western europe

there's a huge cultural misunderstanding of how western europe thought about "magic" and "witchcraft" pre-modern era, including the function of the witch trials. laws against magic were specific, and usually involved the practicer causing certain harm or worshipping pagan gods.

folk magic was practiced across cultures and across the centuries by the lower classes. ritualized chanting, amulets, prayers to saints, rituals of protection (sometimes from witchcraft), and medicine all contained elements of knowledge beyond the observable.

most people would have considered something condemnable and witchcraft if the power came from the Devil. other practices that we lump into that specific version of witchcraft would have been miracles, or cunning, or maybe a prayer answered.

it went against church doctrine to believe magic existed in any form for much of this time, but we know that doesn't mean it wasn't still part of the cultures.

the witch trials, which peaked in the early modern era, were simply targeting women. there was a rise in unmarried women, women were marrying older, and nunneries were being shut down due to the protestant reformation. i've spoken before about how the conception of what a woman is was changing rapidly in the early modern era.

2: application in HP worldbuilding

a: inconsistencies in the text

this is why i get irritated when i see people take the persecution of magical folk as presented in HP text at face value. there is no historical basis for this until the early modern witch trials, which is stated in the text to not have a big impact on magical folk's safety.

to quote a history of magic:

"Non-magic people (more commonly known as Muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognising it. On the rare occasion that they did catch a real witch or wizard, burning had no effect whatsoever. The witch or wizard would perform a basic Flame-Freezing Charm and then pretend to shriek with pain while enjoying a gentle, tickling sensation. Indeed, Wendelin the Weird enjoyed being burned so much that she allowed herself to be caught no less than forty-seven times in various disguises."

so, which is it? Muggle suddenly turned on magical folk and scared them into hiding with their persecution, or they were no real threat. we know jkr just needed a reason for the magical world to be secret, but for those of us who choose to take this way too seriously, this is an inconsistency.

b: what this means for magical history

an inconsistency that reminds me of two components of fascism as described by Umberto Eco. one is "obsession with a plot", an obsessive fear that some outside enemy is trying to harm your group, and two, the creation of enemies who were "at the same time too strong and too weak".

not to say the WW is fascist. i think this comparison makes it clear that the mythology around magical history is a way to maintain power and control over the population. the mythology creates a justification for the SoS and later the development of pureblood supremacy, which i view as a form of nationalism.

i don't think we really know what happened to cause the SoS. i suspect it was due to the witch trials, sure, but also because of the same anxieties and upheavals that caused the witch trials. like all things, it was fucking complicated.

we have pureblood propaganda in the supplementary text in the form of the sacred 28. this was published anonymously in the 1930s. no sources. meaningless. who was included and who was excluded was arbitrary. i don't think it's a stretch to say there is more historical myth-making going on in the text. we'll never know bc jkr hates history and is horrible at writing it!

overall, headcanon what you want, world build what you want, but it is useful to identify authoritarian and propagandist elements in the text you're analyzing. people seem to fall for the WW in-universe propaganda often, in pursuit of making blood supremacists more sympathetic. i'd rather we not.

[weirdstrangeandawful]

Love having a mild treatable disease that has decided to present as moderate to severe and refractory to treatment.

[apas-95]

i largely agree with your politics but tbqh the way you present your ideas is not really radical, frankly it's worryingly eschatological/messianic. which sucks cuz otherwise you seen like a pretty rational individual

I don't think 'making claims about the future' is inherently messianic or eschatological, though I understand this is often a sticking point regarding Marxism - if we understand dialectical and historical materialism to be genuine scientific knowledge on human society, which we should, then the ability to predict future events with confidence is simply part and parcel of its existence as scientific knowledge.

The claim 'the tendency of the rate of profit to fall drives capital inevitably, through various ways, into cyclical crises of various scales, with the largest-scale examples consisting of global economic crises and world wars, the approach to which can be recognised and quantified prior' should be seen as no more messianic than 'the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere causes runaway heating which, while increasing the general planetary average temperature, alao leads to localised extreme weather events and rising sea levels, which can be recognised and quantified prior'.

Fundamentally, while a lot of people are willing to accept Marxism as providing *empirical* understanding of human society; that is, as a means to understand and decompose present and historical social issues; it is a lot harder for people to accept Marxism as providing genuinely scientific understanding of human society capable of predictive power. The reasons behind this are, generally, due to the nature of enlightenment philosophy and the bourgeois conception of science, wherein bourgeois social 'sciences' are incomplete, piecemeal, and reflexive (since, as Marxism demonstrates, a geneuine scientific analysis of human society, beginning from the political-economic basis of society, is harmful to bourgeois society).

When I say 'revolution in the imperial core is not going to occur today, but is an essential inevitability in the near future' I am saying, essentially, nothing more than the well-proven principle that 'revolution will occur where the chain of imperialism is weakest'. The condition for revolution in the imperial core is widespread revolution in the periphery states, the condition for widespread revolution in the periphery states is worldwide economic crisis and war, and the condition for worldwide economic crisis and war is the decline of imperial profits and the collapse of imperialist alliances. There is a fairly clear chain of events here, each of which has not only turned out in the past (the first world war being predictable before it ever occured) but is currently turning out in the present (look back even on my own blog towards discussions of inter-imperialist war and note that Marxists had predicted a ground war in Europe by 2025 well prior to the actual commencement of the Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine, as well as the inevitability of an economic crash circa 2020).

As proletarians, there is, also, largely nothing that can be done to influence these events without the existence of large proletarian political organs capable of leading the proletariat in conscious political action - the existence of which is contingent on historical circumstances. The imperial core does not have serious proletarian organs with a mass basis, and will not have those organs until conditions exist to facilitate them - said conditions being the collapse of imperialist profits and the worsening of domestic repression in core states. This does not mean that the eventual emergence and victory of those organs will not require constant, arduous work from communists to build up and maintain, to whatevee degree is possible, a communist movement until fhat time arrives - but it means that, for instance: Marx in the 1800s was never going to lead a socialist state, leaving that work to a future Lenin.

Almost assuredly, no existing party in the USA will carry out revolution - but the leaders of the revolutionary movement that will emerge under the pressures of war against Russia, China, the EU imperialist bloc; and of climate crisis and economic collapse; will likely be the ones gaining experience in political work at this time. Marxism speaks of classes, not individuals - it is not, really, messianic to say 'the bourgeoisie will go to war when faced with economic crisis, and the proletariat will resist when faced with war', nor is it, I reason, very eschatological to say 'the world is going to get much, much worse in the near future, however, there is a possible way to escape the horrors of war that does not end in nuclear annihilation'.

However, if it's what you'd prefer, I could call myself God-queen of violent benevolence, and emanate a vision of revolutionary salvation - whichever works.

[hey-that-hurt]

A concept I’ve seen many times in the whump community is a story in which the readers act as though they are an audience to a livestream where the whump occurs, donating to cause specific terrible things to happen to the whumpee.

I was thinking about this scenario, the idea of this underground practice where people pay to see a victim be hurt, and I realized that if the people doing this really wanted to maximize profits, they would also let people pay to have the victim not be hurt.

And I think this would result in this underground community where there would not only be people yelling at each other about the obvious horrible immortality of what was happening, there would also be people arguing that there was a moral obligation here to donate towards the option of providing comfort to the victim rather than harm.

I think this would draw in another crowd, a crowd of people who want to be heroes. Rather than donating to cause more torture, these viewers would donate to feed the whumpee, give them a blanket, give them some time to simply rest. For a fee, the whumpee’s life could be made just a bit less terrible.

But, in turn, they would be feeding right back into the system, further incentivizing the existence of the livestreams. But… maybe some of these more benevolent viewers don’t actually want the streams to stop.

[signanothername]

I saw you reblogged a Killer art where he had an ectobody and it made me realise I don't think i ever saw you mention those? Like, do you headcanon they exist ? Or nah.

Cuz i think they're pretty cool.

See, the reason I don’t mention them is cause I’m not the biggest fan of them??

To me personally, in my own interpretation of the characters, ecto bodies don’t really exist for every skeleton, it’s something that’s unique to Underlust

I think ecto as a concept is really just mosly used/explored only when people want to make nsfw art, or simply to make a character look pretty

Which, nothing inherently wrong with that btw, it’s just not my kinda preference, I’d be a lot more interested if they were explored more fictional biology wise that isn’t pertaining to looks or sexual stuff

That being said, doesn’t mean I completely dislike them either, I do love to see other people’s artworks with them, don’t mind seeing them on my dash at all

But see, my biggest gripe with them for me is the fact they’re so human coded??? which takes away from my favorite thing ever, the fact these skeleton monsters ARE skeleton monsters, they’re anything but human, even when they have human coded stuff like sweating or bleeding

It’s just, if you’re gonna give them an ecto body, that just looks like a human body (the only difference is that they glow and can be transparent I guess??) what’s left that isn’t human about these skeletons y’know? It’s too close to being human for my liking, just make them actual humans at that point hxgdgdggd

Plus it just never made sense to me that every single skeleton monster has an ecto body, like there’s so many things you can explore, like how a skeleton monster could even have one and how they feel about it or whether or not they’ll even use it if they did have it, etc, but these things are never really explored within the fandom so I couldn’t be bothered to specifically look for things concerning it

Still, fun concept that doesn’t cause any harm, so hell ya go enjoy those ecto bodies <33333

[crimsoncowboyy]

Are John and Arthur “Good” People? (An RDR Analysis)

A common comment I see on a lot of RDR posts is that, at the end of the day, John and Arthur are simply bad people. Usually, these comments can be seen in game clips where the player controlling Arthur has him do something drastically evil, such as mass murdering an entire town, just for fun. However, these also exist under posts that are meant to praise the characters of the game, showcasing their redemption arcs and appreciating how far both John and Arthur grow from the beginning of the game series. First, I think it is important to note that for the sake of the game being interactive, players must be able to have autonomy over what either John or Arthur do. Player autonomy within RDR is meant to serve as a world-building mechanism that unites the player with the intricate environmental designs, side-character interactions, and atypical lifestyles of John and Arthur. The more one explores, the more immersed they become with the characters they play as, and this makes the eventual deaths of both protagonists even more impactful. Yet, some players instead utilize open-world freedom to harass and harm numerous NPCs for seemingly no reason. Sure, Arthur and John can be made to rob random houses and beat up women in saloons, but this is not representative of the canonical story Rockstar is portraying. This leads to the other point I brought up, which is that many people argue that John and Arthur do not technically redeem themselves, and I want to dissect this by explaining what RDR teaches players about what it means to be a good person.

To tackle this complicated question, it is essential to recognize that the world Arthur and John come from is not a world that RDR players have ever lived in. The Wild West as a whole is essentially its micro-society that died about over one hundred years ago, and rather than going to war with other countries, Wild West “gangs” go to war with rival groups that hold ideologies the other finds to be immoral or corrupt. This world has its own traditions, power dynamics, borders, and way of life that can be defined by two main concepts: anarchy and poverty. Yet, like all political ideologies and lifestyles, some issues and hypocrisies arise from these values. Despite being anarchists who view the rich and the government as the world’s true enemies, micro-governments form within the “gangs” of the Wild West that develop into an almost cult-like reality that all people knowingly or unknowingly accept. Dutch Van Der Linde is a prime example of this. He rescues children, veterans, people of color, and outlaws who often themselves are victims of capitalism, racism, and American corruption and takes them in as his “children.” Dutch can be analyzed as the gang’s leader, and he ultimately sets up a society where he has loyal advisors, such as Hosea Matthews, but at the end of the day, only his word is to be followed, despite any doubts or opposition. Additionally, despite giving those living in poverty food, shelter, “education,” and a sense of community, Van Der Linde isolates members of his gang from the outside world through unique manipulation that eventually has the gang turn against one another.

Even though Dutch claims he opposes the structure of the United States government and the way it is often a form of evil, he does little to fight against the system. Instead, he uses it as an excuse to gain power in his way and steal from those he feels as a whole wronged him, but he sends loyal gang members to do the dirty work for him. This leads to a vicious cycle of poverty perpetrated by both Wild West gang leaders and the government itself; to put it simply, the government does little to help those born into unfortunate circumstances, poverty, families of color, and more. It then deems these people to be “inhuman,” causing those same people to flee to whoever will accept and guide them. Then, when the government gets wind of what those “inhuman” people are now up to, they demand that these lifestyles get abandoned and destroyed, but still fail to provide an alternate lifestyle of help to get people on the right track. This isolation and lack of empathy from those of governmental power both cause these Wild West outlaws to exist in a balance of stark independence and cultish loyalty to those who offer a sense of belonging. Thus, a vicious cycle continues.

Yet, even with menial knowledge of the Wild West lifestyle, it does not take long for players to get a sense that John and Arthur are two strong examples of what morality within this dubiously structured world can be analyzed to look like. The only times we see John and Arthur be “cruel” (outside of TikTok gameplay clips from teenage boys…) is when they want to say or do something mean to somebody. For example, Arthur demeans Sadie by calling her “woman,” but this is because he feels she is claiming to be better than other people in the camp because she does not want to cook. At other times, he uses the term “woman” or similar derogatory terms when trying to assert dominance or intimidate others. Arthur does this because of the loyalty he has to Dutch; he believes he is acting how he must act to provide for the gang, thus making Arthur’s motivations clear: loyalty. No matter what, Arthur is loyal to the people he perceives to be his family and saviors, especially Dutch. When Arthur is not working and encounters people he has genuine conversations with, we see the kindness, empathy, and creativity that Arthur possesses, even if Arthur himself downplays his own beautiful characteristics. Even if you always choose to antagonize gang members, you will not lose honor as a result of it, implying the gang understands that Arthur has and always will mean well. He openly expresses that he believes in equality, and we see through his interactions with women, people of color, and even those with alternative lifestyles, such as Charles Chatenay, that he respects people if they follow their hearts and lack impure intentions. This is why Arthur resonates so heavily with Eagle Flies, who wants to start a war against the United States Army because of their treatment of his tribe, while Arthur despises Micah who only serves himself.

John and Arthur are similar to one another. One thing to make note of is that they symbolize a sibling duo that grew up in chaos and processed it differently. Arthur, who is older than John, takes a much more “loyal dog” approach to his upbringing. Since Dutch and Hosea took Arthur in and provided him with the paternal comfort he always sought even before the “Van Der Linde gang” was fully established, Arthur dedicates his entire life to the two. He is scarily dedicated to serving them, both because he adores the gang as a whole and because he has not formed an identity outside of Dutch’s hold. Dutch does this on purpose, essentially grooming Arthur to be an unbeatable bodyguard, and takes advantage of Arthur’s desperate-for-praise nature and gradually exposes Arthur to more and more violence until it is just a factor of his life. However, John juxtaposes Arthur’s fervently faithful nature, as he is younger and joined the gang after it was a bit more developed. John shows a much more defiant and anti-authority streak than Arthur does. While Arthur does value alone time as a means of reflection, John shows a tendency to make choices for himself, even if this is at the expense of other people. Yet, there is something almost childish about John, even when he’s robbing someone or being threatened by the government. In the face of danger, he will make snide remarks, and while being stubborn, he will display an almost silly sense of opposition to whatever he dislikes or does not want to do (think about how he was acting while being driven in the car in RDR1). Yet, deep down, John has a similar sense of loyalty to Arthur, and this is where their two arcs truly divide; Arthur is causing him because of his unconditional loyalty to a decaying cause, while John wants to be better for his wife, Abigail, and son, Jack, but does not know how to be. It is very evident that John loves Abigail more than anything. Around her, his defiant, angry nature will subdue or disappear entirely. Abigail, who also grew up in unfortunate circumstances and turned to prostitution as a result, understands who John is at the core, and he understands her. She is the one person John, in his own strange way, is vulnerable with. He lets Abigail slap him if he says something rude, performs gestures of love as a means of apologizing to her, and goes to Mexico while it is in the midst of a bloody civil war to take down Bill, Javier, and Dutch after the gang disbanded all to secure her freedom from government captivity. John’s love for Abigail is so important because he is somebody we see resent how he gets frequently used like a pawn by people in power, but with Abigail, he accepts that sense of authority and respects her because of it.

So, if John loves Abigail so deeply, why did he run away after the birth of Jack? Does this not make him a deadbeat father and a bad man? At first glance, John’s relationship with Jack does appear to have a level of unhealthiness to it. Not only did he miss a year of Jack’s life, but as he gets older, John tends to put down Jack’s less “masculine” interests. While this is wrong to do to Jack, it is difficult to claim that John’s actions were meant to be purposely cruel. This is somebody who knows very little about love, family, and fatherhood. Sure, John gets glimpses of these realities through the gang, but the gang is still made up of lots of people who are coping with traumatic pasts. The gang, who are now all adults, understand the reality of their situation and the people who are in the same circumstances as them, but John knows that Jack deserves better than the dwindling life of a Wild West outlaw. Yet, John does not know how to obtain this life for his son. The only fatherly figures he has had raised him to be but another player in this violent world, and otherwise, John has lacked positive and authoritative male role models in his life. So, John panics and disappears not just on Abigail and Jack, but on the gang as a whole. Upon his return months later, almost everybody welcomes him back with open arms; even Abigail. She understands that John fled not because he is unloving, but because he is too loving and fears he will raise a son that will turn on as hardened and unfortunate as him, and that is the last thing John wants. Even though they fight and sometimes fail to communicate efficiently, John and Abigail know that deep down, they mean everything to one another, and no matter how idiotic John acts, it is out of fear, not pure cruelty.

Both RDR games end with the protagonist’s death which symbolizes a cycle of violence being broken, even if it is a more gradual process. John and Arthur have spent their lives essentially in exile. Their biological families and home country have abandoned them in numerous ways, and this resulted in an outlaw lifestyle that is now being forcefully put to an end by the very same government that catalyzed its creation. They have mastered how to fight for what little they have and how to steal from upper-class Americans as an act of retaliation, but all this does is trap Arthur and John in their angry pasts. Rather than Dutch helping the two get back on their feet, he instead encourages John and Arthur to fight and take from the same society that displaced them. Yet, this brutality does nothing but make the two groups hate each other more and more, especially as Dutch’s plans began to change from simply robbing the rich to becoming the very force that enables poverty patterns to continue. John and Arthur begin to recognize and oppose this because of the empathy both possess, and they start to resent Dutch’s changing ways. Once again, we do not see either man kill in cold blood, seek to harm the innocent, take enjoyment in murder, or act in self-serving manners. From the angle of the Wild West being its own society, John and Arthur have the roles of being military men who finally see the extent of the damage their world has caused, even though they tried to convince themselves that their world was different. Thus, the cycle breaking begins. After being diagnosed with tuberculosis, Arthur decides to spend the time he has left helping strangers with an array of problems and assisting those whose lives he feels he has negatively impacted. One of Arthur’s final moments is him either going back to get the money that will symbolize Arthur reclaiming a sense of personal power in the world that is crumbling around him or him helping John with one final major escape from the life of violence he was born into. This is after Arthur already made numerous decisions to save John from danger, whether it be a wolf pack or a prison island, because despite Arthur’s criticism of John’s actions, Arthur knows that deep down, John is not somebody who acts with the intention to be bad. Seeing this goodness and selflessness from a man who grew up in the same life as himself, John continues to try and be a different person for the sake of protecting his family. John tries hard for this, and he eventually builds a ranch for him, Abigail, and Jack to live on together and search for a sense of normalcy, which Abigail appreciates more than anything.

However, progress is not linear. Despite John working hard to outgrow the only lifestyle he ever really knew, he cannot fully escape the trauma and chaos that trails him. This is partially due to him occasionally slipping back into his old ways, especially in the face of danger, where he continues to fight rather than aim for peaceful means of mediation, and partially due to the American government doing what it does best: fail at true justice. Even though John has started to create a new life for himself, the government ignores their role in the development of the Van Der Linde gang, instead kidnapping John’s family years later and only agreeing to release them if John can take down Dutch, Bill, and Javier. They send him into the war-ridden Mexico region with minimal resources, assistance, or guidance, causing John to have to do what he used to do with Dutch, which is kill, meddle in other people’s battles, and get taken advantage of by more powerful forces. Once again, John only kills because he sees it as fighting for the greater good; a reality where he and his family can be free and his past can be eradicated. He does not take joy in fighting for or against the Mexican government, he is simply working with what little he has to save his family. Even then, we still see John’s heart through his care for Luisa, Bonnie, and even strangers that he assists on the road. Despite this and performing what the American government asked of him, they still gun him down at the game’s conclusion, which John accepts rather than evades because he wants his family to settle down and live to become something better, even if he is not there to see it.

Even though RDR1’s epilogue shows Jack to now be angry and hurt as well, there is still something inherently different about his life compared to that of John and Arthur. Jack’s dad was present in his life, even if imperfectly, he had a mother who loved him dearly, even though we know she passed away a few years after John did, and Jack has an understanding of the foundation of a life built around love and family. It is possible that Jack may have the same streaks of violence as John did, but for the first time, the Marston lineage is seeing a glimmer of hope that has seldom been seen before, all because one man dared to stop fighting against the past and instead fight for a brighter future, even if not for himself. Now, does all of this backstory and explanation pardon everything Arthur and John have done? Absolutely not. No human being is capable of getting through life without hurting people, involving themselves in situations they should not have a part in, only trusting perfect people, or making bad choices in the face of unfamiliarity or turmoil. However, it proves something greater than simply stating if John and Arthur are “good” men because oftentimes, people grow up in worlds where goodness is not an apparent reality. Yet, what can be said is that Arthur and John tried to better and fight for a greater, purer good, even at their own expense. Sure, their pasts cannot be eradicated, and they cannot change what is already done, but what they do have power over is how they shape the rest of the time they have left. So, they do what others have rarely done for them and take a gamble on embracing love to both change for the people they cherish and to be changed by those who love them.

All countries and communities are united through collective acts of violence, war, pride, and enabling of cruelty. The United States government and the Van Der Linde gang are both guilty in that regard. Yet, if the absence of all imperfections and the capability for one to escape the harsh circumstances they exist in is what makes somebody good, then nobody would ever be able to respect themselves, because, in one way or another, everybody hurts and gets hurt in return. What makes a true difference, however, is the ability to acknowledge one’s shortcomings, whether or not these are intentional, circumstantial, or implicit, and utilize that realization to push not to become perfect or guiltless, but better than before. At the end of the day, that urge to push for a gentler way of living for the sake of bringing peace to both yourself and who or what you love the most is what makes Arthur and John good people. Deeply complex, flawed, regretful, and troubled, but good. If everybody valued goodness as the desire to do better rather than fight against an unchangeable past, maybe the world as a whole would strive for decency and ultimately unite us all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you for reading! This is my first time posting on Tumblr, and I am looking forward to posting and engaging with more commentary of RDR. My essay is not proofread, so I apologize for any mistakes. :)

[brazenautomaton]

Cannot reblog original post but: taboo "feminism"?

Less laconically it looks like you and your interlocutors are talking about different things. They understand "feminism" as the movement that is pushing for/has made strides towards at least formally and legally treating women the same as men (which seems straightforwardly laudable and needn't be zero sum) whereas when you talk about feminism yours is...a new concept for me, which I'd like to understand better.

okay, to do that, I need to "taboo" a different word, and before I do THAT, I need to remind you of something important: useful information is information that lets us make accurate predictions.

Okay so. "Sexism" is the word we need to do first. Let's say simply that "sexism" is whatever means or mechanism or system in the world that results in an observed difference between outcomes between men and women. There are different theories as to what causes this observed difference, and two are relevant:

Misogyny Theory is the idea that "sexism" is a unidirectional oppression created by men, to inflict on women, out of hatred of women. Misogyny is a desire to harm women for being women. Power is a thing held by men and denied to women. Misogyny theory says sexism is, intentionally or unintentionally, made to benefit men at the expense of women, against the will of women. Gender history is defined by men hating women and seeking to harm women, who were not powerful enough to make it stop.

Gender Bias Theory is the idea that "sexism" is a system of biases and perceptions that are participated in by both men and women whose aim is to maximize women's safety at the cost of their agency and maximize men's agency at the cost of their safety. Gender bias casts women as precious and incapable victims and men as threatening and disposable agents. Men and women both participate in and reinforce this bias and gender history is defined by punishing people who don't fit into this model and rewarding people who do.

These are not equally valid competing theories. Misogyny theory is wrong, because the predictions it makes about women's safety are very important and do not match reality at all. Misogyny theory predicts that women would be less safe than men, that they would have more crimes committed against them and the criminal justice system would be harsher towards them, that their victimization would be more acceptable and that the law would refuse to recognize their victimization. All of these things are the opposite of what happens. There is no category of crime that happens more often to women than men; rape and domestic abuse, the crimes that misogyny theory claims are the defining experience of women and are particular to the experience of women, are 50/50 and every other bad thing a human being can do to another human happens way more to men than to women. Crimes against women are more likely to be prosecuted than against men, more likely to result in conviction, and the sentences are greater; the same for male criminals vs female criminals. Misogyny theory is incorrect.

Not only does gender bias theory accurately predict outcomes (it predicts that sexism would result in women being protected heavily and denied opportunities to succeed or excel), gender bias theory perfectly predicts the existence of misogyny theory. Biases are not precision instruments. They are directions to err toward, they are inaccuracies in people's perceptions that overall bend people's beliefs in a certain way. The way you have a bias that ensures women are safe and non-agentic, is when people are extremely concerned with the well-being of women and extremely callous to the well-being of men. Someone who had powdered up gender bias and snorted it like a line of coke would be unable to see anything other than "women are not safe enough, men are imperiling women, men have to do more to keep women safe." That's the only belief gender bias allows, because if you ever concluded "women are safe," you wouldn't be doing things to make women safer.

This is why misogyny theory is sexism. It has the unexamined perceptions of gender bias and is by majority concerned with enforcing the central belief of gender bias: women are victimized by the power of men, men are threatening to women, men have it better than women, men must do more to enlist their agency to protect women. Every single example of historical sexism fits this pattern: women have to be kept safe, and to do this, women are treated as children who cannot be responsible for their own safety. If they were responsible for their own safety, then not enough people would be looking out for them. Women need men's supervision because if they make their own decisions they might make the wrong ones. Women can't dress provocatively because men are so dangerous and threatening it might provoke one to attack her. Rape is a uniquely harmful and destructive crime to women, because women are so non-agentic that they can't do meaningful things and the only thing they bring to the table is their sexual purity; a woman who has had that sexual purity taken has been effectively ruined, she obviously has no agency so she can't recover from it, and so we can't let that happen to her, and she should know to be very afraid of it all the time.

The Movement is a large and powerful group of people who claim to be the only way to fight sexism. They are misogyny theorists. The history of the Movement is the history of misogyny theory. The actions taken by the Movement are actions taken in line with misogyny theory. The power held by the Movement is power held by misogyny theorists. The theoretical structures and intellectual viewpoints of the Movement are those of misogyny theory. Within a rounding error, all of them are misogyny theorists, and the ones who aren't, are decried and excommunicated from the Movement when it is discovered they aren't misogyny theorists.

Some members of the Movement have a ravening hatred of men and seek to harm men more than anything in the world. Other members of the Movement are genuinely seeking to end sexism and are "for real equality." The relative proportions of each do not matter, because misogyny theory is incorrect. People who believe in misogyny theory believe in a worldview that despises men, sees men as threatening and hateful, views men as uniquely responsible for harm, and puts all responsibility to fix things on the shoulders of men. A misogyny theorist's view of how to be charitable to men is to believe "it is not your fault you are brainwashed to hate women, you did not choose to be complicit in a system that hates and imperils women, and you imperil women only because you have not been taught not to imperil women. But you need to recognize that you hate women and it is your responsibility to make the world stop hating women, you have to do work to stop being so threatening to women."

This is wrong. This is not an accurate assessment of the world. Anyone who believed this about any other group of people would be correctly described as a hateful bigot even if, to them, they are the only ones who see their opponents as humans with potential to act like humans. There are total racists who feel like they're the only ones who recognize black people have the potential to NOT be rapists and murderers, and it is progressivism that says they all are innately criminals so we have to all pretend not to notice. This perception is more accurate than misogyny theory and we correctly decry it as a racist perception we shouldn't respect.

The Movement is synonymous with belief in misogyny theory, and belief in misogyny theory is belief in sexist perceptions. It is turbo-sexism. If you believe in misogyny theory you are wrong. When the Movement acts in accordance with misogyny theory to make the world a better place, they fuck up, because they're trying to abolish sexism while demanding people believe the things sexism believes as hard as they can. The Movement is obsessed with women's safety when all of the problems sexism gives them come from obsession with women's safety. When the Movement identifies any problem women face, it cannot address it in a non-sexist way and cannot gain anything for women without punishing men. The Movement can make shelters for battered women, but only because domestic abuse was not a gendered problem and it can only do so by ensuring battered men are erased and left without support. It can't see the world any other way. Women are victims and men are victimizers, women have to be protected from victimization. The Movement can support reproductive rights, but only because support or opposition to abortion is not a gendered issue (as many women are against abortion as men), and it can only do so while doing everything in their power to make sure men have no reproductive rights. Because they can't conceive of a situation where men need them when it isn't for the purpose of victimizing women. Men have to use their agency to make the world comfortable for women, it is hateful to women to let them escape this!

The Movement will always be filled with people who virulently hate men, because its conception of men is hateful and the way it is nice to men is thinking "it's not your fault you have these despicable attributes, having these despicable attributes also hurts you, I am sorry that sexism made you so threatening and cruel to women." The Movement can't kick people out for hating men, because the Movement thinks that there is a correct amount of hatred for men. The Movement can't kick people out for hating men too much, just regard them with pity and say they take a good idea too far. The Movement can and does kick people out for not hating men enough, because not hating men means allowing men to be threatening to women.

The Movement claims to be synonymous with the concept of fighting sexism, but it is not. It is misogyny theory, which is wrong.

If we take the word "feminism" as meaning "misogyny theory" and "feminist" as "misogyny theorist," we can accurately predict outcomes. If we ask for a feminist perspective we know we will get a perspective from misogyny theory. If we know that feminists are doing something, we know they are doing something in line with misogyny theory. If we know someone tries to call themselves a feminist but is ostracized by the feminist movement at large, that person is not a misogyny theorist. If someone who is a feminist in good standing claims that the virulent man-haters "aren't real feminists," that they only can see the man-haters are wrong in that they hate men too much for being in a system that makes them evil and threatening, and without the ability to reject that entire worldview they will be making excuses for and be bad at resisting the man-haters. If someone is going to research the ideas of feminism, we know they are going to be reading things written from the viewpoint of misogyny theory. When feminists do or believe something, we know it's going to be wrong and we know how it's going to be wrong and we know why it's going to be wrong.

If we take the word "feminism" as "any form of opposition to and desire to end sexism," then we can't make accurate predictions. We have to pretend we don't know a feminist is a misogyny theorist yet when they turn out to be every single time. We are given the obligation to assign power and credence to a floating signifier, the word "feminism," as if it did not mean "misogyny theory" and then make the shocked pikachu face when every single time the power we give them is used to advance misogyny theory. We have to pretend there is a war inside of feminism and not notice that no there isn't, one "side" has absolute definitive control of everything and the other "side" has no access whatsoever to the institutional or social power of the thing that is named "feminism." We have to run at the football every single time even though we know that Lucy is going to pull it back every single time, because there's so many different feminisms and we're not allowed to see they are all wrong in the same way.

Saying we have the obligation to call ourselves "feminists" and support "feminism" because it could mean "any worldview that seeks equality" and not "misogyny theory" is like saying everyone should call themselves "pro-life" and support "pro-life" movement because they don't think murder is a good thing in general and don't have to be against abortion. That's not what it means, that's never been what it meant, and pretending otherwise only benefits people you are opposed to.

[windvexer]

When you first started practicing, did you ever have trouble letting go or forgetting a spell after you did it? I know that obsession can be a spell killer but sometimes I can’t help when my mind wanders and I think of the spell or potential outcomes

When I first started practicing this was one of the first notions I was disabused of. So while I think I recall pondering the concept, especially while I was developing my understanding of manifestation, it's not something I currently believe in.

"Random thoughts that pass through my mind can ruin my magic or cause bad things to happen" is not a magical rule. It's not a law of magical physics under which all magic operates. It's a personal belief that some people choose to adopt.

And in my opinion it's one of the poorer beliefs to adopt, because if we spend like two minutes pondering it, I think we can agree that it's not only a shitty way to treat your own practice, but it also just does not make sense at all.

As far as I can recall, the justification for this belief is that if you think about your own spells, they are "pulled back" towards you, preventing them from being able to go to their destination and carry out the work. In addition to that, perhaps you are "tainting" your spellwork by dragging it down with emotional baggage.

However, all of this is immediately solved if you don't operate on a paradigm that your spells are defenseless blobs power created out of the pure thought and belief.

But even if we do operate on a paradigm that spells are blobs of thought power:

I don't believe there is any reason to think that casual thoughts create real metaphysical connections or "cords" with anything.

I think that believing that any random passing thought you have creates real metaphysical tethers is a harmful brainworm.

Not only do I think it encourages you to treat your own mind as an unsafe space where random thoughts can literally hurt you in a real metaphysical sense, or at least harm your willful efforts towards progress and change,

But I just don't believe it to be true at all, because we don't see the results of it when we apply it to anything verifiable.

For example, we might say that spells are a special circumstance where thinking about them always creates an energetic tether or energetic baggage. Perhaps spells are a special case for the following reasons:

The spell was personally created by you, so there is a special link or connection there which wouldn't exist for other things.

Spells exist in nonphysical state, which is more susceptible to being warped by random thoughts being "attached" to them.

If these things are true, then I believe the following would also have to be true:

Literally everything you've ever created has a special link to you that will be pulled towards you every time you randomly think about it, which means if you've ever knit something and then lost it, simply thinking about it will automatically draw the object towards you, such objects perhaps even returning into your life years or decades later because you created them and sometimes thought about them.

Other things you've created which only exist in nonphysical states, like original characters, are susceptible to being warped and losing their true form if you randomly think about them in ways that don't correspond to canon. In other words, you will not be able to control the canon of that character because random thoughts automatically change what you've intentionally worked towards. Which... we know isn't true. You can choose the canon for your characters and it stays that way no matter what little AUs you randomly think of them being in.

And this isn't even to mention that even if an energetic cord does exist, there is no particular reason to think the cord has a drawing or magnetic effect.

And, this also doesn't address the idea that spells aren't necessarily like sponges. There is no reason, in my point of view, to assume that a random spell will automatically absorb any energy sent to it at all.

In fact, I believe that spells often tend to have quite reactive and self-protective natures.

Go on a thought experiment with me here, Anon:

We cast a distance protection spell for our friend. It's our intent to send our friend very warm, cozy, guardianship energies. The spell is created out of our intent and willpower, and perhaps some raised energy, and we send it on it's way.

Then randomly the next day we accidentally start thinking about the spell, and how good it will be to help our friend get out of that "cold," unsafe situation they're in.

So, working on this paradigm, we would assume that thinking about someone we care about automatically hurts our efforts to help them, which again I can't point out enough how weird I think that is, but also,

We would have to assume that our warm protection spell is somehow easily susceptible to feelings of doubt and danger, when it's literal purpose is to melt away and transform those feelings and realities.

So we'd have to believe that our spell is so weak that a few random thoughts that it is designed to overcome can "kill" it.

Which leads us to the next point, would we assume that our random thoughts would have the power to affect a well-cast spell?

I mean, not at you directly Anon, but how weak are we assuming the spell is that all the steps we did to cast it (like.... grounding, entering trance state, raising energy, charging candles, chanting, praying, releasing energy, making offerings of thanksgiving) are literally going to be overwhelmed by randomly thinking, "awwh dang, I hope the spell ends up manifesting this certain outcome, that would be really cool if it did."

Like, if we're saying that the power of random thoughts can control, influence, and dismantle metaphysical energies with almost no effort on our part whatsoever, then what is the point of ever "casting a spell?"

Under this exact same logic, you should just be able to randomly think about what you desire coming to pass, and links will automatically be created to it to pull it towards you, and those energies of desire will have *as much power as an actual spell* to bring it to you.

I mean, if this is all true, why would anyone ever learn how to reverse a spell? All they'd have to do is think random thoughts about a prior spell to eliminate it.

None of this very much even touches on the idea that if you use a separate spellcasting paradigm, none of this is relevant at all.

Suppose you summon a spirit and pay it to carry out a task. The spirit is a real entity that exists independently of you. The spell is not a blob of your mental energy encoded towards a purpose; it's an entity who's going to act on your behalf.

Are we now saying that your random thoughts count as a clear psychic link to entities and they are watching you 100% of the time and interpreting your random thoughts as new spell instructions?

Because in my experience, once you've set those guys on a task, it actually kind of doesn't matter what you think - they're going to do what you asked unless you specifically call them back to the ritual space and ask them to do something else, which they might not even agree to do.

Or another method perhaps - devotional faith. You pray to a god and complete earnest devotional rituals in pursuit of some particular manifestation.

So, your thoughts have the power to control or dismantle that god's efforts? Or, the god watched you perform that special ritual night after night, and then is randomly like "lmao well this morning she idly wondered what the outcome might be so fuck her, I'm not doing it then"?

In the greater scheme of things, Anon, I actually think it's quite difficult to accidentally ruin spells just by pondering the outcomes that might occur, or to have personal doubt, or even to feel very anxious and worried and filled with disbelief.

And regardless of how easy or hard it is, I encourage you to avoid adopting spellcasting "rules" which by default make your own mind an unsafe space for your magic.

[bulbabutt]

apologies for another crazy vent. i feel weird being such a between gen of internet users. like im not old enough for the real peak forum days, but im too old to deal with half the shit people expect outta you now.

you wont catch me w a dni list cuz im a fuckin adult so if people piss me off when they rb my shit i just block them OR if a post gets outta hand i will simply turn off rbs.

take your twitter bullshit outta here. that concept did not EXIST 12 years ago. and when it started everyone knew it was really weird. cuz like..... nah man its everyones internet? the internet is public. if you post on a public forum people will just interact with you as that is what you do in public. why do people need to like.... look through your whole shit? and vice versa? thats some surveillance state shit... like tbh i remember 'before you follows' being weird enough, so this is so much weirder.

like the concept of like. 'hey im gonna make art but if you like it you better not have any of the following apply' or 'im going to need your entire history of making art before i decide if its okay to like this'

like bruh. your followers aren't your friends. your audience is not your friends. people who see your posts in a tag dont need to know you. youre not going in to business with strangers. its just..... people who see you on the street in passing and throw a coin in your guitar case, yknow what i mean? you dont need to know anything else about them, theyre just saying 'hey nice!'

like imagine if every time you went to a coffee place you told a barista 'you better not have a foot fetish' like. okay i mean. youre nuts. you are fully nuts. why would it matter, you are going there for COFFEE....... what does the interpersonal desires of a stranger fucking matter?

idk its weird to try and normalize that behaviour. it really disgusts me that this is how people speak about each other. hyping up their 'moral compasses' while painting strangers with monstrous labels and getting them hurt. it sounds so fucking puritanical. like literal puritans. 'PURGE THE DEGENERATES!'

like i do understand wanting people not to make you uncomfortable by misreading something you do, i fully get the desire. but the way people go about handling it is so fucking WEIRD.... all on the defensive 'are you a this or a that, i need all the details about you or else i will harass you and tell everyone your inner most demons' i am. a person. on the internet just posting shit. can i help you? i dont fucking know you??

like why not, idk, save the 'dont interact with me' until someone actually does something to cause you harm? where in that case the 'dont interact' is called blocking people. what the hell are we doing? youre in public? and youre screaming as if the person playing guitar is trying to kill as you walk past because you snooped into their purse and found drugs or some shit. wheres the etiquette?

but then thats the point. its not there as a warning, its a label you have to put on yourself to save yourself from being perceived as something evil.

some people act like every person who doesnt wear a specific badge is literally a serial killer and i really cant stand this culture at all. fucking LOOK AROUND right now. where this kind of culture leads. this is getting so dangerous.

but i guess saying all this is just gonna get me labelled something anyway. cuz everyone gets painted the same. no little nuances of humanity. just righteous good people who are wholesome and the rest are evil doers. sigh.

fascism is on the rise world wide. dunno what else to say.

[butch-bakugo]

Proshippers: omg why can't antis just leave us alone! 🙄 Don't like don't read! Cultivate your online experience!

Antis: ok. * Mass blocks you* *puts you on our DNIs * * Ignores you*

Proshippers: Wait no! I sustain myself on complaining about you! My identity is only based on how " weird" I am! You guys aren't even complaining about me making graphics harassing you guys telling you your assault was actually your fault! How can I complain about harassment and bullying when you guys don't harass or bully me! You won't even respond when I screenshot your posts and laugh at you? When I complain about the concepts of a dni because most exclude me?? Don't you get it! We're the real victims! Somehow your a puritan and a bigot and a Christian for not liking my art of two siblings fucking each other and drawing porn of an underage live action character using the likeness of the child actor who played them! Don't you understand?

I only exist as counter culture and you guys have to keep up our fight! If you disappear I'm just a sad weirdo! You can't just block me out and ignore me like I've been asking you to! Hello??? I only exist on twitter, Tumblr and Ao3 where my creepy rape mindset is normalized by other Nazis and Openly pedofil-i mean radqueers and paraphiles! If you guys let me fall into obscurity than how can I sustain myself! How will I exist in my mind as a cool nerd who fights censorship if you guys don't censor me and just let my art fail with zero engagement??

What do you mean I spend more time drawing porn of kids and defending my right to do so on the internet than actually getting the therapy I need to stop drawing sim cp period? What do you mean therapists in mass discourage fictional cp cause it often leads to offending and there's tons of documents and resources proving that available with a simple google search?? What do you mean my art isnt coping because its used to groom others and continue the cycle of violence because I make no attempt at hiding my art or content from children period but especially those in broken homes who assume its ok because my content aligns with their real abusive experiences?? What do you mean I became the villian and creep who caused me real harm and 32 year old women thirsting after teenage boys on the Internet are not the revered fandom elders i was told i should become? What do you mean I'm the type of fan no one likes and constantly has to bring up so other's know they arnt like me? What do you mean we've fostered a community that actively harms victims of abuse and children en masse and normalized it so much I'm completely tone deaf by sending traumatizing incest fanfiction to my friends? Arnt they the real abusers by not letting me retrumatize them over and over again and claim their silencing me because I cant send links to rape porn in their discord server??

What do you mean I can't compare my fetishization of sex crimes to fans of horror movies cause it's a false equivalency and only my contribution is condoning the violence by painting it as sexy and desirable and my tiny disclaimer at the bottom basically means nothing when everything else I say isnt aligned with it?? What do you mean I show my true colors when I'm faced with the reality the only people who benefit from my fictional cp are pedophiles?? What do you mean rape victims don't like it when I portray rape as some sexy coercion and I know I'm wrong simply by the fact I try to hide the real word for what I'm writing/drawling under inconspicuous shit I made up like non-con and dub-con??

I'm supposed to be the victim, not you!! I'm the real victim! Your a bully for ignoring me and blocking me! This is clearly harassment! You clearly hate gay people because you don't like my gay pedo incest art with no actual sensitivity and I exclusively made it to jerk off to and not catch a felony or address my own rotting morality by justifying my wank to child porn drawn in an anime art style because they are fictional and not real! I know I recently identified also as a paraphile and a ficto-zoonecrosomnopedo but not everyone who likes my realistic porn of animals and children also clearly have my mental illnesses that are going completely unchecked! I'm the victim in all this, don't you know! I'm the victim!!!

[cookiepop-cat]

Teraphobia AU [Moon character profile]

Cw: ommetaphobia, scopophobia, eyes, spooky

So I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about my new AU, so here’s what I’ve done recently!

(NOTE: Sun and Moon have separate bodies in my AU)

Nature

Moon is nocturnal twin brother of Sun, and is a parasitic creature that sustains itself from the energy of others.

He does so by sneaking into your room at night and nesting in your closet or under your bed. He’ll stay there for a very long time (weeks/months) and slowly leech off of his victim’s energy, until they eventually die of exhaustion.

In most cases, Moon can live in someones room for months going completely unnoticed.

He usually targets adults, since they’re fully grown and provide the most energy. Despite this, he sees no moral issue in targeting children either.

Personality

Moon is soft spoken and reserved, and due to past experiences, Moon avoids forming bonds, especially with humans. Despite his timid nature, he’s quite merciless, and feels no remorse in harming others.

The only person he feels comfortable around is his brother, who, despite their differences, he cares for deeply.

Abilities:

When his eyes meet his victim, he sucks the energy out of their body (this is a slow and subtle process). The more eyes that he opens, the stronger his ability is.

When Moon closes his eyes, he becomes invisible and phantom-like, meaning people can’t see nor feel him. The more eyes he opens, the more visible he is

Strengths:

Moon thrives in the dark. This is because he’s nocturnal. In the dark, his eyes preform and see a-lot better

Moon is also quite comfortable in dim-lit areas, such as street lamps, sunsets, sunrises, etc. he enjoys these places, since it’s the only environment where him and Sun can exist together

Weaknesses:

While his ability to go invisible is very useful for hiding, it’s not very practical. When he shuts his eyes, he obviously can’t see, and will usually have to hang around idle to avoid tripping or bumping into walls. For this reason, he only uses this ability when he’s not planning on traveling far

Light is his biggest weakness. He always avoids daylight and well lit rooms as eyes are very sensitive to light, and since his body is ridden with eyes, light is a very painful sensation. Light causes him to shut and shield his eyes, putting him in a state of blindness and distress.

Likes:

Quiet spaces

The dark

Candy

Pillows

Watching the sunset with Sun

Halloween

Street lights

Late night walks in the woods

Dislikes:

Flashlights

Busy areas

Technology

Children

Most foods

Touchy people

Extra trivia:

Despite not needing to eat, he loves candy! candy corn is his favourite

Moon purrs when comfortable

Moon rarely likes physical affection, and enjoys his personal space

Moon will often create a little nest of clothes and pillows in your closet to get comfy

If moon closes most of his eyes when around you, it means he likes you. It’s to avoid draining your energy, and should be taken as a kind gesture

Moon’s naturally smells of lavender, and humans often find themselves feeling a sense of calm and sleepiness when near him

The big, toothy smile on the crescent of Moon’s face isn’t his actual mouth. It’s simply the pattern of his shell. His real mouth is on the black side of his face

Moon spent a majority of his childhood being raised by a human (not Y/N)

Him and Sun were born from eggs. They’re technically twins, although Moon hatched seconds before Sun, and still takes pride in that to this day

If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading!! I plan to post a lot more about these guys at some point. Up next will likely be Sun’s concept art and profile. It may be a while until I make that post though. Sadly, school exists and I have stuff to do.

I got lots planned for this though! And I may have given the bois a lil too much backstory

Anyways, thanks for listening to my ramble! :3

[charlesangels03]

The Stranger by Albert Camus

Trigger warning: mentions of death and murder.

"I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world."

Imagine that your mother dies. You attend her funeral but express not a single ounce of grief, nor do you even look at her lifeless form in the coffin. The day after her funeral, you meet a girl, go to the movies with her, and begin an intimate relationship. Later, a friend of yours, a pimp, asks for your help because he suspects his girlfriend is cheating on him. He asks you to write a letter inviting her to his apartment so he can beat her up. Despite being aware of the emotional harm this would cause the girl, you agree. Then, during a weekend beach outing, you and your pimp friend meet the brother of the girl who was beaten. The brother wounds your friend with a knife, and the two of you begin to flee. To prevent your friend from acting rashly, you take his revolver and arm yourself. As you leave the beach, you encounter the brother again. He flashes his knife at you. On the verge of heatstroke and disoriented, you shoot him—fatally. You also shoot him four more times.

The Stranger (L'Étranger) by Albert Camus is a 1942 novella about a man named Meursault, who, living in French Algeria, kills an Arab man weeks after his mother’s death. Meursault’s indifference to the events around him may lead you to describe him as a heartless monster. You might even call him a racist for killing an Arab man, but I don’t think that’s the case. He is simply indifferent. He doesn’t care about what happens to him or the people around him. It doesn’t matter.

This is in line with Camus' philosophical concept of absurdism. According to Camus, the universe is absurd: irrational and meaningless. The world is devoid of inherent meaning, yet every day people futilely search for meaning in their lives. Every good thing that happens to us is also accompanied by bad things. They are two sides of the same coin.

Meursault is imprisoned. Even when offered the chance to free himself by his lawyer, he does not attempt to persuade anyone. For it doesn’t matter. Eventually, he is sentenced to decapitation. In his final moments, Meursault is visited by a chaplain. The chaplain urges him to turn to God, but this only drives Meursault into a blinding rage, for he has no time to waste on God. After his outburst, Meursault experiences a realization—not one filled with guilt, but one that brings him solace.

To quote the final lines of the book: "As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate." In his indifference towards human affairs, Meursault is comforted by the universe’s indifference. And with that, he is no longer a stranger. He finds peace because both he and the world are indifferent. He cannot avoid death, and he is content with this reality of human existence. The world will continue to turn after countless wars, pandemics, famines, and injustices. Once he fully accepted this, his only wish is to have a large, angry mob hurl hate at him during his execution.

As I write this, I don’t wish to do harm or cause any more problems in society. But knowing the indifference of the world, I can fail at everything and still continue. I do my best. I am comforted knowing that even if I don’t get high grades, I still need to live. It doesn’t matter what happens. I flopped our PE dance—it’s going to be okay. I feel burnt out and have missed deadlines—it’s okay, I’ll take my time to complete them. That’s the ultimate realization I have after reading Camus’ work, and it couldn’t be more beautiful to understand this when looking at the starry sky. Maybe, in another universe, if Meursault had more empathy, he would have had this realization not while looking out from a prison cell, but when gazing at the night sky in an open field.

Elijah's 10th Blogging Entry: Literacy

[razorblade180]

I’m pretty sure I like it more than most people, judging by the internet’s reaction.

I’ve always seen the nations in genshin has places Hoyo were inspired off of and then attached a time period to further an aesthetic. So Natlan being a bit more on the modern side never threw me off because logically speaking, it’s not any weirder than steampunk Victorian France boarding with ancient China and medieval Germany. I think most people were put off cause many of us actually around for earlier 2000’s so the contrast feels sharper in conjunction with the idea of historical tribal cultures living vividly in such an era.

Even the more “modern” technology in lore isn’t in abundance. It’s Xilonen tinkering as a hobby and other sources outside of her are typically questioned or simply asked if they fundamentally mess traditional practices or could harm the way of life created; like in Chasca or Kinich’s quest so I kinda like the balance and commentary on it. I never had the opinion Natlan doesn’t feel like Genshin because of the direction they took.

There hasn’t been a character I hated in Natlan. They’ve all been pretty endearing but I do wish we saw Iansan more. She feels the most disconnected from events after Act 2 which sucks considering she’s the first Natlan character we ever saw. This might be copium but I kinda feel like Mavukia has a slight case of second life crisis. She’s the most modern looking out of everyone and though they never bring up why, I can’t help but think her full on doubling down with these new advancements helps her not think about how she’s 500 years out of time.

The only reason I think the world building works as well as it does is because the nation is cut off from how the rest of the world in a lot of ways, so many rules and set ups make sense in this environment, but would be less solid if their Ley Lines, Night Kingdom, and a few other things existed alongside the rest of Teyvat from the beginning. I don’t hate it and they took their time explaining the how and why of concepts, but it was definitely a weird learning curve.

It’s one of my favorite places to explore. I wish it was bigger and expanded more often. It’s top five favorite places for me to explore and will probably go up if we get Mare Javari. I’m one of those freaks that actually liked the exploration of Sumeru, Enkanomiya, Chasm, and Fontaine’s water. The details and areas not actually advertised is insane. There’s an ancient sky kingdom. That’s awesome and you can fall from it. It reminded me of learning there’s a route in the desert from 3.7 underground that will lead you from north to south down but to the 3.1 area.

Yeah i like Natlan. It might be my third favorite region overall.

[3piox]

George Lucas once mainlined a bunch of Kurosawa films and had a genius idea. "I know," he said, "I'll put samurai into space." And in doing so he created one of the greatest sci-fi concepts to ever exist, ill-knowing that its ultimate culmination into a gloriously fantastical monastic errant-knight religion would soon be consumed by people who would say, "Actually, George, I don't like these guys. They're simply too unique. I want to focus on generic sci-fi shit that exists in a million other properties instead because it's more palatable to my basic tastes." And so we now have to watch Star Wars properties that hate what makes Star Wars stand out amidst its peers, our walls battered by the tantrums of people who seethe (SEETHE!) at the idea of things like 'rules' and 'discipline' and 'respecting the people around you.' They'll tell you laser guns that may be fired indiscriminately and impersonally are cooler than laser swords which require martial discipline; that anyone with power would naturally turn away from restrictions and want to play by their own rules or outright seek domination and cruelty; that unrestrained passion is a virtue regardless of the harm it causes -- and never realize that in saying this, they are telling on themselves, and it is no wonder any idealism or liberalism they profess feels empty.

Also, they sometimes defend genocide, and, you know, that's beyond telling.

[velvetvexations]

I think the idea of "binary privilege" is very caught up in a certain idea of privilege that is all or nothing and Adds tangible benefits as opposed to simply meaning someone doesn't face a specific form of harm. There's multiple types of privilege imo and there's some where it's like ok yeah it's a privilege not to face X but not in a way that truly confers Active benefits. Like do transmascs on average have the "privilege" of not primarily facing transmisogyny specifically? Kinda. But does that make transmascs "privileged"? Not really. Like transfemmes on average have the "privilege" of not primarily facing transandrophobia but same as vice versa, but it's like okay is it a privilege to be facing a different but similar form of oppression? It's like asking which is the privilege, hypervisibility or hyperinvisibility, but neither is actually, truly privilege. Or for a more specific example, is it a privilege to have transmisogynystic caricatures in media to know that trans women are a thing in a way that leads to knowing you're trans but also causes emotional harm, or never finding out about the concept of trans men and not being able to conceptualize of ftm transition which leads to never knowing what you are which causes emotional harm. Neither benefits the person who ends up harmed by society, but it is Technically a privilege not to face one even if you do face the other.

Then for nonbinary people and exorsexism, binary people do, often, not face certain struggles that nonbinary people often do, and should keep that in mind. Binary people have the option to be gendered correctly by m/f paperwork and the like and can more easily exist in the framework of cis minds, etc, but that doesn't make them not trans or erase other negative things they face. There's no absolutes in this. Many binary trans people will face issues that nonbinary trans people don't and vice versa. It's simply a difference to keep in mind, but it's not an oppressed/oppressor privilege dynamic like some privileges are. The no nuance view of privilege just erases positive conversations that can be had that can help strengthen the fight against transphobia of all types.

Following up on the ask that I just sent about privilege having many contexts and meanings for binary privilege discussion, I saw someone else compare it to abled vs disabled dynamics and I think in this case it's far more comparable to like, invisible vs visible disabilities where both are disabled but because it's in different ways, they face different struggles in different situations. Like one could argue (incorrectly) that it's a privilege for handicapped spaces to exist whereas accomodations for many other disabilities don't exist but like that's stupid and accomodations for that kind of physical disability arent actually treated any more seriously/face different struggles. Like someone who can't access a certain space due to disabilities doesn't matter if it's because there's no stairs or because the strobe lights would cause meltdown/seizure/etc , either way, they can't enter the building, and people's responses could range from ignoring them to taking them seriously depending on their personal bias. Some people will accommodate visible physical disabilities but not invisible ones and some will do the opposite. More often, they're shitty across the board. Having Some spaces take Some groups more seriously in Some ways Sometimes doesn't mean they're privileged, and this applies to both "sides". One group just faces one side of a double edged sword and the other faces the other side. Both are wounded.

All very good words, anon! I wish I had more to say but once again I feel I am more platforming people and learning from them wrt this.

[vikings-til-valhalla]

I don’t know how to word this exactly, as I’m very new to heathen practices, but is having Fenrir as a patron deity considered to be strange? Like- I feel like that clicks better than some of the other gods but if I say this out loud I feel like some might consider it “wrong” or “evil” even if those concepts don’t really exist in heathery.

So the short answer is that nothing OF heathenry as a religion is evil. It's a matter of how you execute it that makes something evil or good.

The long answer is:

Fenrir is not an evil deity inherently. Yes, He causes the end of everything, and He is the end of all things. Fenrir symbolizes the finality of what was because He is the start of Ragnarok, but multiple tales explain Ragnarok shows us that everything is temporary, and nothing is forever, and the ending of something is not necessarily bad but rather it's a chance for something new. Ragnarok is a rebirth, and shows us the cycles of life and death are inherently linked to new beginnings.

As a whole, Fenrir's actions in the tales are evil by moral standards, however by worshipping Him, you are not evil at all. I myself have prayed to Fenrir a few times, hoping to end various things and bring about a new beginning in their place. He is simply a deity of ends and beginnings, and like any of the Gods, you need to be cautious. I'd advise more caution with Fenrir, just because of His sheer power and capabilities, but when I say to be cautious, I mean it as in you've got to acknowledge Fenrir's purpose as the God of ends and beginnings, that He is strong and mighty in a way that no other Gods are, and respect Him and His capacity for dominance.

Worshipping any of the Gods is not an evil thing, it's how you worship that can be abhorrent. For example, saying prayers, and leaving harmless offerings, is a positive worship. Maintaining a reciprocal relationship with your deities that benefits both of you is essential. But if any of your worship is done with the intent to harm, then you are worshipping in an abhorrent and dangerous way, and I'd argue that's not worship at all. But if you simply maintain a harmless relationship with the Gods, including Fenrir, you're perfectly fine.

The Gods are to be respected, even those whom many fear. To have the eyes of Fenrir on you and to know He works with you, is a powerful thing, and I commend you truly for that. I've met a few others who worship Fenrir all the same, and He works with them just as well. They're great people, and they understand and acknowledge Fenrir in a unique way.

So I'd say to continue your worship of Him. See where it leads you, and what you learn. A connection with any of the Gods is a great thing, and it's honorable to nurture that relationship and grow it however you see fit and however the God will guide you to let it grow.