#I'm probably saying things that aren't true

[entanglingbriars]

Cultural Christianity: Some Thoughts

The question of whether someone can be both an atheist and a Christian is relevant only in some very specific contexts. In theocratically Christian countries (which has been the normative way to Do Government in Christendom for most of its history), apostasy is literally a crime; if you're an atheist in one of those places you're probably going to keep your mouth shut about it and if you do open it you can expect to be repudiated by your former community.

In countries that aren't theocratically Christian, Christianity frequently functions at least in part as an ethnic indicator. In Northern Ireland it makes sense to ask an atheist whether she's a Catholic or a Protestant atheist. In places where Christians are a minority, they are frequently an ethnic minority, and that will be bound up in their culture.

The only places where the question is relevant are some culturally Christian countries that are not theocratic and where for the most part Christian membership is not ethnically marked. In the United States (which is what I'll be focusing on), that means white American Protestants. (And not even all of them. A born-in Jehovah's Witness may be a white American Protestant, but her culture is definitely not the dominant Christian culture in this country.)

One of the weirder things about this debate, to me, is that on tumblr this debate seems to be largely between gentile atheists and Jews. It's not something I see coming from Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Sikhs. It's definitely not something that Christians care about.

As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that the United States is not dominated by (white American Protestant) Christian culture or that everyone who lives here is not to some degree affected by that. The debate seems very much to be about whether a specific person can (or should) be called a cultural Christian.

There are, obviously, some atheists who accept the label. Richard Dawkins is the obvious example (and I'd argue that Dawkins' embrace of the label should give people pause in applying it to others). Those atheists are not part of the debate. They have already been convinced that the term can (and should) be applied to them.

Notably missing from the debate is whether members of other religious minorities can (or should) be called cultural Christians. If I'm raised a Reform Jew in a Christian-majority area and go to a public school, I will be almost as exposed to Christian culture as someone raised a Methodist. But no one is arguing that assimilated or partially-assimilated Jews (and I'd argue that almost all non-Haredim are to some extent partially assimilated) should be called cultural Christians.

The atheists have noticed that. And they really don't like it. The implication it carries is that anyone raised (white American Protestant) Christian will remain so, unless they convert to a different religion and atheism doesn't count.

But the fact that it rankles doesn't mean it's not true. However, it does mean that a lot of atheists see the application of the term to themselves as a denial of their atheism and of the significant work it took to leave Christianity. Because in the United States, even now, leaving Christianity is hard. In some cases it's dangerous, but more commonly it "just" means risking the loss of your entire network of friends and family. This is less so today than it was, say, forty years ago, but it's still a thing.

Further, atheists in the US are a minority religious group. One that experiences oppression and suppression by the dominant religious group. Calling an atheist a cultural Christian identifies her with the group that is actively oppressing her. Which is bound to raise some hackles.

I don't really have a conclusion here. My sense is that applying the term "cultural Christian" to people who don't like it is, at best, counterproductive and, at worst, a microaggression. It doesn't seem to be helping anybody to use it in those cases and may be counterproductive to a discussion of the hegemony white American Protestantism has over US culture. Which is a conversation that is more important now than it has been in decades.

[mxtantrights]

mob!bucky!, don't embarrass me

On the very top of things you are not supposed to do, right there in red ink and in all caps, is Bucky Barnes. Well, you did do that. Him. Gosh, that's really crude to say but it's true.

Which is why you can't go there again with him.

You weren't supposed to in the first place.

-

You sat at the deep end of the pool, legs dangling in the water. In your hands was a mug of tequila you snagged from the kitchen.

The party was not your scene, seeing as it was crawling with people in the business. You wanted no part in it, but you hadn't moved out of your family house yet. The jobs you got over the summer not quite giving you enough to get a place on your own along with school.

It meant that you had to stick it out. For now.

In the silence of the summer heat, you took another sip. The muffled sounds of the crowd inside mingling and glasses clinking turned to background noise for you.

Until you heard the porch door slide open. The sound from inside crept into the backyard. You thought it was one of your bodyguards. Probably Thomas. He always knew to check in on you at parties like this. If you could you'd jump over the gate and take off for the hills.

"I'm fine, Thomas." you spoke without looking.

The sound of someone clearing their throat made you turn around. There he stood three feet away from you. Dressed in an all black suit. He fit right in with the rest of them. If you didn't know him you would've thought he was a boss already.

But you knew better.

"Not tomas. But glad to hear you're okay." he replied.

You turned back to the pool. You didn't wish to talk to anyone at this party, let alone be at it. You came outside to get away from everything. And here is one of the illustrious guests of the hour.

James Buchanan Barnes. Set to take over his father's post in a couple of years. When he wasn't pillaging his way through the troves of women throwing themselves at him, he was running up the tab at underground clubs, getting into fights and getting cops to look the other way.

He was a door marked trouble.

And then he did something you weren't expecting. Instead of invading your space, he walked right back inside. You didn't even notice until you heard the door slide closed.

-

You let out a sigh. With an inhale you press on his contact information. His number stares back at you. A number that you claimed to have deleted a long time ago.

You press the call button and hold the phone up to your ear. It rings once.

He picks up.

"Hello?" he asks.

You remember a time when you'd call and he'd respond with a pet name or he'd tell you that he was already on the way to you. Those times are hone now. Aren't they?

"Bucky, I was taken to a dress fitting yesterday. I can't marry that idiot!" you say.

There's silence on the other end of the line. It's so silent that you think he might've hung up. You pull the phone away from your ear to check. He didn't. You put it back up to your ear.

"You won't."

[jibbmanifests]

Don't “give up” on your manifestations.

You've probably heard a number of manifestation coaches and content creators say this, but, it's true - you shouldn't give up on your manifestations. If you want to because you changed your mind and want to manifest something else, go for it. What I'm saying - and what they're saying - is don't give up solely because you don't think you'll get what you're manifesting.

"...But why not?"

Well, you're going to be letting yourself down. Not to be dramatic, but, you're giving up on your dreams. You're not believing in yourself. You're telling yourself you can't manifest. Gonna be forceful when I say this, but, yes you can.

Also, referring to Taylor Tookes’ latest video, you “giving up” on manifesting is not you actually giving up on manifesting. You are manifesting 24/7, babe. So, all you’re doing is changing your manifestation. You’re instead negatively manifesting “I don’t have [this thing].” Considering you manifest all the time, you might as well make it beneficial for yourself.

"I'm not getting what I want. So, manifesting and law of assumption aren't real."

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Do you think an actual philosopher just made this up and lied to everyone that he researched this? Do you think every person who knows and talks about it is making up stories for attention and money? Do you think "manifestation" is just some random word thrown into the dictionary?

Everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - manifests every single day, both good and bad things, whether they realize it or not. Like I said, you are always manifesting something to happen. You are always having others reflect you. That's a fact.

Just because you aren't seeing what you want in the 3D yet does not mean LOA and manifesting isn't real. I understand that it can be very discouraging when your 3D reality isn't reflecting what you're manifesting and that circumstances or your own limiting beliefs make this feel harder. But, when you start to get a better grip on it and improve your mentality to get to that wish fulfilled state, you will feel so much better about manifesting. It's worth it.

"I've been waiting for so long and doing everything right. Why should I keep going?"

Chances are you might be seeking validation from the 3D reality, letting circumstances get to you, focusing on timing, and/or not acting like the desired version of yourself, without realizing. OR, it could just be the 3D still catching up and you're pressuring yourself that it won't come if it's not there quickly or instantaneously. These won't completely stop your manifestation it its tracks, but it can slow it down if all of this is happening with very, very little persistence.

If you're not consistently telling yourself everyday that you have the thing(s) you want and are instead leaning too far into the negative things happening in your 3D realm, then you're not going to see your manifestation when you want to. But, when you do consistently affirm while ignoring circumstances and time, you will most certainly get what you want.

Also, when you have that mindset of “I have [this thing],” you aren’t “waiting” on anything. The idea of “waiting” on a manifestation isn’t true. When you’re manifesting, you already have what you want and you’re not focused on the time. Someone who already has something is not waiting and is not focusing on the time. If you act as if it’s a waiting game, you are making yourself wait. Understand that your manifestation is waiting on you to leap into that end state where you know you have it. Things are always unfolding and moving behind the scenes to work in your favor to whatever you’re manifesting. You just have to trust and believe that.

So, don’t make yourself wait. Take your focus off of time and what you’re seeing in front of you. Then, the dream you’ve been manifesting physically shows up. It truly is a paradox. When you don’t worry about the time and “getting” it (because you already have it), it shows up in the physical realm quicker than you could ever imagine.

"My manifestation is too big for me to manifest. It can’t happen.”

Yes, it can. You’re only limiting yourself. Anything - and I mean anything - is possible, despite what other people try to tell you. Nothing is “too big” for you to manifest.

Can it feel difficult to manifest? Yes. When you’re changing from, let’s say, a 9-5 office worker to a singer who tours internationally, that feels like a massive shift in your life. You aren’t used to a change like that. HOWEVER, this does not mean you can’t make that shift in realities.

Manifesting “That man in front of me treated me to a coffee” while you’re in line at Starbucks is just as easy to manifest as “My boyfriend proposed to me with the ring I’ve been wanting.” It just may not feel as easy as one another.

But, to simply put it, we tend to put these limits on ourselves when, in truth, the sky’s the limit. You can manifest something HUGE.

“…But I don’t want to take action and constantly affirm.”

Guess what? You don’t have to take action and constantly repeat words in your mind. Action is never required when you’re manifesting. Repeating phrases to yourself is helpful, but when it comes down to it, affirming is just stating that something is true. You can say it once and that’s enough as long as you believe you already have what you want. The only reason repeated affirming is encouraged is because stating what you’re affirming over and over again in your mind is what can make you believe it’s true.

[spinedotlazuli1120]

Things that feel forced to me that I'm sure I'm gonna get a lot of hate for:

1) Cherrisnake

Now, I know a majority of the fandom like this ship but honestly? It feels forced. The original ship involving sir pentious was supposed to be with Rosie, which honestly makes more sense, in a way.

They both have similar styles, Sir Pentious could've originally used his growing relationship with Rosie to find some dirt on Alastor to defeat him, they both aren't that into the whole innuendos thing probably, and sir Pentious can use the help of someone who understands him and his whole stick.

Cherrisnake, however, feels more like a...sped-up background ship that they rushed in order to give Pentious a more "heartbreaking" background by making him leave his "lover". Like, for angst purposes, it works, but not in the way one would usually write. Cherrisnake just feels so toxic. Cherri Bomb never gave a fuck about Pentious, she only ever acknowledged him thanks to Angel, and the kiss at the end? She blushes because "it was kinda hot". It can be interpreted in any way by anyone, but to me, that was just Cherri being her normal self.

Plus, the sudden change in scenery probably contributed to her suddenly blushing and smiling. There was no development seen between the two, they were once "enemies", with Pentious treating it like they ARE actual enemies while Cherri brushed it off like it was nothing.

2) The way fans see everyone in the main cast except Alastor as the true angels in the show

I don't have a problem with the way the show wrote them as, they're fine the way they are. My problem lies in the fandom.

First off, ever since the finale dropped, a majority of the fandom decided to go and say that Alastor was so cocky and stupid for going against Adam and a goddamn traitor for leaving the others to fend for themselves. (This wasn't what was explicitly said, but I know what they all meant)

...the guy put up a fucking barrier to limit the number of exorcists they have to deal with, and Alastor equipped the dome itself with angelic weapons, held tightly by the tentacles. It's obvious they didn't expect Adam to break it, but to them it wasn't their issue to deal with, it was Alastor's.

I don't know what Alastor was thinking when he went up against Adam without an angelic steel, but I for sure know for a fact that if it weren't for the deal that has him leashed, he would be chopping up Adam into cubes to put into his jambalaya.

His defeat against the Fucking First Man made people think he was boasting and lying about his feats and that there's nothing to fear when it comes to me. They often downgrade his ability because of one single defeat of his against a man that's older, bigger, and stronger than him. Yeah, they're both dumbasses but Alastor at least knows when to retreat.

They often compare this singular scene with the multiple clips of the others fighting the exorcists that are the same level as them only with wings. Both the exorcists and the sinners are equipped with angelic steel and all of them have equal advantages, with the angels having wings and the sinners having multiple experiences as well as the princess of hell.

They have each other backing up one another, and they only had to deal with the angels that don't have any powers. Alastor, though? He battled against the first man, the guy with an axe that acts like a guitar and has angelic magic, and he (Adam) is ancient as fuck.

Additionally, Alastor hit more blows on Adam than Charlie ever did, and she's the Fucking Princess of Hell. Fuck you mean "The hotel crew never needed Alastor" he was the only one with a brain there in battle. Look at Sir Pentious

Not only that, but Alastor is the only one viewed as a demon by the fandom despite the show being all about demons. Angel is viewed as a sad spider who didn't do anything wrong to deserve his suffering, Husk is seen as a kitty cat who's been abused the same way angel is, Charlie is literally babies, Vaggie's sins are brushed off as if they were nothing but small mistakes, They fucking see Lucifer as an innocent angel who was sent to hell for no reason other than for "trying to help".

First off, Angel may not deserve the treatment he gets from Valentino, but everything else? Yeah, he deserves it. He died of overdosing, which may have impacted in his consumption of drugs (a.k.a he can't get high with the normal (for others, at least)amount of drugs to get high, so he's stuck trying to. He was part of a mafia, which he probably most likely killed so many people that itight rival Alastor's kill count. He's sexually harassed people on screen, which is a bad coping mechanism, but it's still wrong, similar to how lashing out on others Ang getting mad at them for things they didn't do is wrong.

Husk was an overlord, and he gambled away the souls he owned. Kind of like this: Someone wants to join you in your business, any role you give them, they'll take it as long as they're paid. The person offers something valuable of theirs (which could reveal souch dirt on that person) to make you agree. You agree, but sooner or later, you found yourself in the hands of a crueler 'boss' because your former one sold you in order to make more money and he knows you can't do anything about it unless you want others to get dragged in your problem, be it loved ones, authorities, or not.

Charlie is written as an innocent girl who's too perfect for Heaven, Hell, or Earth. But you need to remember this: She grew up in hell, meaning her morals are gonna be fucked up. She is not a human, she is not a mortal, she is not a child. She may have looked in slight disgust when it came to the bloodshed but it was just a wince, as if she's used to it but she still doesn't like it. She may be naive, but she ain't stupid. Except for the time when she thought an overlord as dumb as Valentino can be talked to in order to fix Ang issue.

For Vaggie, everyone keeps forgetting she killed hundreds per year in one day. Yeah, she may have hesitated to kill that demon child (are we sure it's a child? Cuz there's a possibility that the child is an adult sinner who's punishment is to look like a child), but did she hesitate when it came to the others. Yeah, hurting a kid is fucked up but you know what's worse? Participating in genocide and having the audacity to hide it from your girlfriend. She didn't show any remorse or regret when it came to other sinners, yet she's still seen as sinless

For Lucifer? ...yeah I already ranted about the fucking hypocrite just check out my older post/s about the angelic hypocrite

3) Everyone's obsession with gender in the fandom

Dude, the first time I started giving a fuck about gender other than girl or boy was when folks started to be sensitive with it. And the Hazbin fandom isn't spared. To this day, people fight about the sexualities of people who aren't real, especially Alastor, who doesn't give a fuck about relationships. So why?!

[austinslounge]

So now the narrative is that they broke up in October? Only changing the narrative when it fits her, I see. Also, she has been seeing this Lewis guy since December, so why was she on that other guy's lap? And why did Austin supposedly talk about his gf to that lady in the deuxmoi shirt in November? Timeline either doesn't make sense or somebody is lying. My guess is there was an orchestrated effort to quench any rumors of the breakup till Kaia sees it fit. And lo and behold, she is already trying to change the narrative...it's just not working.

I'm glad more and more people are finally starting to see her true colors.

They were definitely trying to keep that breakup hush-hush. I say "they" because I'm sure Austin himself was not really trying to have his business out there so soon.

So yea, when the breakup first got announced, her team wanted to put out the idea that she and Austin had actually made it to 3 years of dating, and broke up "at the end of 2024".🙄 Honestly, that narrative only made her look bad (imo) because if they were still together, why on earth was she all over Marcello, getting cozy with him at a restaurant, and sitting on some dude's lap? 🥴

But whatever.

Now that she has been spotted out with Lewis and was getting bad feedback for "moving on so quickly" after the Kaustin breakup, all of a sudden, now she wants to leak that she and Austin actually broke up in Oct 2024. 🙄

You can't have it both ways.

Either way, no matter how she tries to slice it, she ends up looking bad.

I say let Kaia continue to dig her own grave lol. 😅

Wrt the woman on the plane -- Yea, either Austin was lying, or that fan who met him on the plane was straight up lying rofl. I've never known Austin to really lie tbh. He's a bad liar rofl 🤣 But many celebrities aren't against it if it will protect their privacy...especially seeing as how the woman had a DeuxMoi shirt on. Austin probably clocked her a mile away.

What is more likely however, is that the woman lied, embellished, or assumed a lot of things in her conversation with Austin on the plane, or she flat out made stuff up for attention.

Whatever it is, I think it's safe to say that we can totally officially throw out the woman on the plane's testimony when it comes to Kaustin, because it's not valid anymore. Whether it was Austin lying or the woman lying, either way, the info she provided about him and Kaia was not valid or trustworthy rofl. 🤣😅

I still recall how smug DeuxMoi was too rofl.

🤣🤣

"The people can rest now" 🤣 Famous Final last words!

[theheroand]

I feel bad blocking my friend on this blog. but she can't see this anymore.

[summergoodwife]

Gonna say it again, "Just stop consuming the genre" is THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSE to someone complaining about the lack of representation in their preferred genre!! And "Consume other stuff too" is not much better!!! I don't care how much you think varying media consumption is a Good and Holy lifestyle, not everyone wants to do that! There is no obligation to do that and there should not be! Because it's fucking entertainment. It's not a college major.

And! And and and. I would be remiss to not point out that when you tell someone, "If you want well written (minority) just get out of (genre fandom)" you are, regardless of your motivations, rhetorically aligning yourself with the exact same bigots who just want the pro-representation crowd to shut up and go away.

[justalittlebluetiefling]

Something I've seen a couple people saying is that they want to make sure that Laudna understands that she's not the only one who has been through trauma. But like. Laudna is not the only one who needs to learn that lesson. Actually, it's not even that Laudna needs to learn that she's not the only one that's been through trauma at all, because they're all very aware of what they've all been through. This became an inevitable confrontation when Laudna decided to let Delilah back in, though, and after rewatching the scene, I actually think the only people who managed this situation correctly were Imogen* and Ashton.

Orym and Laudna are both more focused on their own pasts with the sword and not thinking about each other. Orym should have talked to the group and come to a decision with them about using the sword and Laudna should have talked to him about it instead of trying to steal it.

*my feelings about this are still up in the air don't read into this too much

[emiliosandozsequence]

tbh i think a lot of you who speak on booktok really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

[yesterdayiwrote]

For someone who's so thoughtful when he speaks, Lewis really does still give some absolutely terrible quotes when he's talking to journalists...

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 5!!!

[soulsxng]

Name: Hope (Elpis)

Age: ???

Species: Spirit/personification of false hope

And so it was Hope that saved humanity from the evil and miseries that were unleashed from the depths of Pandora's box...or so some would believe. So Hope themself wants to believe. In actuality, the story is a bit more complicated than that. After all, Hope emerged from Pandora's box just the same as the others. There's a good reason that other stories suggest Hope is just an extension of suffering.

An extension of Moros, who wants to reclaim them. To make them realize that the "hope" they give is just as vicious as the things that he, himself, could inflict.

But they will never accept that. Not truly.

They tell themself that the hope they spread amongst the people is good. That it's better for them that way, to deny and ignore their destinies until it's finally claimed them. Everyone deserves comfort. Deserves to believe that everything is okay-- that they are okay.

Even if it's only a beautifully woven falsity.

[skydigiblogs]

veeerrry slowly making my way through appmon (just finished ep 6)

i'm enjoying it so far (still) but i also just had a realization that like

part of my hesitancy about watching appmon is that a lot of stills for the fused apps were kind of offputting (3d in 2d animation can be super hit or miss)

like i've seen screenshots of a lot of the higher grade appmon and was like "hm, that's not pleasant to look at"

and now i'm watching it and like "oh, that was definitely designed with movement in mind" because holy shit yeah the stills do not do appmon justice

the use of 3d animation in appmon gives me a feeling that the creators really wanted to include that code overlay effect, but since that's incredibly time-consuming to do in a way that might look good on 2d animated characters, the use of 3d allows them to express that excessively digital vibe (and it looks really good in motion)

as for all the standard grade appmon, i think something similar still holds true in that just looking at their ref book images doesn't do them justice. perorimon is the whole reason i wanted to talk about this (debuted in ep 6) because hooooly shit the ref book image just does not get across how good this goober looks in movement.

in other words, appmon seem designed for animation first and foremost

also while i'm at it i want to say i think it's fun that every appmon really does just have like coax cables in their back for applinks. more digimon shit should like, have weird technological things like that going on.

[im2tired4usernames]

I might just be dumb but I don't really understand making fun of you partners? I don't understand introducing them to your family like "gets my stupid asshole "I don't understand the play fighting I get teasing on some stuff is fun n cute if your both into that???? but?????my wife's smart I'm not gonna call em dumb to be funny and I'd cry if my wife told their friends I was super dumb n annoying? Yeah people are gonna do stupid things and no one's perfect I know I'm gonna do something that's gonna be annoying and stupid same with my wife n friends n family and well really anyone I just don't get when people talk down their partners to they're friends? Like do you want your friends to think low of your partner Do you want your friend to really think they're stupid and smelly and hate them????Do you actually like the person you dating???? Then why are you telling your friends and family what a stupid irresponsible jerk they are and how you can't stand them????????????? Am I missing a joke goin on is this a humor thing or social thing in just out of the loop on???????

[rosesradio]

.

[vaspider]

While I'm writing things that I've been intending to write for a while... one of the things that I think that a lot of people who haven't been involved in like... banking or corporate shenaniganry miss about why our economy is its current flavor of total fuckery is the concept of "fiduciary duty to shareholders."

"Why does every corporation pursue endless growth?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations treat workers the way they do?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations make such bass-ackwards decisions about what's 'good for' the company?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The legal purpose of a corporation with shareholders -- its only true purpose -- is the generation of revenue/returns for shareholders. Period. That's it. Anything else it does is secondary to that. Sustainability of business, treatment of workers, sustainability and quality of product, those things are functionally and legally second to generating revenue for shareholders. Again, period, end of story. There is no other function of a corporation, and all of its extensive legal privileges exist to allow it to do that.

"But Spider," you might say, "that sounds like corporations only exist in current business in order to extract as much money and value as possible from the people actually doing the work and transfer it up to the people who aren't actually doing the work!"

Yes. You are correct. Thank you for coming with me to that realization. You are incredibly smart and also attractive.

You might also say, "but Spider, is this a legal obligation? Could those running a company be held legally responsible for failing their obligations if they prioritize sustainability or quality of product or care of workers above returns for shareholders?"

Yes! They absolutely can! Isn't that terrifying? Also you look great today, you're terribly clever for thinking about these things. The board and officers of a corporation can be held legally responsible to varying degrees for failing to maximize shareholder value.

And that, my friends, is why corporations do things that don't seem to make any fucking sense, and why 'continuous growth' is valued above literally anything else: because it fucking has to be.

If you're thinking that this doesn't sound like a sustainable economic model, you're not alone. People who are much smarter than both of us, and probably nearly as attractive, have written a proposal for how to change corporate law in order to create a more sensible and sustainable economy. This is one of several proposals, and while I don't agree with all of this stuff, I think that reading it will really help people as a springboard to understanding exactly why our economy is as fucked up as it is, and why just saying 'well then don't pursue eternal growth' isn't going to work -- because right now it legally can't. We'd need to change -- and we can change -- the laws around corporate governance.

This concept of 'shareholder primacy' and the fiduciary duty to shareholders is one I had to learn when I was getting my securities licenses, and every time I see people confusedly asking why corporations try to grow grow grow in a way that only makes sense if you're a tumor, I sigh and think, 'yeah, fiduciary duty to shareholders.'

(And this is why Emet and I have refused to seek investors for NK -- we might become beholden to make decisions which maximize investor return, and that would get in the way of being able to fully support our people and our values and say the things we started this company to say.)

Anyway, you should read up on these concepts if you're not familiar. It's pretty eye-opening.