#SPECIFICALLY people trying to apply the term to individuals

[nothorses]

anon from before, i understand better now! i think i just thought abt it too much and confused myself but your explanation helped. im still on the fence abt cultural christianity but i think thats bc it seems like everyone is talking about it in a different way? like one person says it means this, but another person says its that. i think you made some really good points against it, but i also think spacelazarwolf made some good points for it so im just still figuring it out i think.

Yeah, I fully agree people are talking directly past each other in the conversation, and that's exactly why I made this post to begin with.

And I'm gonna @spacelazarwolf here because I respect his point of view a lot, we've been mutuals for a while, and I hadn't seen him talk about it until I went searching his blog literally just now; I don't wanna be talking about this behind his back or anything.

So like- correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like what he's defending is, for the most part, use of the term in some specific contexts:

"You are viewing this issue through a culturally Christian lens"

"Because you come from cultural Christianity, you may have developed blind spots and internalized ideas that you need to pay special attention to finding and rectifying"

(I'm specifically referring to these two recent posts)

I actually really agree with these uses! Those posts also clarify further that this isn't something you are, it's something you've been influenced by, or something you're doing. That's exactly the thing I say in my original post that I am very much here for, because, like I've said: Christian hegemony is obviously real, people are influenced by it- some more than others-, and it's necessary to be able to talk about these things.

I feel like the majority of arguments I see recently boil down to like, "why do you think cultural Christianity doesn't exist?" which, y'know, I don't doubt some people are actually saying. But if a lot of people are only really arguing that we shouldn't use it as an individual label that others get to decide to apply to them, and the people on the Other Side of the argument are only really arguing that we should be able to use it to refer to the impact of Christian hegemony on culture and shared ideology, like...

Maybe it's time to recognize that we're kinda saying the same shit. If we can get behind "don't label individuals, but do acknowledge the cultural impact and behavior", we can probably just move forward knowing that none of us are trying to advocate for something shitty just because someone else on our "side" said it. And maybe have more productive & relevant conversations.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

what if we held on to whatever we get the idea of as Normal as unquestionable & think all you can do to this normal is apply some veneers overtop it to be more polite & also resent that. maybe we could project that everyone who seems to be Annoyingly Disruptively doing more than this must be putting on a performance to look good &/or humor others b/c that's all we ever believe we're doing, & again, we resent even that much....maybe we could use our show of More Polite language to make the same points blaming everyone who our Normal mistreats for their own mistreatment

[derinwrites]

Plotting a story -- inductive and deductive plotting

When it comes to plotting habits in writing fiction, there’s a scale. Most people label the ends of this scale ‘gardener’ and ‘architect’, although the terms ‘plotter’ and ‘pantser’ are also in use. If you’re a writer, you probably know this scale, but I’ll briefly explain for those who haven’t and then get into my model.

An architect, or plotter, is a writer who thrives with a lot of planning. Like an architect planning a house, they assess what story they’re telling in advance and what needs to happen to tell it. They assess the materials, plan and measure the acts (if they’re using an act structure), decide on the climax and how the characters will develop and map those onto the plan. Then, with a plan, they write.

A gardener, or pantser, by contrast, writes ‘by the seat of their pants’. Pantsers may or may not know where their story is going in broad terms, but they certainly don’t know in any detail beyond ‘this’ll be a cool scene if I can get it there’. To these people, writing is less like architecture and more like gardening – you can build your beds and plant your seeds, but a whole lot of what’s going to happen next depends on how the plants grow, and all you can do is keep an eye on them and prune or train them as necessary. You can dream about what your garden will look like in the spring, but you won’t know until you get there.

Plotters and pantsers are not two distinct categories of writers, but ends on a scale. The writer who ad libs sentence by sentence with no goal at all is extremely rare, as is the writer who starts from an overall view of the plot and cuts it down and down until they’re planning on the sentence level. Most writers tend towards one end of the scale to a greater or lesser degree, but very few write completely using one method and none of the other.

The plotter/pantser scale is one that many writers find incredibly useful to help them understand their own process. By knowing where you are on this scale, you can better understand how you write and better understand how the habits and advice of other writers may or may not be useful to you. (A pantser trying to meticulously plot their story in advance following some formula they found in a writing advice book is wasting their time.) However, this model has little utility beyond that, which is why I find it more useful to address the phenomenon not as a scale, but as the manifestation of two separate skills, that I like to call deductive and inductive plotting.

In logic, deductive reasoning is when you take broad rules or generalities and apply them to specific circumstances to predict things – you start big and go little. “Things fall when you drop them, therefore if I drop this rock it will fall” is deduction. Inductive reasoning is the opposite – you start with small observations and build them into a pattern to predict something bigger. “I dropped seventeen objects and they all fell; therefore, perhaps when you drop things, they fall” is induction. (There’s also abductive reasoning, but that doesn’t fit into our plotting skill metaphor.)

In my experience, these skills match to the habits of plotters and pantsers. Plotters, or architects, assemble a big picture of the story they want and then deduce their individual scenes and fill in the lines to map to their overall general picture. They are deductive plotters. If you ask a deductive plotter to start writing without an outline, they become lost and their output seems directionless and erratic – how can they know what to write if they don’t have an outline to break things down from? Deductive plotters tend to think of stories in terms of overall structures and themes that can be broken down into characters and events and put on the page.

Pantsers, or gardeners, are the opposite. They’re if-then writers, and build the plot upwards from the individual actions of their characters and create the story from the sum total of those interactions. They are inductive plotters. Brandon Sanderson often describes a pantser’s first draft as just a really thorough outline, and he’s not wrong; a pantser needs the scene-by-scene minutae to know what happens next. How are they supposed to build an outline if they don’t know what happens next? If you ask an inductive plotter to build and follow a thorough outline, their writing often comes out as wooden and arbitrary as they have to force the actions of the characters between the restrictive rails of predetermined plot. Inductive potters tend to think of stories in terms of characters and discrete events that build up into something bigger with a consistent mood or theme. Inductive plotters sometimes complain of their characters having a life of their own and defying the plot – this is the effect of their moment-by-moment if-then reasoning of the character’s next action not matching their initial predictions, and surprising them.

Again, the vast majority of writers have some rudimentary skill in both inductive and deductive plotting. A strong deductive plotter (architect) can usually sit down and infer line-by-line a scene that their outline lists as “the three characters meet in the coffee shop and share evidence, Rosemary sees Harold’s notes and realises where the gun went.” Similarly, a strong inductive plotter (gardener) usually has some idea of where their story is headed next even if they don’t know how long it’ll take to get there or what complications will pop up in the meantime. But I’ve never met a writer who is equally strong in both inductive and deductive plotting; most writers specialise heavily in one, and tend towards one end of the scale. I think this is because there’s such a huge overlap in utility; when we start learning to write, we start plotting in whatever way is easiest for us, and train that specific method over decades. There’s little reason to invest even more decades into getting just as good with the other method when your favoured method already achieves everything you want.

I find that viewing this scale as the result of two skills, inductive and deductive plotting, can be very helpful in understanding specifically how we write. Thinking of myself as a heavily inductive plotter with rudimentary deductive plotting skills has really helped me understand why some methods of writing work for me and others don’t, as well as help nail down specific weaknesses in my writing. I also find it useful to think of writing styles and strategies not as some unchangeable characteristic we were born with (as the plotter/pantser scale is frequently envisioned), but as skills that can be built. You don’t write the way you write because you happen to be a plotter or pantser – you write the way you write because that’s what you learned to do! And it was hard! And you did it! Be proud of your skill!

[destiel-wings]

Dean Winchester & hug dynamic analysis

I was thinking about how whenever Dean hugs someone he's almost always the one hugging the other and how this links to his psychological trauma of always being the caretaker of people, making himself bigger to protect them.

Because that's how Dean sees himself, as a shield for others, and then I thought about how Cas actually is the shield, and he's HIS SHIELD, specifically, the only one who's really there to protect HIM, which is why it hits so much when we see this:

The way Cas wraps his arms around him, trying to protect him with his whole body--that he'd use as a shield and give up in a second if he could spare him from any pain and save him.

(for context: Dean was about to go use the soul bomb on Amara there, it was a suicide mission)

Bobby is another one that hits, he hugs him as the big hugger because he's his father, he loves him and he's actually here to protect him (and Dean LETS him -barely, but he lets him *and Cas* - in a way that he doesn't let Sam)

I watched a compilation of Sam & Dean hugs to check if i was right about it, but it's almost always Dean the big hugger with Sam, except when he's about to die or Sam sees him alive again after losing him.

Even then, Dean mostly tries to hug Sam as the big hugger anyway, with at least one arm, like a way to comfort him, making him feel protected, like his body language is saying "I'm here, I'm okay, I'm still strong, i can still protect you" (because their real father failed and Dean thinks it's his job).

He rarely lets himself be the little one hugged with Sam, unless he's barely conscious. Which is why it kills me so much more now that in this moment (s14, when Dean was going to lock himself in the Ma'lak box cause he was possessed by Michael) and Sam has a desperate breakdown and punches him (to stop him) he forcefully hugs him as the little hugger, the way Dean always kept him, like a way of saying "I still need you to protect me, please don't do this to yourself".

In the scene below he gives Sam his blessing to do a dangerous (possibly suicidal) mission, and one of his arms is down, but the other one tries to stay up--he's forcing himself to do it and he struggles because he still wants to protect him, but (as the seasons progress) he slowly becomes more prone to let go.

So in this view the hug dynamic becomes an indicator of how Dean sees Sam (and himself) and his protector role, how adult and self sufficient he considers Sam, and how much he lets people around him take care of him, lowering his walls and letting himself be hugged.

This is also why i think hugs from characters like Garth or Charlie are so special, because they're just like us: they see Dean and they just know that he needs to be hugged a lot, and that he's not used to it, so they just go for it-- and it's so normal and kind and spontaneous that Dean's just not used to it-- he doesn't know how to respond (especially with Garth, at the beginning, but as the seasons progress, he learns to, and he even initiates the hug eventually).

I love the hugs where they're 50/50 (one arm up, one arm down both), feels like they're equals, both taking care of each other. I feel like with Sam and Dean, this indicates a healthier dynamic, because Dean lets go a little of the role that was imposed to him and manages to see Sam as the strong individual that he is. But the same applies to 50/50 hugs with other characters, like with Cas, where I feel like it testifies how equals they feel in terms of being fighters, there's a show of respect of each other's strength that transpires by the gesture (which is even more astounding considering that Cas is literally a powerful angel).

And just to end on a destiel note, I'd like to note the possessiveness and protectiveness of Dean (rightfully so) whenever he finds Cas after he thought he had lost him, and how that translates into his body/hug language:

[starlit-typewriter]

Genshin SAGAU, Creator of Teyvat, but not Humanity Part 1

Playing around with the idea of The creator of Teyvat, not being the creator of humanity.

Masterlist | Next Part

~~~

You were never much of a gamer.

Not that you disliked games of course, but it never quite clicked with you the way it did others. You’d try a couple of games on and off, but there would always be a point where it’d become boring.

Not that there was anything bad about the games themselves, you freely complimented the design and effort it goes into making these masterful pieces of art and code.

You just, weren't a gamer.

Until Genshin Impact

You can still remember the day you heard of it.

You were chatting with friends and one of them brought up this new game they saw a promotion for that they were interested in trying.

It was this anime-esque gacha game.

They showed you a couple trailers and promotional materials, and you must admit they were quite appealing.

However you didn’t intend to try it, knowing that you’d eventually drop it and move on.

But your friend still pestered you, claiming that there’s no harm in trying and dropping another game, after all it’s free anyways, so you’re not losing out on anything monetary.

Skeptical, you joined them in trying out the game.

And

Well

Let’s just say your friend got more than a couple of “I told you so’s” that day

It was beautiful.

The art, the music, the characters.

Everything about this game just, clicked.

You understand why people got so obsessed with certain games.

Why they would be willing to pay for things such as this.

Why this is such a large industry.

It’s, well it’s fun.

It was honestly quite frightening how quickly the game pulled you in.

You never understood the term “completionist”, until it started to apply to you.

Every quest, every domain, every achievement

You did it all

Every dialogue, every story, every entry in the archive.

You read it all.

You scoured the forums for bits of lore, and shrieked with your friend every time something new was dropped.

Genshin was all consuming.

It was honestly quite concerning, if it weren’t for the fact it was time gated with its resin cap and limited content, your outside life probably would’ve suffered.

On some level you probably knew that this was not normal. Your friends who were all gamers as well were never as obsessed over a single game as you were over Genshin.

But you reassured yourself, this is the first game that made you feel this way, its natural for you to go a little overboard.

I’m sure it’ll die down as I try out other games.

But you never really did.

No other game, no matter how popular or similar or highly rated.

Other games from Hoyoverse fared slightly better in terms of attention span.

But you always went back to Genshin.

Not that it bothered you.

Genshin was enough, considering you still had real world responsibilities to balance.

And that was that.

Until, well.

Until Fontaine.

You see, you’d always enjoyed the characters of Teyvat.

But you’ve never quite simped after them the way the fanbase did.

You admired their aesthetics and enjoyed their stories. But they never quite drew you in.

Even your main, was quite honestly determined by meta and whatever character you’ve managed to get your hands on.

There was never a “waifu” or “husbando”.

It was always the world and story that drew you in rather than individual characters.

Iudex Neuvillette was an exception.

The exception

He felt right.

You immediately knew you had to pull for him.

So you did.

And playing him was amazing. He was as meta breaking as you’d hoped and, well, you just liked him.

“Your first official Husbando” your friends would tease. You understand why they would go such lengths for a specific character now.

He was special.

He was a Dragon.

He felt, right.

You quite never understood why

Not until you entered the world of Teyvat.

That story,

Well,

That begins from the other side of the screen.

~~~

“I bet we can definitely open up a whole new sector in Fontaine if all goes well don't you think?” Hu Tao chattered as she and Zhongli strolled back to Liyue Harbor.

Zhongli hummed in agreement, only half paying attention to the conversation. He could tell Hu Tao noticed, since she was keeping the topic of conversation to light topics that anyone with half a mind could parse through. Only enough relevance so that he wouldn’t get lost in thought, but not so much that he had to focus on the conversation.

She was considerate like that, he knew since she had let many of his oddities slide, especially when he was still adjusting to mortal life.

Not that he was free from old habits mind you.

Zhongli doubted he would ever truly be able to blend into a crowd of mortal without some level of adept arts concealing his presence, however he was able to blend in enough so that the average nosy person was able to wave off his eccentricities a simply a facet of his personality rather than something deeper.

He cannot forget that it was thanks to people such as Hu Tao who were willing to let him in without many questions that allowed him to get to this point. Something he will be forever grateful for.

Be that as it may, it did not change the fact that some things will forever be kept secret.

His near encounter with the Hydro dragon for one.

Even from the other side of Qiaoying village where he’d made himself scarce, he could feel the amount of blessings placed upon the man.

He truly was favored by the creator.

Not that that was any surprise.

What was surprising was his own blessing.

Though much smaller, he still treasured the gift given to him by the creator of Teyvat.

Teyvat, after all, was a world of Dragons.

It was due to the advent of The Primordial One, did they lose their authority.

Not that many people knew.

Most people didn’t

The true History and creation of Teyvat was kept tightly wrapped, even the most learned scholars of the Akademiya could only infer at what truly happened, as well as the origin of humanity.

The true name of the creator was lost to time, only their title of the creator of Teyvat remaining. The mortals who lived on Teyvat daren’t give them another for fear of evoking their wrath.

They had plenty to be wrathful about.

Zhongli would only imagine his own rage, if anything similar happened to Liyue.

Imagine putting in centuries upon centuries of work only for an outsider to come in, destroy your work and reshape it for their own people. Before proceeding to have the audacity to name him as a contributor to their success and praise alongside such an usurper.

Just imagining it makes him angry.

That is why, the creator’s title is rarely evoked.

Names have power after all.

Names of gods even more so.

To evoke their name, their title, is to ask for attention.

Attention that would be safer left elsewhere.

Not that mortals knew the true reason.

The commonly accepted reasoning was that the creator of Teyvat has long turned their gaze elsewhere, satisfied with the current ruling of Teyvat, having entrusted their powers to Celestia and the Archons.

Zhongli would feel guilt at this blatant lie and rewriting of history if he could.

But he cannot, because to feel guilt would be to regret his actions and to wish something was different.

But he knew that he, along with all of humanity, Liyue Harbor, his Adepti and friends. They would not have existed, they would not have lived, has history played out justly.

The world is not just.

The world simply is.

He feared to an extent that the Hydro dragons would try to force a more cruel version of justice upon Fontaine, condemning them all as usurpers, when they had no idea, or even power over what had happened in the past.

Thankfully it seems that Focalors’s plan to integrate him into humanity worked. Stemming any sort of “justice” he may enact on humanity for the crimes of The Primordial One. In fact, he seems to have great fondness over humanity, absolving them of their sin and saving them from the prophecy that threatened Fontaine for so many centuries.

However, he knew that he was exempt from this mercy. Zhongli knew that when the time came, the Hydro dragon, or well Iudex Neuvillette would spare no effort in holding him accountable for his actions in usurping the original order of Teyvat.

Which is exactly why he avoided the man, dragon? as he did.

“-ello, earth to Zhongli, ”

Zhongli blinked, Hu Tao’s voice dragging him back to their situation at hand.

“Ah, my apologies, I seemed to have been lost in thought”

She clicked her tongue at him, “Aiyyaa, honestly Zhongli, I wonder sometimes if your age is getting to you, I was trying to get your attention for quite a while”

“Is that so,”

Zhongli couldn’t help but smile at her exaggerated groan.

“I was merely thinking about some old history,” he started, preparing himself to finish the history of Qiaoying village that he was telling Hu Tao on their way over.

“Oh no, there’s no need for that,” she waved off, a slight grimace on her face.

He knew how bored she was by the story the way over, so it served as a perfect distraction on the way back to stop her from questioning any further.

“Honestly a girl can only listen so much about the different varieties of teas and their subtle notes and flavoring before she has to burst yo know,” she complained.

“Well, the history of tea has a -”

“Oh look we’re almost there!” She pointed out, most likely in a desperate bid to stop him from droning on.

He was being slightly unfair to her, he knows, but it never ceases to become unassuming when people try to fake interest in a topic, only to regret it when they realize just how much there is to know about it.

Of course it can never compare to when someone has a genuine passion for the topic and wants to engage further, but those mortals are rare.

More often than not, he can use his vast knowledge as a smokescreen too, well, as Paimon would most likely put it. Bore people into leaving him alone.

He waves off Hu Tao as she bounces back home, and allows himself to take a stroll through the streets of Liyue Harbor.

The Lantern Rite was ending, another celebration successfully done under the hard work of the Qixing

He gazed around at all the sights, the lanterns, the food stalls, the beautiful atmosphere of people enjoying the celebration.

No

He could never regret what he did.

Not since it lead to peace and happiness like this.

And

If things are as he suspects.

He may never have too.

He feels it once more.

The glow of the creator's blessing.

He can feel it swirling within him as he steps through Liyue Harbor.

He wonders if they can see it as he does. Sees the beauty and resplendence of humanity.

Look, he wants to scream

They are nothing like The Primordial One

They are good, kind and beautiful.

Humans may not be your creation, they may not have originated from this world but that does not mean they do not deserve to stay.

But he doesn’t

First of all because he feels that screaming these things in the middle of a busy street may attract some weird looks.

But also out of fear, fear that any attempt to disrupt this fragile peace could lead to destruction.

Because it is fragile, it has only been a couple of years since the creator has turned their eyes to Teyvat.

Those who have been blessed have been careful in their own way not to destroy this chance that the creator has given them.

A chance to prove themselves, not only as people deserving of their attention and blessing, but as a people.

To prove themselves just as worthy of the dragons of staying in Teyvat.

Because they all know, in their hearts of hearts, that what the creator has created, they could just as easily destroy.

While some may tease him for his age, there is no denying that with age comes experiences that the younger generation may never know.

He himself, whilst having been born long after the disappearance of the creator, witnessed firsthand how it had affected the world.

How Godly remains tainted the earth for far longer than it used to.

How miasma and abyssal energy started to leak forth.

How Leyline disorders became more and more commonplace.

Teyvat was breaking.

It was falling apart.

But perhaps.

With this new chance, it could be fixed.

He could still remember the day the creator first turned their gaze upon Teyvat.

Or well, more specifically, the first time they turned their gaze on him.

He had heard rumors of an outlander from Mondstatdt making their way to Liyue. Tales of their feats and defeating Dvalin with the wayward Anemo Archon were as prevalent as talks about the upcoming Rite of Descension.

He had taken note of it of course, outlanders were rare after all, but he hadn’t expected this one to be quite, consequential.

Not until he met them.

He felt their approach funnily enough, the unbranded aura they carried within them. While he could’ve written it off as an aspect of their outlander status, internally he knew it not to be true.

He was far too young to have ever met the creator, or even the original dragons.

But he has stumbled upon their remnants.

Pure remnants, unlike the gnosis which have been twisted and altered by the time it had spent in the hands of The Primordial One.

It was, indescribable.

Free, yet grounded.

Unwavering yet fluid.

Swift yet languid.

It

It simply was

It was the essence of Teyvat.

The essence of the land he lived and fought and bled and laughed in.

How could he not worship it.

How could he not fear it.

He had felt Childe walk in with bated breath, distracting himself with his cup of tea to settle his nerves.

What did this mean?

Was this the end of Liyue, of humanity, of Teyvat?

Over the centuries people have accepted the creator’s complacency in the affairs of Teyvat.

What does it now mean that they have focused their gaze once more on this land.

Destruction

Salvation

He daren’t hope or guess.

But

Well,

The Traveler was kind.

They had no ill will towards the people of Teyvat.

While it was clear they had their own mission to stove for, they did not hesitate in helping those they can along the way.

If the creator has blessed one such as them, one so kind to humans, one with no ill will.

Perhaps.

A seed of hope planted itself in him, and refused to budge.

As time went on, the seed grew.

Hope grew.

The tiny seed of hope that he tried so hard to ignore and deny could be ignored no longer when he received a blessing himself.

He could still remember it so clearly.

It was a normal day, nothing out of the ordinary. He went to work, had tea, chatted with passersby.

There were no great feats.

No great revelations, or offerings.

Yet he felt it for the first time.

A blessing.

A pure, gentle, powerful blessing.

He could feel the sentiment behind it, weak as it was.

Relief, excitement, apprehension.

He wanted to cry, to pray. To thank them for giving him a chance, for giving the people of Teyvat a chance.

But fear held him back.

It still does to this day.

That’s the problem with gods, their pleasure and their wrath can often look the same.

Even as he compared notes with Barbatos and the Adepti, confirming that many of them have been given blessings.

While some like Ganyu, rejoiced in this blessing eager for a chance to prove themselves worthy of this world.

People such as him were still fearful.

Fearful of what this meant and what they wanted.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was when he realized that xiangling was also blessed.

Not that the girl knew, after all the creator was very rarely spoken of, only ever mentioned in ancient rites and the most descriptive of history books.

But she had the blessing, a human.

From that point he saw so many others, so many humans, mere mortals given their divine blessing and gaze.

An exorcist, an author, a member of the Qixing.

It spread across Teyvat, whispers as people soon realized that there was a god, an unknown god blessing them.

Granting them abilities beyond their visions, oftentimes enhancing them to levels beyond previously known human limits.

No one dared to say their name, they were insinuations, and speculations, but no one dared disturbed the fragile peace that has settled.

It is an understanding between those who have it.

Those who know, know and those who don’t are kept in the dark.

But it seems that the Creator has turned their gaze to Teyvat and to humans.

~~~~

Masterlist | Next Part

~~~~

Tell me what you guys think!

[transmutationisms]

Is mbti pseudoscience ? Also what makes a term pseudoscience ? Is it the people involved? Lack of empirical evidence? Inability to replicate the results?

this is called the demarcation problem and philosophers of science have not settled it. i find this debate trite because it's generally framed around ahistorical, apolitical, asocial notions of 'science' as a set of disembodied ideas rather than as a family of knowledge practices occurring and evaluated in specific social contexts. for example, if we call phrenology a 'pseudoscience' we end up making nonsense of the historical observation that phrenological ideas were part of scientific discourses, practices, and experimentation throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. people measuring skulls and trying to map out localised brain functions were engaging in scientific activities; scientific inquiry is capable of producing ideas that are wrong, racist, internally contradictory, &c. one of the main ideological functions of the label 'pseudoscience' has been & continues to be providing a foil for its counterpart, the ideal of 'science' as an inherently noble and truth-producing activity.

it's dangerous to reify the sort of dichotomy that doesn't permit for the existence of scientific error, bias, or ideological taint; it also obscures the internal logic of previous modes of thinking and epistemological frameworks (bloodletting was not just something doctors did because they were stupid; astrology historically depended on particular cosmologies and philosophical axioms) and makes it extremely difficult to say anything worthwhile about practices and ideas that have been designated 'scientific' or 'pseudoscientific', 'orthodox' or 'heterodox', in different historical moments and places. it's easy to see the designation 'pseudoscience' as a neutral or even politically astute denigration of bullshittery or charlatanism, but consider also that powerful institutions, individuals, professional guilds, and states are just as capable of slinging accusations of 'pseudoscientificity' at those they wish to marginalise for various political and ideological reasons. one recent example of this is the fairly contentious argument over the basic and unfortunately true assertion that many respiratory illnesses, particularly covid, are airborne. the process of deciding whose ideas are bunk, and whose are proper science, occurs in social context just as much as the formation and dissemination of the ideas themselves does.

anyway if what you mean is "are the mbti categories real / fixed / universal human 'types'" then the answer is no, definitely not, it was always a philosophically unjustified taxonomy-forward attempt to bring jungian psychology to the masses that caught on with hiring departments and corporate consultants, and that more than a few people have compared to a kind of 'updated' astrological discourse on the 'personality' expressed in today's scientifically fashionable language rather than yesteryear's. now see if every psy-scientific discourse to which a similar critique applies were to be described as 'pseudoscience' then we would have an awfully hard time explaining what exactly are the professional activities their exponents are engaging in all day, and meanwhile we would have very handily preserved the fiction that there is some other, nobler, properly scientific discipline of psychology magically free of all such inconvenient history and conceptual baggage.

[rottingraisins]

it kinda sucks that you hc a canonically pansexual character as gay (clef)

i deliberated not answering this one bc i dont rlly mean to get into representation discourse or w/e during pride month of all things but i think the sentiment behind it is very fair so i feel bad ignoring it.

firstly, i think it needs to be said that clefs "canon" romantic orientation is very much just, whatevers funniest or most poignant for what youre trying to do with him. i understand the sentiment, there are characters in scp who are queer in a very specific and straightforward way where i'd also be upset if people erased that about them, but clef is not that guy. he is probably the single most contradictory character across the entire wiki, and everyones got a bit of their own take on him.

secondly, to defend my own take a little, i don't even really see clef as strictly homoromantic. i think when applying queer labels to fictional characters one tends to kind of treat them as these ontological, prescriptive truths, rather than how labels are used in real life, by the individual themselves to approximate their lived experience.

what i'm trying to say is i don't think clef the character, at least the version of him i'm most fond of, the fifty something year old reformed casual homophobe from resurrection and co, really knows what the term "pansexual" means, or "mlm", or "demiromantic", which are other words i'd use to describe him if i were using the prescriptive approach.

i think clefs relationship to romance is deeply complicated and not something he spends a lot of time really thinking about, and in practice, despite the theroretical breadth of his capacity to be attracted to other people, he's really only attracted to men, which is to say one particular man who also just so happens to be dead, so there's no point in really dwelling on it.

[intheholler]

On Appalachian and Southern Stereotypes

After seeing some people leap at the opportunity to insult and further harm us under my posts, even by obviously leftist accounts, I wanted to address some of the most popular stereotypes of our region.

Not as an excuse. There are many negative, violent and otherwise harmful features of the American South. We have a horrific history especially in terms of the violence we inflicted and continue to inflict upon the Black community that cannot be forgotten, and, as a culture, we do need to pay our dues.

But maybe this will help y’all apply some nuance to the situation and understand that we aren’t all your enemy.

Stereotype 1: Everyone is a Republican Racist

Absolute horse shit, my friends. There are people like me all over the south and in the hollers. We just get drowned out by the fascists, and it is all by design. 

In my home state of North Carolina alone, they are working tirelessly to make it impossible for young, often liberal (if not outright leftist) voices to be heard. They specifically target regions with heavy POC populations.

As recently as May of this year, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned their own previous ruling which once made gerrymandering illegal. This allows Republicans free range to draw their congressional lines wherever benefits them most. 

Meanwhile, Roy Cooper, our Democratic governor, has been in office since 2017.

Gerrymandering is a real problem, and it reflects the worst of us. But it does not reflect all of us.

We are a working class, pro-union people.

We are coal miners and mill workers and farmers.

We took up arms against the government and fought for our labor rights during the Coal Wars as recently as the 1920s.

We bled for labor rights at the Battle of Blair Mountain.

It’s a myth that you keep perpetuating that we are all closed minded, bigoted regressionists. It diminishes the efforts of everyone from the coal miners to people like me while we try to make the region a better place.

It actually only worsens what you say that you wish you could “saw off into the ocean.” 

That's my home you're talking about.

Stereotype 2: Everyone is Obese

36.3% of the overall population of the Southeast is obese. This is true.

Have you considered why that may be? For starters, Southerners are more likely to be uninsured compared to individuals living in the rest of the country.

"Among the total nonelderly population, 15% of individuals in the South are uninsured compared to 10% of individuals in the rest of the country."

Partially because they didn't even expand the same Medicaid benefits to us. and partially because we are just so fucking poor. 

17% of the American South is below the poverty line, compared to 13% in the Midwest, 13% in the West, and 13% in the Northeast.

Percentages under 5% may not seem like much, but when you consider 1% of the total United States population is around 3,140,000 people, yeah, that adds up real quick.

How does this relate? Well...

Mississippi has 19.58% of its residents below the poverty line, and a 39.1% obesity rate.

West Virginia has 17.10% of its residents below the poverty line, and a 40.6 % obesity rate.

Kentucky has 16.61% of its residents below the poverty line, and a 40.4% obesity rate.

Are you seeing the trend?

We, generally speaking, are more likely to be unable to afford to feed ourselves wholesome foods, and we are less likely to be able to afford medical insurance--two things that are obviously important to maintaing good health and a "healthy" weight.

By the same token... 

Stereotype #3: We're All Uneducated 

The South and Appalachia are some of the lowest ranked in terms of educational funding and spending per pupil in the entire country. We don't even break the top 30 on the list, y'all.

49. Tennessee at $8,324 per pupil 47. Mississippi at $8,919 per pupil 45. Alabama at $9,636 per pupil 42. Kentucky at $10,010 per pupil 36. North Carolina at $10,613 per pupil 35. South Carolina at  $10,719 per pupil 33. Georgia at $10,893 per pupil 32. West Virginia at $10,984 per pupil

The top three best-funded states, by comparison, receive between $18k and $20k per pupil.

In terms of higher education, student loans are a death sentence for everyone but especially impoverished kids just looking for a way out. It just isn't feasible for most of us. And that's if we even tested well after going to shitty schools our whole lives. If we had better education, we'd have better literacy in all things, including critical thinking, allowing us to better see through the bullshit we are taught. But we don't. And you aren't helping the ones who are trying in spite of that.

Stereotype 4: Bad Teeth

Quickly going to touch on this one--when we consider a lack of access to affordable, healthy food, shitty medical insurance in general and our poverty rate, this one is kind of obvious. Even so:

“Dental coverage was significantly lower than the national average in the South Atlantic (45.6%), East South Central (45.6%), West South Central (45.9%), and Pacific (48.0%) regions.”

Every time you make a toothless hillbilly joke, ask if poverty is really the butt of the joke you want to be making.

These are just the most pervasive of them, imo. And they can all be underlined by extreme poverty which is absolutely by design.

It also contributes to why it isn’t so easy to “just leave” as we are so often dismissively told to do. Moving is expensive.

And why should we have to, anyway? Why should we have to flee our homes?

Why, for those who feel safe enough and/or have no other choice, should we not stay and fight to better the region?

And why can’t you other leftists get behind us and help us in our fight instead of perpetuating harmful stereotypes? We're your people, too.

Just some food for thought. And I hope some of y’all take a big ol bite.

[meirmakesstuff]

If you're thinking of attending a synagogue service as a way to support your local Jewish community but don't know how:

I'm writing this on 10/13/23, but this applies to any occasion when the Jewish community might be in a state of fear or sadness, or when you might be moved to show support for your local Jewish community by showing up. The main comment I've gotten from people who want to do this is that they don't know how to begin, so here's a quick guide for how to actually do that if you've never been to or interacted with a synagogue before.

How to choose a synagogue

How to ask first

What to wear and bring

When you get there

Additional notes

How to choose a synagogue

Depending on where you live, googling "synagogue [zip code]" may get you a lot or very few hits. Look at the synagogue's website for hints.

If you see the words "messianic" or "yeshua" that's not a real synagogue, that's predatory Christians hoping to be mistaken for Jews. Supporting them does not support your local Jewish community.

Check for the words "Orthodox," "Conservative," "Reconstructing Judaism," or "Reform" to help know what to expect. If you would be distressed to encounter segregated seating by binary gender, that's a reason you might avoid an Orthodox synagogue. The word "Conservative" in this context does not refer to political opinions, it's the name of a denomination just like Orthodox, Reconstructing, and Reform--what's being conserved in Conservative Judaism is liturgical traditions and religious observances. In fact, in most of these settings, to a lesser or greater extent depending on your specific location, you are likely to find the majority of people leaning generally to the left of your local average, politically. Which isn't to say there won't be outliers, that's just the typical makeup. In terms of service length, a Reform synagogue service is likely the shortest. It will also likely contain the most English during the service. No mainstream denomination of Judaism practices proselytizing. You should not fear that anyone will actively try to convert you.

On the synagogue website they should list start times for Friday night and Saturday morning services. That will help you choose a service you might be able to attend. I'll add notes on the differences and what to expect from either later on.

How to ask first

Not all communities will find an unexpected visitor to be a safe situation, no matter how good your intentions may be. Before you show up at a synagogue, check the website for the email addresses for the rabbi and either the president or "info" or something similar. Here's a model script for you to use:

Hi Rabbi [Lastname], I'm not Jewish but was looking for ways to show support to our local Jewish community and wondered if it would be appropriate to attend a service this coming [Friday/Saturday] as a way of showing my local Jewish community that you are not alone. If that would not be appreciated, is there another gesture an individual could make that would help this community feel supported? Otherwise, what do I need to know in order to be respectful to your community while attending a service? Sincerely, [your name]

You can also ask about accessibility questions you might have in the same email.

In a larger city or a place that has recieved threats of violence recently, they may be more cautious, but a synagogue in a small city or suburban area may simply say that anyone is welcome to show up to any service.

What to wear and bring

If the rabbi or synagogue office emails back with clothing guidelines, follow them. If not, bet on business casual as a dress code: for a masculine presentation, slacks, a button-down shirt with or without a tie, and a blazer or sweater, and for a feminine presentation slacks or a skirt knee length or longer, with a top that covers the shoulders. for Orthodox and some Conservative synagogues, wear long or three-quarter sleeves. In an Orthodox synagogue, women typically wear dresses and skirts rather than pants. I would advise avoiding wearing a visible cross while attending a service of any Jewish denomination.

You don't need to bring anything in particular with you. Be sure to place your cell phone on silent and double-check that any alarms are turned off. In Orthodox and many other synagogues, people may avoid carrying wallets with them, but no one should be offended that you have yours with you as a visitor.

This should go without saying but do not bring any kind of weapon with you. In a large city with high security needs your bag may be searched or you may be asked to show ID before entering. It is very likely that you will see a uniformed police officer or armed security guard. Synagogues in large cities might have dramatically increased their security presence this week. A visitor who is being respectful to the community is not what they're looking for.

Jewish people attending the service may bring prayer shawls or kippot (singular: kipa, also called yarmulkes) to wear. A visitor is not expected to have these. Most synagogues have baskets of kippot available at the entrance for guests. In Orthodox communities, men should wear one while in the building and women should not. In Conservative communities men should wear one and others may decide to wear one or not. In any other community you may but are not expected to wear a kipa. There will likely also be a rack of prayer shawls at the door, but non-Jews are not expected to wear these.

When you get there

Someone may make a point of approaching you early on. Please don't be embarrassed to tell them that you're not Jewish. Some synagogues will make a point on Saturday morning of assigning an "honor," that is, a role in the service, to Jewish newcomers. If someone approaches you to offer you an honor or asks you a question you don't understand, you can say "Thank you, I'm not Jewish, I'm visiting to show support for the community." Alternately, someone may simply approach you to welcome you and help you get situated.

If not, feel free to find yourself a seat.

In an Orthodox synagogue, in which the seating will be segregated by gender, there will be a curtain or screen between the men's and women's sections. The women's section may be side-by-side with the men's, behind it, or above it in a balcony. A synagogue with a balcony should either have an elevator or a small section of the lower level set apart from the men's section for Disabled women's seating.

In any other denomination, seating is not segregated by gender. In that case there is no wrong part of the general seating area that is wrong to sit in.

There are differing norms in different communities about how much talking is appropriate during services, so go along with what you see around you. Since you will likely not know the songs and much of what happens will be in Hebrew, you may lose your place in the book. If you're not able to find the page, feel free to read something that interests you in the book or look around the room. No one would judge you as a guest for not already knowing the service. Feel free to chime in if you hear everyone saying "amen" in unison or if you catch on to a song, but don't feel pressured to do anything but be present.

There will be times during the service where people will sit, stand, bow, or make other motions. If you are not able to stand, or if you are able to stand but not safely or comfortably or for a long time, please know that it's perfectly okay to remain seated for your own safety. Otherwise, sit and stand when the people around you sit and stand, and don't feel that you have to bow or keep up with other motions.

The service will likely end with blessings over wine and bread. This is not like the Christian eucharist, it's just food, with blessings of gratitude. These blessings may be recited as the last part of the service or in a room where snacks will be laid out. Again follow people's lead on when it's the right time to start taking snacks.

During the snack period people may approach you and introduce themselves. Now is a good time to tell them that you're here to show support to the community, but don't directly mention any specific occurrence unless someone brings it up first. If people are talking about Israel or current events, listen without contributing opinions unless they ask directly. Don't try to be funny or clever about it: this is not the time to tell everyone your super great idea for how to fix everything in the Middle East by putting the pope in charge or launching it to the moon or having it annexed by Aotearoa. The Jews are tired. You're here to listen. People may say things you disagree with. It's okay. You don't have to fix anyone's opinion right now. You don't even have to come back. If someone is making you uncomfortable, excuse yourself, get a second helping of cake, and say hi to someone different. This is a good time to say hello to the service leaders if you haven't met them before the service began. You can compliment the sermon or singing, or just say "I'm glad I came, I hope I was able to help this community feel supported."

Additional notes

Almost every synagogue occasionally has non-members and non-Jewish guests take part in community activities. An exception is very small communities in places where outsiders are generally hostile. It's not weird to be present in Jewish spaces as a non-Jew unless the people in that community make it weird. If so, you don't owe them anything and you don't have to come back. Every community is different, and I've been to synagogues I wouldn't choose to return to. As a general rule though, you will almost certainly be welcomed and asked about yourself. Feel free to share a little about the conversations that led to you wanting to show up for your local Jewish community, since people will likely be curious, but also remember to ask lots of questions yourself. As a general rule, Jews love to explain ourselves, so please do ask questions about the things you see and experience in the synagogue.

Topics to avoid unless someone directly asks you:

What you personally believe about God

Your personal feelings about Israel

How you would solve the situation if you were in charge

your past experience of Christianity

Jesus, in any context

Violence of any kind

What you think this community, its rabbi, Jews in general, or the Israeli government could be doing better.

Most of these are simply a matter of that there's a time and place for everything, and a Jewish service at a time of stress and sadness is not the time for these particular topics. If you feel a strong urge to talk about these topics without being asked, find a different location and group of people to do that with. The best way to be successful at showing support is to genuinely listen.

If you are a non-Jew interested in doing this and have follow-up questions, or if you are Jewish and feel I left out important details, please go ahead. I'm also happy to talk by PM if you need help figuring out a specific synagogue website. I'm not interested in doxxing anyone.

[bioethicists]

responding to this with my shitty redaction because i'm not comfortable posting obvious bait with people's names in them (particularly dead names) but i just wanted to point out the ways in which this ask is prototypical bait written to purposefully generate drama or controversy (idk if this is in a kiwifarms trolling with right wing motives sense or an 'i love drama' person) by trying to appeal to online leftist culture/the fear of being 'problematic'. i see ppl fall for this constantly + i need people to start learning to recognize the signs instead of either engaging or using this as evidence that leftists are stupid/petty/hypocritical (which many of us are, but in much less amusing ways, unfortunately)

the implication that there is a single founder of the "neurodiversity movement" + that evoking this movement at all (which i don't do + i think it's actually pretty evident that my politics are distinct from the much more bioessentialist politics of those who prefer that term, which is part of what led me to conclude that this is a copypasta) is supporting the founder. tracing a broad social concept to a single individual, then disparaging that individual as morally unsound (by evoking other explosive, petty pieces of discourse, like baeddalism + transandrophobia) in order to provoke doubt, fear or anger. demonstrates a hope that leftists will flinch away from anything associated with anyone 'problematic' without applying any critical thinking.

misrepresenting complex events (or fabricating them entirely- idk if these things happened + i simply couldn't care enough to find out) in a way that hits the pressure points of performative activism (she's being mean to an autistic person! other people of color agree with me! this other person is anti physically disabled people!) while also betraying reactionary opinions through language use/implications (claiming to care about 'transandrophobia' yet deadnaming someone? claiming to care about specific events at specific autism conferences but using terms like "severely autistic"? saying you have spoken to "Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians" lmao did you type this out based on census checkboxes from the 70s?). the author of this ask is clearly not a member of the activist communities they claim to be from because they accidentally slip into the speech conventions + opinions of a kiwifarms/4chan loser who does a lot of hatereading. this one did a good job of hitting the bingo card of divisive intracommunity issues rn- great research skills, bud! put them to better use <3

reframing reactionary beliefs using leftist concepts. this works because many of us do not have a foundational politic outside of "well, i want to be good, so I'm going to support the things that other people i trust say are good". which doesn't make you bad (there is no good or bad! learn this now + quick, if you really want to play a part in building a better world) but it makes you easy to manipulate + unlikely to be capable of meaningful change. notice that the claims this ask is asserting are, at their core, "people make up microaggressions to cause problems when really they could easily suck it up" + "people fake disabilities and being trans for attention". these are reactionary concerns, no matter how artfully they are dressed in social justice language. kiwifarms in particular was very, very good at this- they loved finding the people they stalked to be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc, not because they thought those things were wrong (it was their hobby to be these things!) but because they delighted in identifying hypocrisy, stirring up drama, + destroying people's reputations.

this is hard to explain bcuz i blacked out the names, but if you have a passing familiarity with fascist/reactionary online spaces, particularly the history of kiwifarms, you will know that reactionaries have their own 'pet leftists', just like we have our 'pet fascists' (shapiro, alex jones, tucker carlson, etc). that is, ppl they obsessively follow, harass, + scrutinize + come to believe are representative of everything that we believe. these ppl are rarely ppl who are actually prominent in our online spaces but online reactionaries often believe we are just as obsessed with these people as they are, but as unquestioned paragons of virtue + brilliance. namedropping these ppl is often an accidental tip of the hat, particularly when the ppl aren't on tumblr, haven't been a topic of community discussion for quite some time, or run in a different circle than us (reactionaries don't understand that there are actually thousands of leftist social groups which have very little overlap with some others- pronouns in bio does not mean someone knows or cares about contrapoints, for instance)

tl;dr this ask is a fantastic example of the rhetorical features bait that someone might actually take seriously.

[doberbutts]

I very much see your points! I suppose the only real difference between your viewpoint and mine stands in the fact that while yes, I do agree that to use the terms TME/TMA to sort of "gatekeep" specific experiences is bad, I feel like that's more of an issue with individual (although decently widespread, unfortunately) misappropriation of the language, rather than a conceptual flaw with the framework. I believe there's a lot of people who intend to use the terms correctly, and if and when they happen not to we should aim to correct that individual behavior rather than throw the baby out with the water, so to speak. I do understand that it's a bit of a tall ask when everyone's at each other's throats and often not willing to return the favor, but at the very least that's what we should strive for if we want to reach mutual understanding (I say all this knowing that's your goal too, I wouldn't assume otherwise).

After all, I do believe that the way "transandrodorks" are treated stems from a similar misunderstanding or overgeneralization of what we actually stand for, and an unwillingness to reach out a hand and actually listen to what we have to say rather than assume the worst from a few bad actors. That's why when the positions are reversed I want to at least try to reach out and meet the other party in the middle, even if the same courtesy isn't always afforded to me.

As for your example with Caster Semenya, I do believe that intersex people should absolutely be allowed to use the term TMA to refer to themselves regardless of AGAB if they feel it's appropriate, as their experiences often exist outside the strict framework we tend to employ and they would know best which terminology applies to them and which doesn't (and should also obviously allowed to make up their own when needed). I don't see eye to eye with anyone who advocates for TMA/TME while disagreeing on this point (and I'll admit I'm not sure what the general consensus here is).

And as for the other example, I'm a bit hesitant to continue that specific analogy (which I do believe to be absolutely valid, btw) since I'm white and I would rather not say anything out of turn, so I'll instead offer the usual rebuttal to the analogous point: when someone who is TME experiences transmisogyny, it's an atomic experience, not continuous. They might be mistaken for a trans woman, but as they are not actually a trans woman they don't live in the same state of constant fear and threat of (this specific type of) violence. They can prove they're not transfem, and the attack will stop, or at least lessen. They have the option of simply not being transfem, something which obviously isn't afforded to transfems. That doesn't mean that the experience they went through didn't affect them, or did so less, but they would live it differently from someone who would be the actual intended target.

Now, I relayed that point but I personally am not sure I agree with it 100%, specifically the latter half. If the TME person being attacked happens to be another trans person, rather than cis, they don't get to escape the danger through proving they're not transfem, because then they're just trading a type of violence for another (the one actually meant to target them, which might look differently). Not to mention that you won't always be in a situation where you can/want to prove it, or where the other party will believe you or care either way. I guess the bigger point here is that if you're TME you're not always experiencing transmisogyny in every facet of your life, though.

Either way I believe there's plenty of more nuance that could be had here, and in that sense I do dislike how that's lost when using TME/TMA, but as terms they were never intended to encompass every possible experience in shorthand but rather just give a general idea, which could then be complemented by any additional info you would be willing to share.

Ah but you see, that's the talking over someone else's experience I'm talking about.

When TME people experience transmisogyny, it is incidental and not continuous. Well. For some, like my example of the idiot mistaking me for Mexican for being brown while saying a French word, that is true. I am not commonly mistaken for Mexican, though it's not unheard of, and it hasn't happened in years. Specifically, when I stopped wearing my hair long and started binding, I stopped being read as *Dominican* (which racist people do not see the difference between the various Latin American countries) and thus stopped experiencing this problem. It's incidental, but I still think that the best choice is to ally with Mexicans and other Latinos and Hispanics to stop the bigoted behavior from happening altogether.

But what happens when it IS continuous? Black cis women, also labeled TME, are disproportionately transvestigated and heavily punished by transmisogynist laws and rulings despite not being transgender themselves. Not only does showing birth certificates not help (and, also, I think this is Bad Logic, because if I have to show my personal private documents in order to be left alone, I'm still being Affected By The Oppression because I have to carry my documents everywhere. Like that's just Baby's First Fascism) but I have personally witnessed multiple black celebrity and politician cis women be forced to prove they are women *while they are pregnant*. And yes, that is misogynoir. But it is practiced by utilizing the exact same societal systems to hurt trans women. Thus my logic on the other post- all oppression hooks into each other and back onto itself somehow. Not only is that not incidental and very much continuous, but this a systemic problem and why cis and trans women and *especially* any person of color regardless of gender should ally among themselves to fight it.

And, finally "they can prove they're not trans fem and the attack will stop or lessen"- sure, much like how Hannah Gadsby was able to say "no no I'm not a faggot you see I am a lady a woman no man-liker here" and the guy left her alone wait no he didn't he beat the shit out of her anyway. Like that's the problem I have with this- the reality is that this does not apply to every single person and that real living people are being hurt and sometimes killed while being labeled exempt from the very thing that kills them. We have had cis people die due to bathroom laws meant to hurt trans women. It is absolutely not a matter of just proving you're not one because transmisogyny is one help of a drug and it is used as a dangerous weapon to any and everyone it's pointed towards.

And that is the crux of my problem. People can use whatever words they like to describe their own experiences. Pointing these words to describe someone else's experiences for them, however, and denying that their very real lived experiences have happened or that it matters less is where I draw the line.

[gemsofgreece]

A little more on Hellenism

The discussion has been going around quite a bit in the Greek tumblr community, so I am making a decision to be adding the tag #hellenism to relevant posts from now on, as a person who is in fact aware of what constitutes Hellenism and what not. I typically use a very specific tagging system however I am going to be adding this tag now too in an effort to purge the problematic appropriative usage of the word.

I am doing this because I realised the problem is bigger than I thought. I thought the term was misused by a tiny niche community, it turns out the misuse has been initiated and largely encouraged by - what else - western classicist academia. Therefore, many young foreign people may be feeling justified in the use of the term since foreign pages are often misleading and appropriative about it as well.

For example, one might feel relieved in using the term Hellenism due to Wikipedia featuring a page with the term as used by non-Greek speaking people. However, it is essential that in this case your research goes a little deeper. In the very same page, Wikipedia acknowledges the concerns for cultural appropriation the use of this term has raised.

Here are some crucial parts you should not skip in your rush to use the term:

First of all, take care how in fact Wikipedia makes (correctly) a distinction between the Modern religion """"Hellenism""""" versus the Ancient Greek religion.

We have to remember that this is technically a new entity in the context of structured orginized religions, largely innovating its practices now or trying to reconstruct older ones. This of course makes the use of the term "Hellenism" (= Greekness, Greek nationhood, the essence of being Greek) even more problematic, since we are talking about a new entity. A reinstatement of an ancient system of beliefs in an organised, structured way. Even if there have been historically individuals who subscribed to this belief system after studying ancient classics, the current religion which tries to structure itself, find its footing and sustain its spiritual community is very much a contemporary process.

Here are examples of how the word Hellenism was used in antiquity:

In short, Anglophone translators applying in non-English words whatever meaning they fancy with little evidence. True enough:

It is truly an English devisement through and through, the prototype word neither has a strict religious meaning nor - most significantly - an exclusively ancient one.

Moving on to the crucial part:

By the way, in case you think there is still not much uproar to justify giving up the term, that's only because I can guarantee you 98% of Greeks have no idea Hellenic Polytheism is practiced outside Greece, let alone by non-Greek people calling themselves Hellenes and calling the religion Hellenism. At the possibility that the religion expands and more Greeks get exposed to the news, rest assured they are REALLY not going to be supportive of the name choices.

We Greeks however are better aware of name issues occuring within the nation. It should be noted that just like it happens with every religion, especially at the time the religion is in the process of establishing and institutionalizing itself, independent groups of believers with questionable practices or beliefs may form. The Ethnic Hellenes are a big example, since many Greek devotees of the Hellenic Polytheism identify as such. Due to an unpleasant incident I was a witness to recently (I made a vague rant), I visited the main page of the YSEE (Supreme Council of the Ethnic Hellenes) and I was dumbfounded by the cascade of red flags I encountered. Ethnic Hellenes is also a problematic term, because it suggests non-believing Hellenes are not ethnic Hellenes. True enough, the very questionable nature is proven when they more or less admit in the main page that even though they "acknowledge" other Hellenes (AKA Greeks) as Hellenes, they consider themselves as "better" or "truer" at being Hellenes. Do I need to insinuate here towards what sort of political ideologies this is dangerously leaning to? They also openly admit that the primary goal of their religious community is to spread the religion to other Greeks. In short, prosyletism, a controversial phenomenon which was happily missed in Greece until now, save for the occasional Jehovah Witness here and there. The informational page has also historical inaccuracies and a very embellished opinion on Christian Orthodoxy.

The reality is that there are two options for us: either we entirely reject the concept of Ethnoreligion or we accept that Greece has TWO (2) ethnoreligions, Hellenic (Greek / Eastern) Orthodoxy and Hellenic Polytheism, although of course the latter so far has had the historicity but not the numbers. A reality where only one of the two can be the ethnoreligion simply does not exist and it is time both Orthodoxy and Greek Polytheism accepted this. (Of course they don't, each considers the other the root of all evil but anyway.) Furthermore, I noticed very recently that """Ethnic""" Hellenes are trying to attract other Hellenes with the notion that THEY care about the country and its environment and its culture, as if whatever befalls the Greek environment and culture happens with the blessing of the Greek Orthodox doctrine. But that is the policy in general, showing a community of Greeks loving Greece and Greek nature and Greek culture (mostly ancient but not only, but definitely with revisionism if not exclusion of the Orthodox contribution to it), as if other Greeks don't love these things as much, which attracts unsuspecting Greeks that are disappointed by the current sociopolitical mess. Like I said, there are things concerning me about how this is going to unfold politically in the future because it plays with the extremely dangerous and propagandist notion of "truer Hellene and less true Hellene".

My rant a few days ago was because I realised this due to said incident and I decided to write this to help you understand that you should take care who you take advice from, even if they have similar beliefs to you, but also to invite you to reconsider using such a pivotal term to Greeks such as "Hellenism". And because I am not willing to randomly give up this quintessential term for our identity to revisionists, Greek or foreign, which is why I explained I am going to be using the term in its intended way.

I am tagging @wordsmithic and @alatismeni-theitsa if they want to reblog this and help it go a little further, but I know they already use the terms hellas and hellenism more often than me in the tags.

*Having said all that, "Ethnic" Hellenes - who refer to their religion with the not-at-all problematic "genuine Hellenism" also disapprove of foreigners calling themselves Hellenes or practicing Hellenism, so it's extremely unlikely you will find a Greek being okay with it, regardless of said Greek's beliefs.

** We should also acknowledge that there are some significant linguistic barriers between Greek and English that are inescapable and may blur your understanding of some concepts. For example, Wikipedia in this very page says at some point "re-Hellenize Greek identity"

This is a factually wrong statement that can lead to all sorts of misconceptions abroad, such that might even cause issues to Greeks and their identity. What Wikipedia should say is "re-hellenize Romaic identity" and it would still be questionable. Not to be confused or conflated with Ancient Romans btw. But that's a whole another story that you don't need to concern yourself with. My point is that there are serious limitations in the way Greek culture and linguistics are perceived in Anglophone or other western academic research.

Let's end this with some pictures of Hellenism!

I tried to also get pictures from an english hellenism query on google but I was jumpscared so much by the politicisation, the one-sidedness and the western self-insertion out of nowhere that I decided against it :)

[schneiderenjoyer]

Arcanist's "Perception" & The Unseen World

Hello! I'm back at it again with a fascinating look into analyzing new information from the recent event in global that help solidify certain headcanons and theories I have about arcanist genetics/behavior and how much more they're different from humans.

It focuses on the Meditator's Realm and how it supports something I've already had assumptions on and that is:

Arcanists can tangibly see and interact with things others, mostly humans, can't. This apply to other arcanists as well even if some can theoretically perceive them.

This is a long read, so take your time.

Let's start with what I mean by their perception creating tangibility on what an arcanist can see and interact with. Arcanists are highly sensitive to strong emotions and their thought process works differently on how they manage it. Using Kaalaa Baunaa as an example, we can see how she manifests stress and anxiety as a literal monster stalking her with the proposal papers as its "anchor" or main source of the strong emotions:

This is one of the many ways arcanists "perceive" emotions that makes sense to them and through Deep Meditative Thought (Gnosis), they can compartmentalize it into a more coherent structure that would be more similar to how humans deal with strong emotional response without it manifesting into strong "hallucinations."

But are they really hallucinations?

Not quite. While the emotional state can be seen as delusions, they're very much real to arcanists for one specific reason: Their core. I forgot the actual term they use for it (it could actually just be Gnosis honestly), but one of the biggest biological difference between humans and arcanists is that arcanists apparently have some kind of stone in their brain that's theorized to be the deciding factor of how they can use arcanum and "perceive" wild things.

But the "delusions", according to humans, are actual solid things the arcanists can interact with. They're tangible and real, but invisible to the naked eye with only a particular set of individuals being able to "see" them. These unseeing things becomes what's known as "myths" or "cryptids" to humans. But even arcanists find it hard to perceive these things as they're not specialized in it.

We can see this in Tooth Fairy.

While other arcanists can see the tooth fairies in her jar (which has unique properties meant to contain them), the "other fairies" that surround her constantly and more freely are invisible to them both in sight and hearing.

This leads me to believe that each arcanists see many "unseen things" differently and purely based on their skills and capabilities, but have the potential to "see" what other arcanists see either with the right tools (anchor) or enough practice.

People who try to "perceive" these things without proper training or equipment to "observe" them carefully can lead to a lot of mental distress, even insanity. Commonly humans because:

Humans are creatures that go by the motto of "Fact over fiction" or "Seeing is believing", but when actually facing the truth of things, they buckle under the pressure.

But that doesn't mean arcanists are immune to these effects either.

This is one of Baby Blue's "items" that she brought back from "Wonderland" and it's unstable and imperfect. Even UTTU's arcanist staff slowly lose the sense to properly "perceive" the item if they look too long both because it's incomplete and it's an "unseen thing" that only Baby Blue has fully deciphered in her head. It's a tangible, solid shape to her, but a confusing distorted attempt to mimic the real thing to others. It could also be due to the fact it's not from their world, but from "Wonderland", a place slightly different from their own.

But how did she manage to bring it into reality that even untrained arcanist eyes can "perceive" it with only minor consequences of lengthy observation to it?

This is where the Meditator's Realm comes into play.

It's described as a Realm that "mirrors" reality that can be entered through a special meditative form and connects the Deep Thought (Gnosis) of arcanists to it, allowing them to explore and interact with it to some degree.

Kaalaa Baunaa even compares it to dreaming, but more specifically she's referring to what humans call Lucid Dreaming. It's a form of astral projection where the soul disconnects from the body after entering REM sleep. A deep meditative state achieved through sleep. This is further supported from Baby Blue's interview about "Wonderland":

The implication is staggering as this could mean that even humans can enter this realm through lucid dreaming, but can't achieve as great of an influence there as arcanists who are naturally born to view everything in reality as different. The Meditator's Realm could be proof of a parallel world anyone can access with enough skill and resources.

Like the Manus Vindictae.

Their goals for wanting to reverse the world is still unknown, but with the new insight about the Meditator's Realm, we can speculate that how the Storm operates is through the collapse and bridging between "Reality" and a "Mirrored Reality." And with the Manus' intention of "bringing the world to the right course of history", the possibility of them selecting one of these parallel worlds and attempt to merge it with theirs by "erasing" parts to later glue fragments from another into it is more and more possible.

And an arcanist's ability to "perceive" the unseen realms becomes a very prevalent key to surviving a Storm.

Because with this, they can see the "in between" and the moment "reality" and the "mirrored world" starts conflicting before the Storm takes everything away due to the unstable consequences of bringing two worlds together.

They're still not immune when the Storm actually arrives, but just simply being able to "see" the signs gives them an advantage in braving it.

TLDR; Arcanists not only think differently from humans, but can see and interact with things far beyond the scope of "reality" that even other arcanists find hard to understand without training or an anchor.

The Meditator's Realm could be potential proof of parallel worlds and could be how the Manus dictates the course of what era they want to reach. As well as the unstable collision between "reality" and the "mirrored world" could be how the Storm operates.

Thank you for reading! Hope this fascinates you into thinking other theories about the Meditator's Realm and what could this mean for the world lore and arcanists.

[clowncaraz]

transandrophobia draws blood.

Azriel Pierce is a afro-latino transmascfem kafin who goes by they/them. Kafin is a gender label that does not fit into the binary, nonbinary, abinary or others and therefore can only be described by one’s self or personality.

the label of transandrophobia.

transandrophobia, the result of trans + androphobia, is broadly known as the fear of masculinity and manhood present in genderqueer people (masculine nbys, masculine intersex people, butches/studs/dykes/masculine women, trans men, transmascs). it was first described by a trans man of color named Saint in 2017.

i tend to include masc women/butches/dykes/studs in this because transandrophobia is known to not be used as an opposite to transmisogyny or a gender specific term for just men. it is quite literally a form of oppression against masculinity and manhood that is not cis, het or non-queer, and inherently includes masculine women because TERFism often uses radical feminism to attack queerness— often denying masc women their womanhood and trying to separate it from their identity and presentation to imply they’re “secretly men”.

we have now established that these identities are inherently affected by transandrophobia:

masculine nbys

masculine women

butches/studs/dykes

transmascs

trans men

masculine intersex people

so transandrophobia can be experienced based on the culutral views of masculinity or suppression of trans manhood for the recreation of cis womanhood in men. this can include corrective rape and sexual assault, transandrophobic medical abuse and mistreatment of transmasc bodies, the refusal to provide life-saving testosterone when eligible, social settings being hostile to queermasculine people, butches of any kind being refused lesbianism or harassment in bathrooms for appearance, and so on.

this statistic from The Trevor Project’s 2023 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ Young People, revealing that transmascs/trans men and nonbinary people (followed by those gender questioning) are more likely to suffer from forced sexual contact.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/sexual-violence-and-suicide-risk-among-lgbtq-young-people/

what comprises transandrophobia is androphobia and sexism.

all these people will experience sexism in unique ways that cannot be called transmisogyny due to the nature of attacking their masculinity first and foremost, then their assigned sex next. when said masculinity is attacked, TERFs will use that to deny them the right to it on the basis of their sex traits. an intersex man can’t be a man because they happen to have a body that is not perisex, therefore, the limits to their manhood is applied by reducing them to an object or a “disorder”. alongside intersexism, that is transandrophobia.

androphobia is the fear of manhood and the patriarchy, and when transmasculine individuals experience this, it becomes the fear of queerness that develops into “freeform masculinity”, bridging away from the commonly seen toxic and patriarchal masculinity and into it’s own category — something of a “cenntriarchal” form (cenn- from “cennend”, meaning parent).

the cenntriarchy does not refer to a specific gender or group as the head of a family, nor does it imply that those in the authority are all of one gender. instead, it is used to describe when those of any authority are of any gender and therefore would create societies that are diverse enough to allow men, women, nbys, thirds, and others to be centered at the foundation rather than behind women/men. this would challenge the ideas of what masculinity, femininity, and androgyny are supposed to look like or how they act in society because it features different cultures and religions.there is the belief that trans men and transmascs have the ability to uphold patriarchal forms of masculinity the moment they are men, which is a false statement created to “pin the patriarchy on the mule”. in this world, a hybrid is not considered to be as good as a horse — even if that horse is not purebred. cis masculinity will always be more valuable than trans masculinity and trans men cannot benefit from a concept that believes them to only be their sex traits and never their self. there is only one way masculinity can survive in queer spaces without the dominance of manhood, and that is the cenntriarchy allowing the possibility for everyone to contribute as the authority over their own rights regardless of gender.

standing by transmasculinity.

a common pushback against transandrophobia seems to be the idea that trans men are just transitioning towards cis manhood, as if they’re not men yet. they aren’t women, but they aren’t men either, so they stay in the gray zone of being defined by their agab or their sex traits.

the isolation of manhood from transness is a tactic used to correctly gender trans men without having to acknowledge their gender as being related to trans manhood, even if that fear is towards those who uphold the patriarchy — which trans men, by identity, do not fit in the patriarchy. when trans men and cis men are perceived as the same type of manhood, the assumption becomes that trans men are of the patriarchal system instead of being completely outside of it.

Saint has stated that “transandrophobia is the way that the fear of men impacts the material reality and mental/physical health of transgender men.” he has said that transandrophobia is not simply when a transmasculine person experiences misogyny or sexism, given that everyone experiences it, but that it is when the queermasculine identity is faced with trouble, hardship, oppression, or hatred because of said relation of manhood.

to put it simply, the irrational fear and subsequent hatred of transmasculinity and trans manhood. that is a broad definition of transandrophobia amongst all others.no one hates cis men for being men, it is hate of their ability to use their cis status and patriarchal power. cis manhood is preferred, actually, it is widely accepted, it is “natural”.. trans men on the other hand don’t have those privleges, and are hated for being failed cis men and confused women, who are then hated for being related to cis men by being men incorrectly.

even being in proximity to transmasculinity has comments like “kill all men”, and “why would you want to be a man?” thrown your way or in the direction you walk towards.

those who are interested in separating the transmasc community into halves of cliques and discrediting POC in the creation of transandrophobia terminology and discussion will also forget that many of the ones speaking about transmasc oppression are of color. they whitewash our terms, then our community.

https://www.tumblr.com/killjoycatlady/726305694582751232/doberbutts-is-a-black-trans-man-who-has-spoken?source=share

most known critics of transandrophobia are the most exclusionary radical-leaning trans queers who have fallen to TIRFism and Baeddelism.

those who engage in Baeddelism/TIRFism also have a habit of ignoring transmasc struggles, or claiming that our invisibility is easier to handle. this is not the case, given that transmascs have the highest suicide rates since last year.

to me, Baeddelism/TIRFism isn’t protecting trans women, trans men, nonbinary, and other queers from harm but actively allowing it to fester through discourse and strife. there is no protection for us and there is no language for us to use in order to convey our pain that isn’t refused or called a “copy” of transmisogyny to indicate that men are oppressed.

the denial of transandrophobia does not directly cause these deaths, this suffering, but it restricts the way we can communicate how transmascs are dealing with this pain of being left out of our own communities, our identities, our literature, our ability to be seen.

we do not want hypervisibility, we want help surviving.

[petermorwood]

Word changes...

All of the following is IMO, so YMMV. :->

*****

Anyone noticed how "weaponry" is used nowadays in places where "weapons" would work just fine (and is often more correct)?

Yes, they ARE interchangeable, sort-of, but it's clunky and sounds to me either slightly journo-pompous or like a failure to remember the right word so plugging the most similar one into its place.

ETA: I checked one of my dictionaries, and while "weapons" is more modern, "weaponry" is an obsolete word which has come back into favour. I wonder why...?

*****

"Decimate" turns up all the time, usually when the correct word is "devastate".

Merriam-Webster says: "It's totally fine to use 'decimate' as a synonym for 'devastate'. This is why."

Beg to differ.

As the M-W article points out, "decimate" originally meant a Roman military punishment applied to one man in ten of a guilty unit. (Initially execution, but this had a rotten effect on unit morale, so it was reduced in severity to fatigues, extra drill or restricted rations.)

That's now considered a far too specific meaning and only linguistic pedants dig their heels in. Quite right too, and I speak here as a (bit of a) linguistic pedant...

However, it remains a useful word for more generalised incomplete destruction of living things - saying a regiment, flock, herd or population was "decimated" implies there are some survivors without quibbling over how many tenths. If totally wiped out, however, that's when words like "destroyed" or "obliterated" are more appropriate.

On the other hand something inanimate like a factory, city or region would be "devastated" - and in addition, saying someone is emotionally devastated is understandable, but saying they're emotionally decimated is peculiar.

Two words, several meanings.

It's like cutlery: a spork can replace knife, fork and spoon, but individual utensils give a lot more precision and variation of use.

*****

There are also a couple of real howlers, not just transposed words but actual errors.

One I've heard several times is using "siege" (a noun, or thing) instead of "besiege" (a verb, or action).

For reference, there's a term called noun-verbing, and the practice is quite old: "table the motion / pencil you in / butter him up / he tasks me", but all are either when there isn't already a verb-form of the word, or as a more picturesque way of saying something.

(Interesting side-note about "table the motion": in US English, it means "to postpone discussion" while in UK, CA and I think AU English, it means the complete opposite, "to begin discussion". Why there's this difference, I have no idea, but it's worth remembering as a Brit-fix when writing, also in a real-life business context.)

There IS an existing verb for the action of surrounding a castle and cutting it off from outside help, and that verb isn't "sieged". It's "besieged" or "under siege". Anywhere using "sieged" as a verb is wrong. The Firefox spellchecker in Tumblr Edit Mode is telling me it's wrong right now.

Merriam-Webster, I'm looking at you again.

*****

There's also "coronate" used as a verb. "The King was coronated at Westminster Abbey". Nope. He was CROWNED.

Coronate is an adjective (meaning crown-shaped) and was coined in in the 1600s by a botanist, as a word to describe the shape of certain plants.

The current Royal-associated usage seems to be a bastard back-formation from "coronation", because the act of putting on a crown is the verb "to crown".

This is almost identical in German, French, Italian and Spanish, with noun and verb the same. The only difference is that their verbs have, what a surprise, verb-endings (-en, -er, -re and -ar) on the noun while English does not.

Because English doesn't like to make things that easy...

"Coronated" might be people trying to sound archaic, or those who've bought into the dopey "said-is-dead" school, who perform any linguistic contortion to avoid common words, and who've been taught that repetition in a sentence - "crowned with a crown" - is BAD.

Is "coronated at a coronation" in some way better?

Guess what's got uncritical examples...

If that's M-W scholarship, I'll stick to the OED and my old but utterly reliable New Elizabethan Dictionary, thanks very much.

*****

Language is funny: sometimes funny ha-ha, sometimes funny annoying, but often just funny peculiar, because English etc. etc...

[transmutationisms]

hi! was wondering if you have any recs for some good critiques of Foucault’s historical method (or lack thereof)?

I enjoy reading his theory but I know his methodology can be lacking and would love to learn specifically how. ty <3

i don't have a text off the top of my head that is solely dedicated to making this critique of foucault (usually it's scattered into various historical literature) but i can just tell you:

foucault the historian has the consistent problem of relying on too few primary sources, almost all of which are french or english, meaning his claims are often only applicable to limited local cases (even the differences between the highly centralised, bureaucratised french state and the british situation tend to get flattened). his sources also tend to be authority figures like doctors and government officials, and he frequently makes the assumption that the powers they claim to have (or claim they SHOULD have) are powers they actually do have, which leads to a 'top-down' history that presents authorities and institutions as almost infallible in their efforts to repression, with virtually no attention paid to how people actually received any such mandates, and whether they were actionable, or subverted, or both. he also has a real problem conceiving of liberty in any terms but individual; politics for him is frequently characterised by a group vs individual struggle, which is a problem if what you are trying to understand is, say, the history of class struggle.

as a philosopher foucault articulated some general methodological guiding principles that remain useful in history: genealogical and archaeological methods, the call to historicise (meaning, to problematise; to contextualise) institutions and ideas presented as timeless or transcendent. there are also concepts in his historical narratives that other people have since fleshed out further, nuanced, and grounded in better evidence and 'bottom-up' histories, like biopolitics. so it's not unusual to see his name pop up in historical footnotes, especially in an introduction or conclusion where he may form part of a conceptual framework the author is using to interpret their evidence and turn it into a viable argument. but even these usages are certainly subject to critique (eg, the emphasis on individual liberty that suffuses his conceptual work; the extent to which his arguments can apply beyond the specific early modern metropolitan french contexts about which he was writing) and he should pretty much never be cited as a historian because his methodology in that respect was at best lacking.