#Nobody's treating this as a legitimate basis for an ideology right. Right.

[confield]

Can you promise me that there are anarchists out there who are not this stupid. Like this isn't what most of them believe right

[uthseikoashx-inflamedme]

Summer of 1899 fanfictions: with Philosophy, ancient Greek and Latin, foreign languages and a bit of Literature

(note: by “Summer of 1899 fanfictions”, I refer to the summer of Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald’s meeting as teenagers)

(note: I am not a native speaker, so I apologise for the mistakes, inaccuracies, truly bad use of tenses and wrong phrases. I hope it won’t be too unpleasant. Let me know if something is really not understandable!)

What about philosphy, Latin, etc, but in 1899 fanfictions? (dark academia vibes, I know)

There are already quite a lot of fanfics about it but not enough - because it's so great, let me detail why it is (and expose my headcanons)

(the [1] and [2] are notes, check the end of the post to read them)

(tiny disclaimer: i am not at all an advanced scholar on any of the following topics, just studying that kind of subjects and loving to draw parallels with hp. i hope i won’t say too many wrong things, etc.)

Philosophy :

Moral philosophy

The theories and questions throughout the history of moral philosophy (as far as I know) fit so well with the concerns of our revolutionary boys.

Is there any moral duty? Knowing wizards and witches could solve an amount of muggles' problems, is this immoral for them to stay in the shadows? What about the means of the revolution - is this ok to kill for the Greater Good, to initiate injuries, doom and destruction to build a better world, which cost is acceptable? What about consequentialism, utilitarianism, moral of virtue, deontological philosophy, idk? What's good? What's fair?

More touchy question: the maj-people are able to perform marvellous things, so are they consequently more important than maj-people? Because of their capacities, should they be praised - considered as superior beings - as gods? But if yes, should they treat muggles differently than they would treat wizards? If wizards shouldn’t be considered as superior beings, are they equal to muggles anyway?

And what about the Hallows - is this moral to possess them, considering they mirror Gyges’ ring? Should Albus and Gellet keep them for themselves, use them for the Greater Good (yes they want to, it’s clearly exposed in DH)? Is the Quest important enough to justify sacrifices?

Also, what about Aristotle’s virtue system - being moderate and all, use our reason to be in the middle? Because I’m sure as hell Albus and even more Gellert would reject this idea: isn’t it a form of passivism? (no, but through their pov and situation, they might think that)

(by the way they both read passages of Bentham's and Mill's and Kant's and Plato's and Aristotle's books nobody can convince me otherwise)

(I never read Nietzsche’s extracts and haven’t even merely a define idea of his theories to be honest, except for a few uncertain glimpses of his philosophy - he disagrees with religious morality and is quite vehement about it, and praises an idea of a free human being, released from this moral of the weaks. And as far as I know, I’m pretty sure Gellert would agree with him.)

Political philosophy

I do have a headcanon: Albus and Gellert both read the Republic of Plato (initially because it’s well-known and they didn’t want to be ignorant about it and they surprised themselves being enthralled by Socrates reflexions) ; and quite a lot of their discussions about a perfect society instituted by themselves (and about what’s fair and what’s good) were underpinned by the book.

Is this ok to rule the world? Which system is the best - tyranny, democracy, oligarchy? Are the wizards just like the philosophers and, thus, are righteously meant to be the aristocrats at the top of the government? And are all the wizards as legitimate as Albus and Gellert to rule the world (no)? What’s the acceptable extent of power they should have on civilians? What’s the necessary authority they must be allowed to have on civilians? What about the freedom of the press, of speech (those themes are explored in the Republic and well-), of maj-people and non-maj-people?

Philosophy of desire, joy, pleasure, beauty, etc

Have you ever heard of Plato? (sorry, again, yes.) Well in several Socrates’ dialogs, themes of love and desire are developed (I particularly think about the Symposium) and Albus and Gellert could be convinced by it: the praise of relationships between men, of intellect, of beauty… but also by the myth of Aristophanes (people are halves and search their soulmate (more or less)). Besides, I’ll be quite curious about what Albus and Gellert may say about Alcibiades’ eulogy of Socrates and what they may think of their dynamics.

(long story short, Alcibiades is young and handsome and desires the ugly Socrates, is fascinated by his intellect and considers him as the most interessant man he knows, and can’t help but feeling inferior facing him and being deeply humiliated because Socrates rejects him (on top of that, Alcibiades is drunk and jealous - the parallels to draw between them and our revolutionary boys are bloody interesting but back to the point))

Also, I totally see Albus and Gellert as hedonists during their youth - justifying their immoral and unwise chase of pleasure and complaisance by an artificial sentiment of moderation, temperance, so not true hedonists, like they are not epicurean at all - and this is again something quite compelling, I must admit.

Ancient Greek and Latin :

Latin and ancient Greek at Hogwarts

Throughout the 19th century, the civilizations of antiquity increasingly fascinated the intellectuals - a phantasm around the topic grew and influenced artists and erudite persons, and was furthermore a mark of the cultural capital and level of education of somebody.

Although we haven’t any clue about the fact that Hogwarts changed the disciplines provided through the centuries, we know it is possible : Dumbledore himself almost dismissed divination studies and depending the demands of the students, 7th years can study alchemy (most likely thanks a teaching offered by Dumbledore himself).

And I do have the headcanon that Hogwarts was in the past not that far from studies dispensed in english colleges - or at least, proposed classes of British (magic) Literature, maybe Law (like an elitist subject but necessary to enter in the Ministry and consequently pure-blood kids are always following that course) and, of course, ancient Greek and Latin classes.

And it was necessary, because Latin is the language of spells and most of the magical essays written back in antiquity were in ancient Greek - furthermore, the more complex, ancient and ruthless spells and rituals were based on ancient Greek and not on Latin, more used in everyday, ordinary, common magic (it is again an hc).

(by the way, Arabic and Hebrew could be as well considered as ancient languages used in magic (again an headcanon, but it would underline how magic is complex and has multiple forms and is not just European-centred), but I have the slight feeling that the ideologies and culture of European countries combined with xenophobia and racism have excluded the study of those languages even though they are also vital in the history of magic you know)

Yes it’s based on nothing, but it would be so great and ask so many things about the Wizarding World back in the late 19th and early 20th century - especially about social and political struggle between the population - pure-blood families vs muggle born students, etc [1]. (And it would satisfy my dark academia aesthetic. But quite irrelevant here.)

What about Albus and Gellert then?

Durmstrang could also dispense Latin of Ancient Greek class, in my opinion, but I think (again, imo), it is a bit unlikely. But it does not change the fact that Gellert had always been attracted to Dark magic; so he could have learned the basis by himself in order to decipher ancient Dark ceremonies, etc.

That’s why I think both of them had learnt ancient languages. Maybe Albus took an interest in Celtic dialects (Merlin’s language?), and Gellert was familiar with Vicking Runes. It obviously helped them regarding a lot of their magical and academic performances. Indeed, the boys were able to understand old papers about the Hollows, but also ancient rituals, etc. And thus, had a wide access to a more dangerous, unstable, raw and primeral practice of magic: it was not like the average spells in Latin, but an intricate way to unleash their potential [2].

Besides, only few people - erudites - were as interested as the boys were in these old ways to use magic, and needless to say that neither of those persons were as powerful as Albus and Gellert were. Furthermore, the boys were able to keep a balance between the complexity of the enchantments and the instincts they both have regarding the expression of their magic. They accordingly thought of being more powerful than everybody else.

Foreign languages :

The languages in the schools

It is clear that Hogwarts is exclusively Anglophone. The school is quite small: 40 students per year, so 280 students in all, coming from Great Britain - England, Ireland, Scotland, Yales, so the isles. We could also think that the wizardkind living in the CommonWealth during the colonial age also studied in Hogwarts. (again a hc, but Henry Potter and his son Fleamont were both born in India, fight me)

Durmstrang, on the other hand, could host quite more nationalities. I imagine the school having three main languages: German, French and English. But in fact, English and French are more “officials”, used by administration and in some classes (French was quite important at the time, right? then it was English?). So the students most likely speak between them in German (Germany had been formed in 1871 and I think the Austrian-Ungarian Empire was also Germanophone?), Russian, Hungarian, Lithuanian… well, all the languages spoken in Easten Europe.

(and just to mention it, I believe that Beauxbâtons is a huge school, bigger than Hogwarts and Durmstrang, because we need logic at some point - anyway)

What about Albus and Gellert then, again?

Gellert was probably speaking German, English (obviously, he wrote letters in English, spoke in English with Albus and Aberforth…), maybe French, and maybe another language depending on his mother country. I headcanon him coming from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, but he might as well come from Denmark (the country of Mikkelsen?) or a Balkan State (there were wars here at the end of the 19th century, it could be an interesting theme), etc.

However, I doubt that Albus knew Danish or Hungarian, but he definitely spoke French rather well (he exchanged letters with Nicolas Flamel) and perhaps the basis of something else (Italian? German?).

I do not mention magical foreign languages they could have been familiar with - we know Albus is fluent in Goblegedook and Mermish in 1994, but I doubt he already was in 1899.

(Also, Albus’ mother came from America, so she might be originally from the Native American community and thus know an another language and let Albus know as well, but the fact that she is Christian (most likely, regarding what is her epitaph) let me doubtful; but I’m not enough informed about the Native American history to build meta, headcanon and theories, so I won’t explore this idea more.)

All in all, they are quite familiar with a lot of languages, and they certainly had a few conversations in what was not English (a mix of Latin, Ancient Greek, German and French, perhaps?) to infuriate Aberforth and not let him know about what they were talking about. (headcanon, again)

Literature :

We do not have a lot of clues about fiction - novels, theater or poetry - belonging to the wizarding universe - except Beedle’s Tales, of course. But we can imagine it exists.

Nevertheless, I am more interested in what Albus and Gellert might have read in the muggle literature. Besides, I think it is funny to consider that some writers or playwrights are known by muggles but are in reality wizards and witches - especially Braham Stoker, Mary Shelley… maybe Poe and Shakespeare as well.

So, I imagine that Albus and Gellert would have heard of Goethe, Heine, Novalis for German literature; maybe Hugo, Baudelaire, Flaubert for French literature… most likely Dante (definitely Dante). Though I honestly do not think they were fond of novels and literature, they could have been interested by it sometimes, when it echoed to something in them - Shakespeare, but also the story of Verlaine and Rimbaud, or Oscar Wilde’s story and unique novel.

There is also the theme of Oscar Wilde, homosexual writer, and his trial at the end of the 19th century, which are recurrent topics in 1899 fanfictions - a quite interesting one, imo. Have you ever read the Preface of the Picture of Dorian Gray? Definitely Albus and Gellert vibes.

All in all, I don’t think they may have been interested in literature for literature itself, but rather for the political aspect of it. (except for Shelley, Shakespeare and Dante which are a witch and two wizards, and are interested by the references to magic in the works themselves, again hc)

To conclude :

Even though 1899 fanfictions are great - and I thank you, 1899 fanfictions writers, you are amazing - I quite love the idea of all of this aesthetic that could developed. It is somehow prompt ideas.

(also I an studying humanities so it might be why I see those themes in 1899 fanfics so well, yes)

Thanks for reading! :)

Notes :

[1] : I wrote about the conservative Wizarding World and pure-blood families here:  Why are the Weasleys poor? (eng&fr) (theories about pure-blood families, inheritance, etc) /  How can everyone find their true-love and still be in love after years in HP? (”magic-soulmates” theory and conservative society)

[2] : I wrote about Dark magic and rituals in 1899 here: What if Antonio (Gellert Grindelwald’s chupacabra) had been created in 1899? / What about a dangerous, complicated and a bit gore alchemical experience tried by Albus and Gellert secretly?

And I posted quite a lot of things about GGAD, check the Table of contents if you are interested! :)

[rai-jin-andro-jin]

Non-Binary Week 2020

Day 2 + 3 because I missed yesterday:

Day 2 (July 13): Coming to terms

This day is for coming out stories and how you realised you were nonbinary.

Like a lot of people, I grew up with the belief that sex and gender were the same thing; there were two genders, and because I was born with female parts, I was completely and undeniably female. And what it meant to be female was just as rigid: gender roles up to the ears determined what I wore, whether I cut my hair, what I said, what I didn’t say, who I hung out with, who my enemies were, who I could trust, what careers I could have, who I could be attracted to, and what I could think about.

When I entered college, I was away from a lot of these forces that policed my life. For the first time, I was asked on a daily basis to think for myself: and I couldn’t just point to another adult, or the Bible, or to anyone else to explain why I lived the way I did. I had to be able to support myself and my stance and my beliefs. When I was asked to do so, I realized I didn’t even agree with half of the beliefs I held; the other half I discovered were rooted in lies and misinformation about other people, specifically minority groups.

So, over my three-year college career, I grew and changed. I came into contact with different ideologies and was allowed to choose for myself what I wanted to believe and why. I shed traditional femininity both slowly & quickly -- I got an undercut in my hair, stopped shaving my body hair, and wore more comfortable/practical clothes (which ended up leaning toward “masculine” in my case). I still identified as female though -- it was my way of defying traditional gender stereotypes and screaming “I’m breaking the rules and I’m still a female -- respect me or step out of my way!”

During my final year of college, I shaved off all of my hair. Also during this time, I started to discover that I was not straight, but in fact attracted to more than one gender. I first identified as bisexual, but over the next couple years came to embrace the label “pansexual” as well, as I found it less limiting and more inclusive from a linguistic perspective (though I myself consider bisexuality and pansexuality to be basically synonymous in my case). Past college, I started to recognize how the world saw me. Not only did I sometimes tread in the butch lesbian sphere, but I also was misgendered as male quite often, especially after my haircut -- an occurance that didn’t bother me, and instead entertained and intrigued me. I wasn’t trying to pass as male, nor was I interested in transition. I didn’t identify with male pronouns, but they didn’t bother me either. I thought these instances were fun and proved that gender was more fluid than most people realized. It gave me a window with which to play with my own gender.

In the next year or two after college, I found more comfort in dressing androgynously. I didn’t try to present as purely masculine or feminine, nor did I try to lean either way. Instead, I strove to view myself as neither. I identified for a while as androgynous, as it felt detached from both sexes and genders. I enjoyed finding clothing that made my gender appear questionable, and I loved to blur the lines of my presentation. I did it because I could, because it felt the most authentic. I felt like I was showing the world who I truly wanted to be, and how I wanted to be treated. I wanted to be free of the confines of what society deemed was male or female, masculine or feminine. I believed and still believe that no one should ever be gendered at all unless they ask to be. I believe that everyone should be able to define who they are to others, and should be fully respected for it. So often, so many of us are given only a few options, if any at all, and told to make do. We are told that if we stray from these norms, we are unattractive, unwanted, and just doing it for attention. But in reality, we just want to be seen and loved for who we are, for who we choose to be.

Non-binaryness seemed foreign to me for a while. Informed by my upbringing and lack of information, I saw the non-binary identity as something I didn’t fit into. I didn’t meet all the requirements in my head -- non-binary people were other people I knew, other people who’s lives and experiences were different and thus more legitimate than mine. Because of that, I hesitated to identify as non-binary for a long time. But then, as I did more research, read more personal accounts and stories, and connected with friends in real life who were queer and non-binary, I felt like I belonged. I realized I was allowed into that unattainable “non-binary club” that I had built up in my head because it actually wasn’t unattainable at all. It was a community full of people with a wide array of experiences. And mine was not an unfamiliar or unwelcome one. I looked upon the word non-binary, and I realized, with utter joy and happiness:

“That’s me!”

Shortly thereafter, I came out to my friends on social media, and then to some of my family. I went from she/her to they/them, and I wasn’t ashamed or embarrassed, for the first time ever. I felt supported and validated by my friends, more than I ever thought was possible. It was the greatest feeling to finally find a piece of myself.

Even now as I explore the plethora of non-binary identities, I’m still discovering myself. Non-binary describes me just fine! But if we’re getting specific, I don’t have any ties with gender at all, and I’m actively trying to unlearn my gender conditioning to be the best person I can be. That is why I also identify as agender.

It’s a crazy thing to wrap my head around, even as I’m still overjoyed to have a label that explains me and my existence. But the overwhelming feelings that course through my body are ones of happiness. I have a place in this world, whether I know my name/labels or not. I always have had a place, and I always will. And now more than ever, I fight for my place and protection, as well as others’ whose identities are shunned, their protections & rights denied. I want everyone to experience the joy of belonging, not because they fit a mold, but because they’re happy with their own choices and identity. I hope everyone can experience that fully, in all the ways it can possibly occur, for all identities imagineable.

Day 3 (July 14/International Nonbinary People's Day): Nonbinary Joy

Share all things positive about being nonbinary!

I think these can really apply to any gender, sex, orientation, etc., but these are just catered to my personal experience! I think if I had to name this phenomenon, I would call it “Gender Liberation.” So here’s what it feels like to be liberated from gender and gender expectations:

You can wear whatever the hell you want and watch people get real confused.

You get to use they/them pronouns, or whatever pronouns you want; language no longer ties you down!

You get to call yourself whatever you want! You get to choose your name.

All those horrible expectations that make you uncomfortable? Gone.

You get to connect with other non-binary people and hear about their beautiful experiences.

You get to interact with the queer community, which is a beautiful, accepting, and loving collection of people who defy cultural norms and exist exactly as who they are, unapologetically. They are a wonderful group of people to look up to. Anyone who lives and loves to the fullest without shame is one to look up to.

You get to wear your hair however you want and nobody can tell you otherwise.

You get to think about the world without the shades of a binary lens! Turns out the world is so much more colorful!

You get to have awesome flag colors.

You get to have awesome discussions about gender.

You get to be unapologetically complicated, because everyone is way more complicated than their gender, but now, you actually know that and are allowed to exist that way.

I mean, look at the word “non-binary” and tell me that isn’t just the most freeing thing you’ve ever read. Look at the word “agender” and tell me you didn’t just breathe a sigh of relief. No more fucking stupid-ass rules!

Did I mention that you’re allowed to be fully authentic without judgment? Did I also mention that you can finally unlearn all that self-judgment and internalized gender roles?

Gender is fully opt-in.

Now that you’re liberated from all those awful rules and head-spaces, you can think about more important things, like for example: cute people, your favorite books/shows/movies, yummy food, plants, cats, simple joys, arts and crafts, making friends, falling in love, nature, doggos, the whole earth.

Also, now that you’re liberated, you can help to liberate other people by fighting for their rights, because you know that people like you (and people not like you) are being denied basic human rights every day around the world; now you know about it and you know they deserve better, so you can use your voice to help educate and inspire solidarity and community.

Wow, there’s like so many things you can do and be, and no one can tell you not to anymore. Looks like you’re truly confident and happy with yourself! :) That sounds like autonomy at its best!

What *isn’t* awesome about being non-binary?? Absolutely nothing.

[destroyyourbinder]

unsplitting the sex atom

I wanted to add an important addendum to this very lucid post made by @slightlycharredwitch deconstructing the propaganda in a trans meme featuring an argument between someone claiming biological sex is a social construct and someone claiming it is not. This is that the “hook” in this meme and in arguments of this nature-- the reason why this meme and arguments like it sound plausible at all despite the framing of reality they describe being wildly misleading-- is what slightlycharredwitch mentioned briefly in the beginning, that an analysis of this sort is roughly correct but it’s correct about gender, not “biological sex”. It is roughly correct about the things societies use to attribute characteristics, roles, norms, and punishments to members of each sex. It is roughly correct that a starkly maintained division between the sexes and their roles, one that both amplifies sexual dimorphism (through femininity and masculinity practices) and obfuscates actual biological traits by attributing what is convenient to patriarchy to “nature” (essentialism), is necessary for the continuance of male dominance/ exploitation of women and the marginalization of and/or violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Analyses of these types are more likely to go wrong in describing how this all works, but they often contain enough familiar material, cribbed from the life experiences of women and LGBT people, that you can buy into the mechanisms that they describe. When transgender activists and their allies with this sort of ideology try to break down “ideas about biological sex”, what they are describing are actually a certain kind of mechanism of gender enforcement, which in feminist thought we used to call “biological essentialism���: the idea that there are two sexes divided both in physical, reproductively-oriented purpose and innate or otherwise “natural” behavior, such that each sex best expresses or fulfills its purpose through its correspondence to patriarchal gender expectations. Biological essentialism does make claims about biological sex, some of which are accurate (female organisms produce ova as gametes, female humans typically have the organs to facilitate gestation) and some of which are very much not and are distorted descriptions of human biology based on patriarchal value judgments (the female role in reproduction, both behaviorally and bodily, is best understood as passive, menstruation is an aberrant occurrence only happening if a female human fails to reproduce optimally). Some claims of biological essentialism are hotly debated, with varying degrees of political or value-based analysis in both fields, in reproductive biology and among feminists, such as whether rape is an effective reproductive strategy for human males. The problem with the way transgender activists and their allies frame what we call biological essentialism and what they call “biological sex” or the “sex binary” is that they believe it is the division-into-two-sexes that is the source of the problem. Not just the fact that this division is socially relevant in the way it is, or that the division is artificially made larger through social practices, or that the division is used for purposes of power and control. No, they believe that the concept of a division at all is the primary and perhaps original source of gender-related oppression, and that making sure that people do not use this concept-- do not divide humans into two sexes-- is the best way to ensure human rights for women and sexual and gender minorities. Transgender activists and theorists have a point that obscuring the division between the sexes can have political and personal use. If nobody knows to identify you as female-sexed or as homosexual due to your passing as another sex, then you can escape certain kinds of treatment or perform certain kinds of solidarity or disrupting actions without getting caught; gender non-conformity can be a powerful way to break or disrupt systems through visible protest that you cannot and will not comply with categories and norms designed to exploit or harass you. But the fact that these strategies work is not somehow testament to the idea that there are not actually broadly two reproductive classes of human beings that correspond to the reproductive classes of other gamete-producing organisms, or that it is the concept of there being two reproductive classes, one of which bears young and one of which can impregnate, that has led to the oppression of women and violation of LGBT people, rather than what systems of exploitation were established using this concept, among many other ones. The fact that the atom bomb was invented using the concept of nuclear fission does not mean that nuclear fission is not a real physical phenomenon, that we ought not to ever use the term “nucleus”, “isotope”, or “neutron” ever again, or that we ought to ban physicists from doing atomic physics unless they can redescribe all physical properties of the atom and its components in terms derived from nuclear disarmament activism. The fact that the widespread extraction, burning, and use of fossil fuels has lead to life-threatening climate change does not mean that “fossil fuels” is not a coherent category of natural resource. It does not mean that climate activism should focus primarily on preventing oil and gas companies from being able to identify the differences between crude oil, natural gas, and wind power, as if the reason why green energy is not widely adopted today is merely that it being seen as a legitimate form of power generation was not respected and we ought to elevate it to “validity” by erasing and confusing the differences between solar and coal. This would be absurd. Yet this is where we are in women’s activism and gender-related activism. We are expected to accept an ideology that obscures the causes and mechanisms of our oppression-- in fact treats this obscuring as its primary focus of activism-- while it does nothing to actually solve the oppression. It wants to “dismantle” the “sex binary” (our means of understanding what it is that is being exploited, i.e. women’s reproductive capacity) as if it is the primary problem and all others will disappear once we stop seeing the difference between males and females. But even assuming we can cork up the genie again, uninvent the splitting of the atom-- that we could never see reproductive sex forever more-- why would those in power, those for whom this concept is essential to their operations, want to go along? If some of us have convinced ourselves to not look at the basis of our oppression in the name of progress, but some of us still peek anyway while deciding who’s making the coffee and baking the cookies for the trans support group, what then? What if some of us don’t look when talking about our reproductive rights, but those who pass laws really love the usefulness of declaring two classes of humans, one of which is legally subordinate to the other? We will have ended up in a worse spot than before. Beware an ideology that tells you not to know or to see, because someone has not blindfolded himself like you. You cannot unsplit the sex atom; you will have to make the bomb impossible another way. Photo from U.S. Department of Energy and the Oak Ridge Public Library. The photo is of a sign outside Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a “secret” city built by the US government during WWII to support research and development related to the Manhattan Project (the US effort to develop a nuclear bomb). The sign is topped by a picture of Uncle Sam, who has taken off his hat and rolled up his sleeves. The sign has a picture of the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” monkeys in the background, and reads, WHAT YOU SEE HERE WHAT YOU DO HERE WHAT YOU HEAR HERE WHEN YOU LEAVE HERE LET IT STAY HERE

[bestworstcase]

also not interested in arguing but always happy to discuss different opinions, so:

in essence my read on salem is that she’s been isolated for so long and fallen so deeply into despair that her capacity for caring about individual people has atrophied to almost nothing; that she does monstrous things because she’s resigned to being treated like a monster no matter what, truly believes this is the only option she has to keep moving forward, and is able to tolerate horrific levels of collateral damage because she so admires and cherishes humanity as a collective on top of being so fucking old that she conceives of humankind in terms of civilizations rather than people. in this sense i think she’s actually quite similar to ozma—who is better than she is at caring about individuals but also still a manipulative liar who tries to coerce a seventeen year old girl into participating in the murder and spiritual violation of a comatose young woman, tries to forcibly suppress oscar and then physically attack ruby to protect his secrets, shrugs and goes “well she knew the risks” about a seventeen year old who died in a training accident at his school, and in a previous life effectively nuked his own allies to win the great war and then decided to safeguard the relics by surrounding them with “trained warriors” (the 17-20 year old students who attend the huntsmen academies). they’re both completely fucked up and detached from the reality of the people they hurt in the course of the religious war they’re having over whether human existence is a right or a privilege, in juxtaposition to the kids trapped in the middle who just care fiercely about individual people but are so caught up in the immediate crises that they haven’t even begun to question the validity of the ideological cause they as huntsmen stand for. and that’s the essence of the good-but-wrong vs evil-but-right dynamic.

and then with salem too i think there is a legitimate question as to whether she has a better option. she is immortal, she looks like a grimm, the actual creators of her universe carry a personal grudge against her, her opponent is also immortal and very firmly convinced that she is the root of all evil and must be destroyed in order to save humankind, and he appears to have arrived at this conclusion largely on the basis of natural grimm behavior while salem kept herself at so far a remove from human civilization that nobody had a clue she existed, i.e. not based on anything she actually did after the murderdivorce. (granted the murderdivorce itself is reason enough for enmity, but lost fable makes it emphatically clear that ozma believes salem is actively responsible for every grimm attack in the world and that’s the basis for his commitment to destroying her.)

it seems to me that her options are to, 1. lie down and exist in abject hopeless misery forever until ozma taps out and triggers eschaton, at which point the likeliest outcome is the gods blow up the planet and whisk salem into another realm to find some inventive new way to punish her for hating them; 2. do her best to move on by reaching out and finding community with people in order to heal, which is going to be a difficult, painful, alienating and likely traumatizing effort in and of itself because of what she looks like and will also inevitably lead to brutal, endless warfare because ozma is a religious zealot who blames her for the existence of evil, meaning that the best case scenario here is an eternity spent watching people she loves die because of her over and over and over again; or 3. quietly bide her time for however long it takes to work out a viable strategy for ending the problem at its source, i.e. the gods, and then assassinate ozma and cut a swift, clean path to the four relics before he can return and mount a serious defense that might drag out the conflict and lead to greater destruction. there’s no good options here but option three is like… the least terrible for salem herself and also on balance probably less destructive than option two. and i really do think that salem IS trying to mitigate collateral damage to the degree that she can. consider that:

1 - vale is overrun by grimm during the battle of beacon, but the situation in the city is “under control” and rebuilding begins within days of the attack—despite the fact that beacon’s campus is still swarming with grimm whose numbers are, per the CFVY novels, noticeably increasing over time, likely because salem’s agent at beacon has been acting under orders to reinforce their numbers there. within a year vale appears to be more or less restored to normalcy—we get a glimpse of the dust shop open for business as usual in volume eight. likewise, amity coliseum was recovered and brought home to atlas without incident.

2 - in mistral, salem slowly picked off huntsmen adjacent to ozpin’s inner circle until none were left and ordered lionheart to send the entire faculty away from haven academy, leaving it completely empty except for him. her plan for haven was for her agents to slip in with the spring maiden, retrieve the lamp, probably assassinate lionheart on the way out, and then let adam’s white fang blow up a few empty buildings. had it gone according to plan her victory would have been almost entirely bloodless; as it is, as soon as the relic was in play salem cut her losses, left it to cinder to recover the lamp, and moved right on to her next intended target.

3 - after ozma’s premature reincarnation put a spanner in the works and salem rushed to atlas with a flock of grimm large enough to blot out the sky, she laid siege to atlas with the terms “surrender the relics and i will leave you in peace” and then did not attack mantle, despite it being utterly defenseless. in fact the narrative takes the time to specifically highlight multiple times that salem is not attacking mantle, with joanna remarking that the flock is just circling around atlas “waiting,” oscar stating that “salem’s forces aren’t moving in, but [the negativity] is enough to start attracting the stragglers,” and the hound—which is later shown to be able to command other grimm—driving some of those stragglers AWAY from mantle before it captures oscar.

4 - it’s impossible to say one way or another whether salem would have dropped atlas upon getting the relics, because she’s a pile of ash when the kids use the staff and the evacuation is effectively already over by the time she reconstitutes. her track record, however—both vale and mistral left to brush themselves off and rebuild once beacon is captured and the lamp is out of its vault—is a point in favor of thinking that she wouldn’t have, unless she had a pressing need to use the staff, and she doesn’t appear to be even slightly disappointed by the news that both cities were successfully evacuated.

for all her willingness to brutally level any obstacle in her path, she also seems to make an active effort to keep the scope of her destruction fairly narrow.

(there are also peculiarities like the fight in witch, in which salem 1. releases all of her hostages, 2. looms menacingly for fully half a minute while hazel has his heartfelt goodbye with emerald, 3. slings a bit of magic around in random directions, 4. lets hazel smash her into a pulp, 5. immobilizes him and takes note of her escaping hostages, and then 6. tosses hazel in the opposite direction to beat him up some more instead of recapturing the kids. kshbfjs it’s interesting, because—assuming summer rose is indeed working for salem of her own accord, which i think is most likely—salem has a clear motive for letting the kids go in that yang identifies herself as summer’s daughter immediately prior, but if that really is what’s happening in this scene then the way salem lets them go, by playing to their expectations of her as an storybook villain, says some neat things about her character.)

anyway all this to say that don’t think it’s contradictory for salem to both cherish the idea of humanity and be cruel and exploitative towards individual humans, and that reading is what makes the most sense to me based on the things she’s done over the course of the show.

i also broadly agree that salem as she is right now is in no way likely to offer a ceasefire (not least because she is, in fact, winning the war)—BUT she’s also been shown to be very strategically and tactically flexible and, as outlined, i read her destructive extremism as coming fundamentally from a place of hopelessness—that she feels backed into a corner with no other options. one of the core themes of the story is (in salem’s own words!) that even the smallest spark of hope is enough to ignite change. and one of the major subplots of volume 8 involved a power struggle between cinder and salem that cinder wins, a critical paradigm shift that i anticipate will continue to evolve across the next few volumes.

loosely my thinking is that cinder’s going to end up being that spark of hope, and that rekindling salem’s hope is probably going to incite the kind of coalition-building, uniting-the-world-against-a-common-enemy approach salem brought to her first rebellion. ultimately rwby is pretty overtly building towards a final confrontation and ideological victory over the gods, not salem; the natural way to get there is by union of the heroes’ goodness—their compassion and conviction that what matters is people, individuals over ideology—with salem’s ideological rightness—her outright rejection of the idea that humanity needs to be ‘redeemed’ from human nature in order to earn the privilege to exist; and i think for that union to occur, 1. salem needs to put her cards on the table and ask for help, even at the risk of rejection; and 2. the heroes need to really examine what they believe in and what cause they’re fighting for, and then decide whether to take her at her word. i… don’t think it could work in the opposite direction unless the heroes independently come to the conclusion that the gods need to be resisted, because any attempt to negotiate with salem from the position that the gods are justified is a non-starter, she’s been staunchly opposed to the gods for two hundred million years, she’s not going to change her mind about that. (and also realistically i figure it’s easier for the one with firm, clear ideological convictions and a fuckton of wrongdoing to atone for to make a compelling argument to the kids who care deeply about people and earnestly want to make the world bigger but also haven’t ever thought seriously about the ideology they inherited from the cult that trained them, rather than the reverse.)

rwby is hopepunk but also profoundly cynical i think

[freshnerdnut-blog]

Freedom is Uncertain

 By: Jessa Mae G. Andres

Freedom is good but it can put you to danger.

Base on the English dictionary freedom is the state of being free.

Freedom is the state of being expressive of what you have without the consent from the others.

Being free is the thing that others happiness because they don't want to be control by the others. Just like what people want during martial law they always say the word "freedom" because they don't want to be controlled by our former president Ferdinand Marcos.

Freedom has the advantages and dis advantages.

Being free you can do whatever you want

You can go wherever you want to go

You can get whatever you want

But being free is complicated there are times that some people that are free became boastful. They always want to be follow by others. They are prone to accident.

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" Now you may be asking why the hell am I bringing up the motto of a character rooted in '80 merchandising cartoon? Because back then, such a motto and ideology, that ALL beings were worthy of the same rights and to be treated as equally precious was the mentality one wrote for a character indeed to be a hero. That it was what made a hero a hero that he was supposed to be universal in his goodness and his love for all. Yet in today's progressive society, saying that all people's lives matter is now racist. Part of me is terrified to consider that it could even have been the point, all along, of this "good to everyone" mentality. Part of me feel disgusted at the very idea that white nationalists might have been right, that by trying to treat blacks/Latinos/Arabs/gays/whatever as equals we were all complicit in the demonization of white and straight people. But you know what? I think it's actually MORE spooky that this was NOT the end goal that this was NOT some conspiracy as /pol/ would make use want to believe, because then what does it say about our true nature that even when we try to do everything for the betterment of all that we end up creating a society that is equally.

Article 10 gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference. This includes the right to communicate and to express oneself in any medium, including through words, pictures, images and actions (including through public protest and demonstrations).

The type of expression protected includes:

Political expression (including comment on matters of general public interest); Artistic expression; and Commercial expression, particularly when it also raises matters of legitimate public debate and concern. For obvious reasons political expression is given particular precedence and protection.  Artistic expression - vital for fostering individual fulfilment and the development of ideas – is also robustly protected.

To ensure that free expression and debate is possible, there must be protection for elements of a free press, including protection of journalistic sources.

The right to free expression would be meaningless if it only protected certain types of expression – so (subject to certain limitations) the right will protect both popular and unpopular expression, including speech that might shock others.

Interferences on free expression usually involve restrictions on publication; penalties for publication (such as criminalizing speech or awarding damages); requiring journalists to reveal their sources; imposing disciplinary measures or confiscating material.

Prior censorship poses special dangers to freedom of expression. If the authorities are able to suppress publications which nobody has seen, it becomes impossible for others to verify whether the suppression was indeed justified; it is a question of time before such an unchecked power is abused to prevent criticism of government. One partial solution is to make the authorities’ decision subject to court appeal. But this creates a different problem; control by the authorities of the timing of the flow of information is a considerable power. Challenging a decision to censor information will be an expensive and slow process, which many may not even use. Furthermore, news is a perishable commodity, so that success in court after lengthy proceedings will often prove a pyrrhic victory.

Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Human right #26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Human right #10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.