#and if you do believe ‘fuck christianity’ that’s well within your right

[moonmoonthecrabking]

hey so i was wondering: what is warrior nun’s view on religion? like is it sort of judgey and “people are idiots if they believe in God” or is it more “christianity can be fine/cool actually” or i guess where is it on the scale? like each of those as a percent? if you could let me know id really appreciate it!!!

[txttletale]

could you elaborate on your thoughts on boom and 73 yards ( i agree with you i am just struggling to put into words why.)

boom was whatever. the initial conceit of the doctor being trapped and having to stay calm was really cool! i really like that. the ambulances that euthanize you if you're not deemed worthy of medical care and the tacky chatgpt hologram ghosts were both really cool ideas. it just doesn't stick the landing for me, the twists are contrived and fall apart given any thought whatsoever. like what the fuck were any of the soldiers Doing if there just straight up weren't any enemies. it's a twist that sounds cool to say more than it has any meaningful impact on the story or the stakes. i guess 'the arms manuifacturer created a fake conflict' is the intended emtional stakes there but that would hit like a hundred times harder if it was an actual conflict between two factions and people were dying, right? like if anything sending a christian militia to blow themselves up tae fuck on a nowhere planet instead of presumably killing actual living people is an improvement, surely?

also the resolution was dumb as fuck lol i am a huge hater of power of love saves the day shit not because i'm a cynical misanthrope but because it never fails to make me say 'oh so i guess nobody ever loved anybody before lol' and this is no exception like if one chatbot can shut down the whole operation beacuse he loves his daughter are we meant to believe that no other parents or hell nobody who loved anybody else for any reason died in this fake war before? it's cheap and schmaltzy and unearned. anyway the first twentyish minutes of this are all-time great doctor who and gatwa/gibson were incredible in it but it absolutely falls apart into a confused pileo f some of the worst Moffatisms at the end

73 yards on the other hand was incredible! obviously like it requires you to approach it with a different mindset to most of doctor who, right, doctor who usually furnishes you with the big explanation scnee where the doctor says 'well the ghosts were actually particle wave vectorforms created with the necros radiation from the god-king's techsceptre' or whatever--this is the usual narrative mode of sci-fi--but 73 yards is fantasy, right, this is the twilight zone, this is 'wouldn't that be fucked up?'. i interrogate the technical and logical specifics of boom so much when i think about it because that's the language boom is speaking, boom is framing itself within this logical, a-to-b worldview, the satisfying click-together puzzlebox. but 73 yards is a nightmare or a folk tale, right? kate stewart¹ says it herself, 'when faced with the inexplicable, we make up rules and apply them to it'.

so yknow reading it that way it all clicks together beautifully, right, (apart from russel t davies' embarassing swing and miss at Political Commentary in the middle. we get it davies you wrote years and years. we know. trust me we know). the doctor and ruby disrupt the binding circle, free mad jack, and are punished -- the doctor, as perpetrator, with being banished (perhaps in jack's place) and ruby with her worst fear coming true constantly, until ruby defeats mad jack, re-sealing him and fixing what she broke, at which point the circle rewards her by reversing the punishments. and the core horror i think is very effective and unsettling! the idea that there is something that someone could say to turn everyone against you, the closest people to you in your life, your own family, the institutions that are meant to deal with the exact problem you're having--that's fucking terrifying! and yknow i think especially as an autistic trans lesbian something that speaks to me a lot

so yeah. i think that boom establishes its logics and framework and then trips and falls onto its face while 73 yards does the same and then makes perfect use of them. that said i think in 20 years people who are autistic about doctor who will be like 'did you know in the 2020s there were two episodes in a row where the doctor caused the entire plot to happen by stepping on something' and thjatll be the main thing they're remembered for

[thrashkink-coven]

Hi! I saw your post about the appropriation of religious imagery by extremest hate groups (a good post, I share your feelings of frustration) at the end you made a vague statement about the satanic temple and was wondering if you could elaborate on what happened there? They are a group I admittedly only have passing knowledge of, but what I have seen has usually been pro LGBTQ advocacy or similar things. Not that I don't believe you- I don't really interact with large institutions because they tend to become inevitably corrupt and have inherent gatekeeping, but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining what exactly or which extremist propaganda they have been aligning with recently? Or is it just because they are generally anti-theistic?

(I have, in fact, been almost literally living under a rock the past few years so I apologize if the answer is something obvious, but I couldn't seem to find anything with cursory searches so thought asking someone in the community would be a better source)

I couldn’t even begin to outline all of the terrible shit the leaders and founders of The Satanic Temple have done over the years. They are a group of alt white scammers using progressive ideology and leftist sympathy to fill their pockets. They use their image to pray on young women at sex parties and employ real cult tactics to isolate and abuse them. They are a company comprised of sexual abusers, manipulators, and fascists parading the name of Satan to manipulate actual Satanists and Luciferians into giving them money, despite never showing any real respect to those philosophies or religions. We all already know they’re not theistic satanists and they don’t really worship Satan, but they also have absolutely no relationship with Satanism or Luciferian gnosis. You cannot be a Luciferian or a Satanist and be friends with Nazis. Idgaf call me a gatekeeper. They just like to use the image of Satan for publicity stunts to ruffle the feathers of a few Christians. They do not embody the Luciferian spirit or the values of Satanism.

I have a deep hatred in my soul for Douglas Mesner and how much damage he has done to the image of Luciferianism and Satanism, not to mention the real world damage they have done to abortion advocacy groups. The strategic moves of opposing institutions that oppose LGBT rights has actually given a bad name to good faith organizations who already have enough negative stigma around them. Abortion advocacy groups don’t need the narrative that they’re sacrificing babies to Satan by being supported by the Temple of Satan on top of all the backlash they already receive by Christo-fascists.

They DO NOT use the money donated for abortion advocacy to help young mothers or to fight real cases of human rights abuse, they have never actually helped a real woman obtain healthcare. The leader himself openly admitted to taking money donated to the Satanic Temple to pay his personal bills.

Asides from the plethora of real accusations of sexual assault and violence against female members of the church itself, the leader Douglas Mesner has actively supported abusers and suppressed victims from WITHIN THE CHURCH!! (kicking them out, harassing them, threatening them lawsuits etc) from obtaining justice. They have never made any actual strides in the fight towards liberation and have actively supported real fascists for years now. Douglas Mesner has advocated for eugenics and made horrible anti semitic and racist comments in the past and continues to support alt right nationalists who actively spread hateful rhetoric. The lie they promote of wanting to protect women’s and LGBT rights is a well crafted marketing scheme to give them a good image while they abuse and manipulate their own members behind the scenes.

This is a fantastic video essay that dives deep into the history of the members and their controversies:

Genuinely, from the bottom of my heart,

FUCK THE SATANIC TEMPLE

There are of course members who are great people who truly take the philosophy to heart, who have seriously fought for liberation and have sadly had their empathy hijacked. But I don’t like cops and I don’t like people who support Douglas Mesner and his band of freaks. They cannot be trusted and they have done far more harm than good. Actions speak louder than words.

[swiftthistletea]

I really do not believe that alternative pedagogies are worth it over traditional schooling. There are plenty of problems with traditional schooling sure. And I think that the only alternative type of schooling that has any sort of merit is Montessori but there are still problems with Montessori that I do not like. I like the focus on independence and calm environments within Montessori, and I think Montessori toys and furniture rule. My lead teacher/mentor came from a Montessori background and its been really interesting listening to her describe why she decided to leave. For example, if youre doing Montessori properly youre not supposed to praise children when they achieve something. Self motivation is a big part of it. Personally I believe children thrive when praise that's earned is given. It's not a bad thing to hype up a kid when they zipped their coat up for the first time, especially if its something that they've been struggling with for a while. Now Waldorf is just a fuckin mess. I think the method and schools lull a lot of parents in with the anti-tech sentiments, the focus on art and imaginative play, and heavy reverence and importance placed on nature and children experiencing nature. But Rudolf Steiner was a big esoteric occultist theosophy head before there was a schism and he formed his own philosophy/spirituality. This philosophy/spirituality informs the Waldorf teaching method even if it doesn't seem so overtly. The delayed academics and importance placed on Preserving the Magic of Childhood seems nice. Until you learn that they believe children should not be introduced to any kind of reading readiness (aka letters and phonics) until their baby teeth fall out; which means children that go through Waldorf education will not learn how to read until 1st through 3rd grade. That is way too late from a developmental standard imo; it wont fuck them up but if they switch to a traditional school they will be behind their peers because well, they ARE behind and this is intentional. Teachers and parents are told to discourage children from seeking out more academic pursuits until they are deemed to be old enough. How is that "child focused"? Also a lot of the things they teach like their specific obsession with wet on wet watercolors and eurythmy IS occultic in nature, the Waldorf true believers will tell you this. They believe that preschool children shouldnt use the color black in art or use any sort of "sharp" art tools like regular crayons and pencils until a certain age because it it's damaging to the soul. Preschool children forming basic shapes and symbols in art like hearts and smiles too early is considered an attack on their innocence. How could an educational method that bills itself as being "imagination and arts focused" say that while herding children into making very specific types of art with very specific colors? It's interesting that a lot of big tech people send their kids to Waldorf schools, Hollywood families as well. It's getting more popular recently. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates to Waldorf organizations. I still believe that parents have a fundamental right to seek out schools they think is best for their children, and they have a right to raise their children as they see fit barring like, abusive situations or whatever. But I think parents should also be cautious. And I 100% think Christian parents who are interested in Waldorf/"Forest Schools" because of the anti tech and nature walks need to be extra cautious. Anthroposophy and eurthymy ARE absolutely spiritual in nature and Waldorf is NOT "just about nature and art".

[queenwille]

are you pro-israel/anti-palestine?

hi, first, i appreciate you asking very politely and not assuming things.

i’ll say i’m a zionist, which isn’t an offensive word. i believe in the right of the jewish people for self determination in the form of a jewish state in the land of israel, the promised land of the jewish people.

i find calling israel, the only jewish state in a sea of muslim/christian states, an “ethostate” and mocking the jews for feeling the need in one, as very antisemitic rude and offensive. that goes without mentioning how ignorant and rude it is to claim all jews are white europeans. literally cancelling the whole rich history of the jewish people in the arab countries (which they were mostly chased out of as well).

the need to live within your given or chosen community is such a natural thing, even animals do it. for some reason, when it comes to israel and the jews, it’s wrong. before anyone starts, please let me remind you that within this very large jewish community, there are 2.5 million arabs (mostly muslim, some christian). they share equal rights, a citizenship and an israeli ID/passport. yes, even the sister of the top hamas man (who was arrested this week for having documents and money linked to hamas, a terror organization).

that being said, i am in no shape or form, nor never was i, anti palestine. i think it’s just not as simple as some people who joined the hot trend across the world see it. the state of palestine was never established for many reasons that don’t involve the jewish people. i do mean this when i say i do wish the palestinian people a safe and established land, but it’s simply not that easy. it really isn’t no israel=yes palestine. they have so many other needs other than demolishing the land of israel. their inner conflicts are very much alive to this day (google fatah/hamas conflict), their lack of actual support from neighboring countries and other reasons they have there. they’re really not at a good starting point, but no one ever talks of that. it’s just easier to masturbate to the idea that protesting in favor of demolishing israel and sending +-7,000,000 jews to fuck knows where will be enough.

let me make it clear, the fact that civilians are being killed and hurt breaks my heart. i say this knowing fully well that many took part in the oct7 massacre. generations, on both sides, being brought up with nothing but hate and fear of each other boiled up to this disaster. which is why i find the whole western pro pal movement, spreading fake news and hate and deepening the conflict, as not just offensive, but also very dangerous. for both sides (+diaspora jews). calling hamas freedom fighters and not the terror organization that they are is as dangerous to the palestinians as as it is dangerous to israelis/jews. they are given actual legitimacy for actions that are considered extremist and terror on an international level. yes, they do hide in UN protected facilities, using inocentes as human shields. and when we say the west is next, it’s not just a spicy slogan, it’s not really about the jews, but the western culture.

i am very angry of the way the hostages are being ignored or bluntly canceled (ripping off their posters everywhere). it’s hypocritical and very upsetting. i will also mention that i seriously don’t appreciate using the jewish holocaust and appropriating it’s terms and the well known generational jewish trauma and mocking it.

lastly, i would like to mention that a lot of what’s happening right now around the world just proves the need in a jewish state. being close with an army that’s main goal is protecting its people literally feels safer for jews even under missiles and terror attacks. let me inform you that the main reason that israeli casualties are lower, is the invention of the Iron Dome, operated by the IDF. It has saved thousands of civilian lives since it’s first use. no, it wasn’t hamas’ more humane ways or idk what i read. israel literally spends every last dime to keep it’s people safe, while hamas won’t even let the palestinian people have a safe hospital. instead of mocking our worries and constant feeling of being persecuted and in danger, to the point that a jewish state feels like a life or death matter, maybe try to think what you can do to change that. saying we’re delusional or closing mouths when we claim for antisemitism isn’t helping, and it sure isn’t what’s currently happening in the world and social media.

again, thanks for asking. i have so much more to say and that’s before actually going into current antisemitism or even into october 7th, i just think i’ll stop here for now. i hope this somewhat answers your question.

[windvexer]

A) your "the gods fucking suck sometimes" post came across my dash at a really good time in my own practice, which I feel like so many of your posts do, Chicken, and thank you for that.

B) i don't really engage with the witchcraft community except for lurking, so I guess who am I to talk, but i'm really becoming frustrated with the amount of beginner-friendly stuff on this website that tells people that 'everything they've heard about witchcraft is wrong so don't worry.' I wonder whether it comes from a place of fear deep-set within witches from a, well, Christian society of being seen as something they're not - and I don't imagine it's necessarily malicious, rather it comes from a place of comfort within their craft (ah, well I haven't suffered for years, so nobody else possibly could!) and a personal effort to distance themselves from an ingrained stereotype of witchcraft, which results in downplaying a lot of the things that align with that........

Regardless of intention people learn from that, become more experienced themselves, and when that leads to dismissing the experience of your fellow practitioners/assuming your craft and aspects of it are universal that's going well overboard

A) I am glad to hear it was helpful :)

B) At this point in time I'm not even talking about like, tricksters (and when people say that, I think they just mean "liars," the trickster archetype really needs a new PR team), demonolatry, or evil gods. I'm talking about regular, normal witchcraft!

People can have beautiful, fulfilling paths that are never dangerous, and then decide to deepen their connection by entering into intense ritual work with a local spirit for a year. And that work becomes demanding, and exhausting, and they have to make sacrifices to maintain it. And sometimes they ask if it was really the right choice.

It's not just about danger! It just sucks sometimes!

I had a tumultuous few early years of witchcraft, but even now when my path is feeling so much more comfortable and fulfilling and really like my true home, I still have responsibilities. Do I want to go to sabbat every 28 days? No! I'm lazy! I want to play Sims 4!

But I can't stop going, because I need to go. Because I love my spirit family. Because it's a part of me finding my true home in this world. I need those things.

It's just also sometimes a chore. You know?

I have spells I need to upkeep for my life to go how I want it to go. I have to take care of them. It can be tedious. Sims 4 has horses now. You know? It's 110 degrees outside. I don't want to walk around the property giving myself a sinus headache from the dust, checking on wards. But what else am I gunna do?

I'm not saying that the two modes are "safe" and "dangerous." I'm just saying, witchcraft can be burdensome. And not everyone is in a position where they can "just change it."

So yeah. I'm not trying to be on a "witchcraft is hella dangerous for real" rant. My rant is more like...

If this is a genuine faith that can carry people through decades of life, and we believe we are truly interacting with entities that have their own personhood and agendas, then from time to time things are going to get hard for some people.

That from time to time, developing those relationships will be difficult and require sacrifice. If we believe this is a faith that can allow people to work to modify their lives, then at times it will be work and feel like hard work and be something that a practitioner can't wait to be done with, because not only does Sims 4 have horses, it also has llamas that you can pet.

And pretending that can't happen, or always blaming the witch when things go badly ("just change! if you don't like your path, modify it! it's anything you want it to be! such-and-such spirits are always benevolent/will never hurt you/will never mislead you!"), isn't a service to anyone.

Idk. The more I talk about this the more I feel like my entire point is "witchcraft is just kinda like real life, it has its ups and downs." Which I could have just said that one sentence this morning and not have had to type all this lmao.

[lizbethborden]

i saw a post where someone described forced marriage as an example of the oppression of asexuals/aromantics and it's like.. . . no. it's an example of the oppression of WOMEN first and foremost.

It's interesting. I'm not going to tell people what to call themselves, but for the record, I am an ace truther you might say. I don't believe that 99.9% of the people identifying as such are asexual/aromantic--given how many complex and ever finer-grained micro-identities they've cooked up to explain how and why they do experience and enjoy sex and romance. Obviously I'm not going to kick down anyone's door and make them give the label back, but I'm providing that context for my interpretations.

The general critiques given for society--too focused on romantic relationships, undervaluing platonic ones, overemphasizing sex, and then, like in your example, the material criticisms, forced marriage, etc.--are worthwhile critiques. They're aspects of culture that have negative impacts for many people. But at the same time as "aphobia" seems to be doing political analysis, it's doing so with its eyes averted from the basis of all of these cultural elements, which is misogyny, the oppression of women. Society is designed to funnel women into heterosexual romantic/sexual partnership in order to keep the means of human reproduction under male control. Period. Rather than address the baseline motive, each element is decontextualized.

What's striking to me at least is how effective an "ace movement" could actually be in criticizing this structure. When Christianity first began to pick up converts in the Roman empire, there was a moral panic because men and especially women were removing themselves from the chain of reproduction by living chastely in anticipation of Christ's return. That's an aspect of the movement that died rapidly, since Jesus didn't come back and they had to make the next generation of Christians pronto. But the panic it produced spoke to the effectiveness of its criticism. Women were declining their social role. They were in some times/places believed to have spiritual equality with men (per Paul). There's evidence of women leaders in the early church. For a brief window of time this action seemed to facilitate an upheaval of the social order, at least within the context of the church.

But asexuality as it stands right now is, like many other identity groups, atomized in a way that it makes a bunch of little individual criticisms of society and culture, but not to a degree that it has meaningful effect. It's not about organizing, it seems, it's not about really doing anything. Because "asexuality" is framed as an internal ontological difference from other people, with a myriad of different possible definitions via micro-identities, there's no governing ideology except to ask for--what else, in this individualistic world? The right to do what one wants as an individual and not be bothered for it. Not organize around the wage gap or rent gouging or other barriers to comfortably living alone, et cetera.

It's kind of a band-aid on the larger social issues. Rather than look at the reality of oppression, it's easier to break down the, ummm, the wooden floor into individual planks and scrutinize each plank for its flaws and say that that's why your feet hurt when you walk on it. Well maybe it's actually the fucked up foundation, not the wooden floor, and you have to address the underlying cause. This is a dumb metaphor, but you get me.

[dragondroid]

Christians can fuck off with their "but my version of Christianity is the real one, all those horrible people are fake Christians" shit.

The reasons I left religion entirely are at the core of Christianity, not artifacts of a single sect or church:

- There is no definite evidence of any kind of deity or spirit that stands up to any kind of scientific rigor. If I'm relying on something in my life, I'd prefer something that works. Besides, you'd think that something as allegedly powerful and important as the christian god would be obvious, something that would be independently discovered by all cultures, like gravity or math or death, but he's... Not.

- Christianity teaches original sin, that humans are fundamentally wretched and incomplete without god, but the people I've met outside of Christianity are often more genuine, pleasant, accepting, and accomplished than those within the church. It's obvious we can get along just fine without a god.

- Christianity teaches that God is always watching you, including your very thoughts, and judging you. That is not a healthy mindset to have.

- Christianity as a whole is just... Incredibly insecure. It restricts people from exploring other ideas. In the bible, god shows that he hates any kind of dissenting idea or opinion or chance that someone could be his equal or do well without him (See Lucifer, the Tower of Babel, the Golden Calf, the first commandment, etc). God straight-up tells us not to put him to the test (Why not? Afraid we'll be disappointed?). This is not the behavior of an all-powerful constant of the universe, or an organization that possesses ultimate, indisputable truth. This is the behavior of a narcissistic, insecure child.

- Speaking of all-powerful, god would be either a sadist or shockingly impotent for some all-powerful, universal deity. Like, y'all realize he supposedly made the rules, right? If he didn't want people to suffer, why make it possible at all? And before you pull the "no joy without suffering" card, even if that were true, why would god have made it that way? Why couldn't he just make it so joy was possible anyway? Why is suffering not as unfathomable to us as nonexistence?

The list goes on. And that's before we get into the problems I have with individual sects.

I don't know why I made this post; I suppose spending time with my religious family over the holidays made me want to get this kind of thing off my chest.

Oh, and for any Christians reading this who want to swoop in and save my poor, wretched apostate soul, the trick to get me to believe in your god is simple.

Show him to me.

[paradoxcase]

@wellhappybirthdaytomeiguess:

Fascinating to me that a nun commiting suicide TWICE drove two of the big background events: John identifying soul (when she puts a bullet in her brain) and the Lyctors being forced to take the final step in the process (when she talks Alfred into a suicide pact).

Yeah. Cristabel seems to have been a very strange person. I noticed there was also a mention of her and Alfred meditating together in this chapter, I guess he must also be pretty strange even for a hedge fund manager

John needed the suicidal nun too be able to identify the 'individual code' that identified separate souls within the larger 'program' of the 'world soul' I think. Once he did that he could get that specific about souls....I think.

Yeah, he was able to see the individual soul at that point, but it said he was still not able to do anything with it because Alecto was there

@eye-lantern:

For the nun, well. She is a nun, so the soul is more important than politics. She has found here second coming, but the idiot is raving about how the merchants in the temple are not funding his project instead of becoming closer to his Father. She has a few loose screws but a very clear sense of purpose

@wellhappybirthdaytomeiguess:

@eye-lantern This comment about the nun is really well said, in my view. She was a zealot, both before and after what happened, but she seemed to believe deeply in the 'holy' mission.

When you put it like that, I guess I can see it. I wonder what she is actually like on the other side, after they all come back and I guess have probably forgotten Christianity?

The reference to the shaman and the sun refers to a Maori legend about catching the sun in the sky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamanuiter%C4%81)

Ahh, neat. But John envisioning himself as Maui (if I understand that right) now makes me think of him singing the "You're Welcome" song from Moana. It's interesting that Maui shows up in both Hawaiian and Maori mythology

@eye-lantern:

I agree that John's decision make little sense, and to me that's part of the message

He is a random dude who was given power over life and death in the most stressful situation of his life. He couldn't handle it better. Anyone in this situation would have their worst aspects exacerbated and for him it was his vindictivness. He misuses it immediately because he is hooked on directly to the absolute power of a screaming mad planet. A few days of lack of sleep can fuck up your reasoning so bad, and he was already at his lowest.

His behavior after becoming Jod is more logical, but informed by the fact that no one can ever harm him, and he can kill with a thought. Life has lost all human like stakes to him. It's nothing more than a game to play with his dolls/friends.

Oh, yeah, I get that he was stressed out and sleep deprived and made a bunch of bad decisions, but like for days up to this he keeps talking about how how it's so important that the trillionaires not be allowed to leave, and nobody tells him that that's not right. Well, I think Augustine maybe did once, when he was like "why don't you do some good wizard shit", and Cassipeia said so way too late, but when John was all like "we have to stop them!" at the beginning of the chapter, no one said anything. I feel like there were some sensible people in this group who should have said something sensible at that point? Mercy, Augustine, Pyrrha, Cassiopeia?

For the burnt thumb thing, when you hurt a finger a lot of instinctual reflexes are: aply pressure, get close to you, and for a burn, wet. So a lot of kids shove any hurt finger in their mouth. Also works for bleeding.

Sure, but I don't see how that relates to "it's human nature to take things" because you're not taking anything by doing that?

And my personal theory for the gift she gave him. She gave him an instinctual look in the working of a plane of the laws that regulate the world. Kinda like how humans and some species evolved to understand abstraction, that allowed them to use tools, and even make them. But when discovering a new concept it's easier to use it to hurt than to heal of build. If you give a sharp rock to someone, they'll understand how to make a weapon before using it to fray plants and create rope. John is a monkey given a toolbox and he realise the hammer breaks things, and did not go in depth with the mastic and spackle because it did not do anything interesting immediately. I think if he had not focused on death, the "easy" option of what he was given, he may have realised he had powers that could have saved humanity

I don't know. I mean, it seems like necromancers generally can work with organic material, but might not be so good at changing the climate or neutralizing pollution. Or do you think that John's powers are significantly different than necromancy, and the powers of regular necromancers don't ultimately come from Alecto, but are just a different thing caused by the thanergy radiation from the undead planets?

[madqueenalanna]

sorry (lie) to defend hate crimes md but. i think a lot of 2020s discourse misses the context within which the show originally operated. and this is NOT to say "well racist jokes were funny back then" cause that is NOT my point. my point is all the stuff that isn't the racist jokes

like, house md started airing one year before supernatural and bones, two other shows i'm deeply familiar with. supernatural is rife with casual homophobia, racism, misogyny, you name it. bones is so deeply entrenched in boot-sucking post-9/11 government that it's almost unwatchable these days. house... isn't very topical. he makes a lot of 80s references, or older. there are maybe two troop episodes? but let's be real we've been in the middle east so long that hardly dates it. and like, what does the show house md have to say beyond house's personal bad actions?

prisoners on death row deserve respect. homeless people deserve the same treatment as anyone else. mental health conditions like schizophrenia (presumed or otherwise) or munchausens don't disqualify people from actually being sick. being fat is sometimes a symptom instead of a cause, and people overlook genuine health concerns in favor of blaming obesity for everything. orthodox jewish beliefs deserve respect, while christian grifting should be mocked. there is significant, murky overlap between chronic pain and opioid addiction and there is no easy middle ground (the show itself muddles this point repeatedly, to be fair). autism is more akin to another language than anything else, and autistic people deserve to be met where they're at. abortion UP UNTIL BIRTH is acceptable, even desirable given circumstances. it is acceptable, even preferable, to repeatedly defraud insurance companies and bureaucracies if it's in the best interest of the patient. eating disorders are dangerous/fatal and should be treated as such

like, i get it. a lot of aspects of this show have not aged well, particularly the main sell of "edgy epic atheist" house, which WAS a very mid-00s type of character. and i'm as guilty as anyone as doing pepe silvia on this show to make it sound epic (like here) but i do genuinely believe i'm not wrong. even if you don't read house/wilson as romantic, and you don't need to, their relationship is so intense that it eclipses either of their various romantic entanglements. wilson went through 3 ex-wives and an ex-fiancee, house gave up on at least 3 significant relationships. house gave up his vicodin, his medical license, his entire life so that wilson didn't have to die alone. how can that not be poignant, even now? how can anyone deny the emotional impact of that? fuck your destiel, fuck your good omens. you didn't earn eight years of THIS

rambling as usual but i'm right. this show can be a really difficult watch at times for cringe reasons but it can also be so unusually astute that it takes the breath away. what other show, especially in 2005, was giving the circle speech from "lines in the sand"? that episode aired the same year as supernatural's racist truck or bones' "troops did friendly fire but iraq was still justified" penultimate ep. can i say house was a GOOD show? idk. but it raised a lot of interesting points and had a lot of against-the-grain compassion that i still find sorely lacking even now, 20 years later

[cryptidhyrst]

assuming i am asking the correct person, I saw a post you made that repeatedly reinforced the point that the tv show Danny phantom was not in the superhero genre. I mean this in the LEAST confrontational way, and i am simply CURIOUS about the reasoning behind your ideas, and i have nothing personally against you. i just want to know about why you said that Danny Phantom wasn't a superhero. i am merely curious, nothing more. I don't agree nor disagree, i just want to know.

I'm sorry if this was weird, or if i got the wrong person.

If i DID get the right person, only answer if you want to, or if it's convenient.

Have a nice day!

I don't think I've made a post about Danny Phantom and how it's not a show that can be classified as belonging to the superhero genre, but I did reblog gilly-moon's post about Danny Phantom redesigns and briefly touched upon the topic there.

I'm always happy to expand on my thoughts, especially when it comes to Danny Phantom! (I hope you're okay with me answering this publicly).

Now to get this out of the way: Danny Phantom isn't a superhero show; nor does it belong to the superhero genre.

"But, Cryptid. Danny fights ghosts. He has powers. He saves Amity Park from calamity and destruction from time to time. Surely that counts for something."

And yes, normally these things would, except, well at its core Danny Phantom just isn't a superhero. But before diving deep into my thoughts about why it isn't, I think we need to establish what exactly makes something/someone a superhero?

I once read a paper that defined a superhero story and a superhero as having four things: a mission, powers, a (secret) identity, and a costume. And Danny Phantom should be all of these things, right? He has the powers, the secret identity that he keeps hidden (unless you're of the rare persuasion that Phantom Planet is canon), he has a costume, and debatedly he has a mission (keep his friends/family/Amity Park safe from ghosts). All of this should make it a superhero show, right? It should be no different from Teen Titans, Miraculous Ladybug, or the numerous Marvel and DC animated shows that exist.

Believing that Danny Phantom is a superhero show is contingent on one thing and one thing alone: whether or not you take Butch Hartman's statements as canon or not.

Now it's no secret past season 1 of the show, that Hartman was remarked as saying that:

[...] the ghosts [in Danny Phantom] are in fact otherworldly monsters and creatures that came from the Ghost Zone, with no connection to human spirits.

He gives this explanation as a way for letting the audience create the backstories for the ghosts that do appear in the show

Which has worked in the favor of Phandom; after all, I can't even count on both hands the number of posts or projects that I've seen that have attempted to give some or all of the ghosts in the show their own backstories. Hell, even my own project gives many of the ghosts their own backstories as well.

Now Hartman's no stranger to modifying or adding onto DP canon as he pleases *coughtenyearslatercough*. Much of what he adds, tends to be rejected by the Phandom for various reasons. And I think that Hartman's evangelical Christian leanings and beliefs tend to bleed through in the way that he approaches the way ghosts exist within the DP universe. (I say this because fringe Christian ideologies tend to be really really fucking weird about paranormal entities such as ghosts).

Now, if you think that what Hartman says about the ghosts in DP being monsters from a different plane of existence. Then you're going to be more inclined to believe that the show fits within the superhero genre. After all the whole plot of: young kid gets electrocuted in parent's machine, gains powers, and fights ghosts fits within that system.

But if you're like me and disregard 100% of what Hartman says and believes that ghosts are well...ghosts (and that death exists within the DP universe, because what are ghosts, if they aren't the remnants of dead people?) then the plot of the show is: young kid gets electrocuted in parent's machine, dies, comes back to life with powers, fights ghosts.

One scenario treats Danny Phantom as a superhero show because the caveat is that ghosts are interdimensional monsters that traverse into Danny's plane of existence to wreak havoc. That would make it a superhero show. The other scenario treats Danny as a cosmic horror nightmare tale that it is, except it's trapped by the limitations of being a kid's animated show.

So yes, while Danny does have nifty powers, a secret identity, a costume and the whole shebang. It just doesn't make him a superhero. He's fighting ghosts (regardless of the fact that Butch Hartman would argue this point); at best this makes him a kid version of a ghostbuster.

Tl;dr: Danny Phantom is a superhero show if you believe Butch Hartman's stance about ghosts being interdimensional monsters. It isn't if you think Butch Hartman tries to skirt around the concept of paranormal entities because he's an evangelical.

Edited to add a closing statement.

[gavisuntiedboot]

I'm the anon that u called Islamophobic. I think I didn't get my point across. Mena is notorious for having no democracy or electing fundamentalist gov. This isn't being Islamophobic this is a fact. I don't think Palestinians will want to live in peace after what israel put them through especially kids from Gaza.

Creation of Israel was to make it a Jewish state not a secular state. Makes no sense for them to change law of return. Especially with Netanyahu n abbas to find a middle ground

Its naive of u to think that it won't start a Civil War like in Lebanon. They don't like each other. Either way there will be genocide of Either group. Forcing a one state solution is not feasible,unless u want a blood bath. Ut will be 1947 all over.

I'm not Islamophobic like u make me out to be. I live in a country that feeds the same kind of propaganda. What israel is doing in wrong. They shouldn't have been making a state there. Things happened has happened.

Both of the leadership in very corrupt. This is the reason I support 2 state solution so that they don't kill each other. Or otherwise jews just go back where they come from Europe or Mena wherever.

Also river to sea is a call for genocide. It was used by Israeli gov and also Palestinians. U want to mean it something but it isn't.

I hope there will be peace someday without a genocide

Anon, read these words carefully: you ARE being Islamophobic and racist when you say these things.

MENA is notorious for actually having their governments collapsed by the West and then benefiting from the chaos. That's what happened in Egypt and Kuwait and Lebanon. They never let elections stand as the people want them. You are saying that "MENA people don't know how to pick governments or they pick a Muslim one." Like dude. There is currently no fundamentally Islamic government anywhere in the world. It doesn't exist. Like who are you referring to when you make this statement? If I say "Ukrainian people don't know how to elect a good government, so Russia should have Ukraine" it would be an ASS BACKWARDS STATEMENT. YOU, non-MENA individual, think we don't know how to pick or elect a government. So what if it's an Islamic government? IF THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT IS THE ISSUE? You're Islamophobic and racist because you believe that people in the MENA region are not capable of making decisions for themselves or capable of being civilized.

"Well I don't think that Palestinians will want x..." Respectfully, what you think means ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL IN THIS SITUATION. You are not Palestinian, you don't talk to Palestinian or even Middle Eastern people apparently, and your response is "Well they already took the land so let them keep it." No. Fuck you. It's our land and we want it back. Because by your logic "well Franc took Algeria so they should just be fine with it". Like you fundamentally do not believe brown people have the right to their own land and to self determination. If Russia took a portion of Ukraine, you would never say "oh just let Russia keep it what happened already happened" because they're white.

The West fucks up the MENA region and then tells brown people to deal with it. Lebanon was created to make an Arab state for Christians so they would leave Syria. Then the same Western countries put a Muslim government in place TO MAKE SURE THE MIDDLE EAST WASN'T AT REST. THE WHITE WORLD BENEFITS FROM THE DESTABILIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST. SO THEY CASUE IT THEMSELVES.

Israel shouldn't exist. And God willing within our lifetimes it will cease to exist. And I mean that in the same way the Soviet Union ceases to exist. Not as a call for killing, but the dismantlement of an oppressive political system of ruling. I want the state of Israel to disappear, not Jewish people.

And finally, from the river to the sea was a slogan made by Palestinians. Israelis stole it, like they stole everything else. Palestinians say it with one meaning, and your refusal to accept the meaning from the creators of the phrase speaks to the internalized bigotry within you. When people say "Black Lives Matter" do you feel threatened? Do you think it is a call to end white lives? Do you burn with the need to say "well ALL lives matter"?

Your argument is based in the fact that you see brown people as incapable of self governance, that because they were massacred in '48 they don't deserve their own land, that everyone is bad so Palestinians should shut up and be happy with a two state solution and that's the best we can do. You are a racist and you are Islamophobic, and I will not be responding to any of your further attempts at a rebuttal until you can sit with yourself and realize that. You think you're free from propaganda? The propaganda has worked extra hard on you, because you still believe that we are not civilized people.

I hope you have the day you deserve.

[truckermelissa]

If you see a conservative saying this, just be aware, that they are lying to you. Wholesale. This is why they use weasel words when they say these things. Always watch for these words when talking with conservatives. "Many" "Most" "Millions of" etc. These are weasel words, and they use them because they know they cannot quantify a single word they said. The reality is, if there are conservatives who are "fine with gay people" they are an extreme minority going back decades right up to the present day, so small a minority to be politically invalid, and that's what counts here. Unlike conservatives, I actually know Queer History, I'm 41-years-old, and I have a VERY good memory. Let's go through the catalouge of Conservatives in the last 40 or so years. 1980s: As the HIV pandemic was raging though the queer community conservatives were perfectly content callously watching it slowly and painfully kill 100s of thosuands of people. The deaths reached nearly 20,000 in the US in 1992 alone. They called it "god's retribution", nothing quite like "Christian Love" indeed.

President Ronald Reagan didn't say a single word nor lift a finger to do anything about it. Finally in 1987, after pressure from epidemiologists and queer rights groups, he created a commission. Led by a one Admiral (ret.) James David Watkins.

Now the Admiral here was a big fan of witch hunts within the military to dishonorably discharge anyone suspected of homosexuality. So that basically is all you need to know about him. Even his half-hearted attempts at doing something, anything at all, were completely ignored by the Reagan and later Bush Sr. administrations if you can believe it. Mind you, the Reagan/Bush administrations desire to do nothing at all about the AIDS pandemic not only worsened the pandemic, but had utterly no basis whatsoever in science, medicine, or sociology, it was pure Christian Conservative ideology. Nothing else. 1990s:

As the AIDS pandemic continued to burn though the population, the conversation began to shift by the early 1990s. In 1993 Bill Clinton and a hostile Congress were butting heads over a number of things, mostly related to the deficit left by the Reagan Administration. One of the talking points of the day was Gays in the Military.

Conservatives unilaterally wanted the military to go on witch hunts and dishonorably discharge all LGBTQ service personnel. They claimed it would destroy the military to let us serve. To which I have one question: Hey conservatives, how's that working out? It's been 12 years since LGBTQ were allowed to openly serve. Has the military collapsed yet you fucking idiots? Or were you lying as fucking usual? Anyway, Bill Clinton managed to piss off the Left and the Right (yes, the Left was fighting for gay rights in the 1990s) by introducing "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" in 1993. This would be policy for 18 years. Indeed, I was in the US Navy from 2000-2011, and am well aware of Don't Ask; Don't Tell, posters like this were common as were slurs from the chain of command.

Additionally, conservatives at the time were arguing that LGBTQ people should not be able to adopt and should they somehow have biological children, should be taken away from them. Funny how that came full circle huh? If your noticing a trend here, then you are paying attention. Much of the conservative horse shit is recycled over and over again.

Keep in mind, Trump did the same thing in 2020. I would LOVE for Conservative LGBTQ to circle that square, but I digress.

Now, it wouldn't be until the Obama Administration in 2011 that Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be repealed and gays allowed to serve openly, to much fierce resistance from........CONSERVATIVES!

2000s: Bush Jr. is president, trade towers are rubble, and we are engaged in what would become a 20-year long campaign of conquest on the other side of the planet. Bush backed a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.

Additionally, Bush defended gay sex bans.

That's right, gay sex, much less marriage, was illegal in much of the country until 2003, something that would come to an end, much to the chagrin of conservatives, in Texas v. Lawrence. This isn't ancient history, this was 20 years ago, on similar grounds of Roe v. Wade, which is why CONSERVATIVE judges in the Supreme Court want to "revisit" it. Conservatives want to make gay sex illegal again.

2010s: As stated earlier, in 2011 Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed by Obama. Additionally in 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges was ruled making gay marriage legal across the country. Indeed prior to this some states came up with the 2nd-class citizen status of "civil unions" while others outright banned gay marraige in any form. I'll let you guess what states those were and if they were red or blue states. (Hint: It wasn't Blue States) But Obergefell passes and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is ruled unconstitutional. Boy were conservatives pissed about this.

LGBTQ rights were fought for and won not because of, but in SPITE of conservatives. Anyone who tells you differently is either lying, stupid, a propagandist, or any combination thereof. While Democrats could be criticized for their general inaction, and even at times complicit behavior, it was not they who were driving the fight against our rights. It is, has always been, and continues to be CONSERVATIVES. So if there's this chunk of conservatives who are allegedly fine with LGBTQ people, they are politically irrelevant within conservative politics. So irrelevant as not even worthy of consideration, and at worst, they do not exist. Never forget it.

[rotationalsymmetry]

Re the presidential election that is happening an entire year and several months from now in the US:

Presidential elections are scary and stressful. A lot rides on the outcome, which is unknown ahead of time and not directly under any individual’s control, and yet it is not unambiguously clear that individual actions are irrelevant either.

People do not handle this combination of factors well. People can generally handle situations that are entirely up to them and can generally handle adverse situations that they have no control over and know for certain that they have no control over.

People tend to respond to this sort of stress and fear by attempting to increase personal and social control.

(Another way this manifests is rape/sexual violence. The prevalence of sexual violence is not entirely under the control of potential victims, but it is also not a situation where it is clear that what potential victims do is completely irrelevant. So sometimes people get big into don’t leave your drink unattended and don’t wear that and don’t walk places alone and always carry pepper spray, and so on. Specifically women who have been raped will often do this to other women who they are afraid might get raped, and to themselves. Hypervigilance is a trauma response.)

It is for many people more comforting to blame adverse election outcomes on leftists voting third party or not voting at all, as illogical and thoroughly unconstructive as that is, rather than to accept that the election outcome is not actually something that can be guaranteed with adequate social cohesion.

This is not without negative consequences.

But moreover: social media as it is currently configured makes social cohesion on a large scale impossible. Look at any issue of discourse: it splits into two wild extremes. (Eg: outdoor cats, the value of avoiding meat, whether it’s morally acceptable to read Harry Potter fanfiction, whether ao3 is good or bad, whether any given celebrity is good or bad, what the deal is with the word queer, what the deal is with bigotry towards trans masca specifically, whether people wearing puppy masks at Pride violate other people’s consent, what “culturally Christian” signifies, etc etc etc.) And then each extreme will often get extreme levels of social cohesion within the group, but at the cost of hating the guts of the opposing group (and in some cases literally believing the other side is entirely composed of people who want to abuse children sexually.) This is what happens with the voting discourse: it splits into one “vote blue no matter who” group which is ideologically consistent about the need to vote and vote Democrat (how many of them actually do vote is not entirely clear, because the social pressure only applies to insisting people should vote, there is no way to confirm members of the faction actually do or refrain from doing anything offline) and a “voting is useless wake up sheeple” group which is ideologically consistent about the utter futility of voting. That…is not actually a good outcome. But it’s the outcome you get, because it’s the outcome that happens with everyone one of these discourse topics. And if you want to make sure your mutual-sphere is free of the anti voting crowd, it’s effective at that, but since we are talking about a behavior that happens offline I hardly see how that can be a good thing.

There is a particular level of irony I really can’t stomach around this. One of the things the Democratic Party clearly does better than Republicans is that they’re the bodioy autonomy party, on abortion (sorta, officially Dems tend to still express that abortion is suboptimal and should be infrequent, but still, they do want it to be legal), and on trans health care, and on gay rights stuff, and on drug stuff. And yet. The tumblr Democrat stans apparently believe in neither personal autonomy nor democracy when it comes to elections. Don’t fucking tell me what I have to do you fuckers.

and there is an extra layer of irony when it comes to the people who genuinely prefer the bleeding edge of the Democratic party, like Bernie Sanders. Have you not been paying attention? This is how we always get the moderates. During the primary you have to vote for the moderate because tue moderate is “more electable”. Why? Because it’s for some reason viewed as acceptable for people to refuse a progressive in favor of a conservative but not to refuse a moderate in favor of fuck you it’s someone worth voting for or nothing Don’t you see? The terms of the public debate negate the legitimacy of ever supporting a progressive. Because as long as not voting for the moderate in the general election is seen as a morally unacceptable act (and therefor one that doesn’t have to be accounted for when determining someone’s “electability”), the moderate is always going to be “more electable” and we can’t have a progressive ever. Because it’s also morally unacceptable to vote for the “less electable” candidate of the attitude is “vote blue no matter who”. And then you have Democrats literally giving money to the primary campaigns of the more extreme Republicans so they can face a “less electable” candidate (it’s not about electability in the sense of who the right will vote for, the right is happy to vote for extreme candidates, it’s about who will scare the Democratic base into opening their pocketbooks and turning up at the polls) and it’s a never ending cycle of blue no matter who candidates vs the biggest horror shows the republicans can turn up with. The only way we can break out of that is to take a stand and say no, we’re not going to just vote our fears, we are going to give in to blackmail, we are actually going to vote based on what we WANT and not what we fear, and it’s not going to end at voting either, and we are not going to be fooled into believing our true power is in elections and that we can lose our true power if we lose the ability to have elections.

[satanicallypanicky]

am i the only one lowkey bothered by how much explicit sexual content comes up when you research satan/satanism on tumblr? i understand that satan stands for sexual liberation, and im not saying people are not allowed to be horny on main or that they should censor themselves (sexual content has the right to exist in online spaces after all), but it sometimes feels borderline fetishizing. like it's made by people who are not actual believers and have more of a surface level understanding of satan and think satanism is about having orgies under the full moon (good for anyone who does btw, not trying to shame). it's even made me feel like im not a ''true'' theistic satanist because im asexual which is such bullshit

YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE.

The sheer quantity of Fetish Satanist blogs on here far far outnumbers the Theistic Satanists. I think, honestly, that those folks have maybe not quite deconstructed their Christianity very well yet and are still in (perhaps permanently stuck in) what I call the "do the opposite" phase. You know, when you realize the worldview you were brought up in is maybe not entirely true so you rebel with everything you've got?

Anyways, there's a reason I block those blogs on site and that reason is because it is beyond fetishistic, as I say that as a person who is actually really fucking kinky and is actually super into that stuff sometimes. They are expressing a profoundly shallow understanding of Satan and of kink and of rebellion against the prevailing morals of the society they have grown up in, and I prefer to keep them off of my blog. When I (rarely) (actually, very rarely) do produce original content, I don't want it to show up on a blog next to some dude smoking PCP overlaid with a red filter and "HAIL SATAN" in some stupid spooky font, because that is not representative of my theistic Satanism.

Satan does stand for sexual liberation,of course, but not JUST sexual liberation. And sexual liberation is more than just having unprotected orgies and masturbating in nun costumes or dudes fisting each other (though those are certainly included). Sexual liberation is also the FREEDOM to NOT HAVE SEX if you don't want it. It's liberation from the dominant culture values of sex, which are Christian and thus are "you need to be having sex within a marriage in order to procreate". Satan says fuck that! Don't have any sex at all if you aren't into it! Have all the sex you can consensually find if you want!

But don't forget to learn things that Christians or the Christian god would rather have kept from you. Don't forget to rebel against authoritarianism and oppression. Don't forget to embody all of the other things that Satan stands for in your Theistic Satanism.

[themainspoon]

Ok, yesterday I posted about an assessment that I was having a really bad time with because it forced me to argue with bigots and I was incredibly enraged by that.

But today I am calm, because gamers,

we fucking got em.

Like legit only today did I realise that they built their entire argument upon a single assumption that I can kick out from under them to bring their entire argument crumbling down. That weakness is a single concept: “Design”. They argue that “normal” is defined as functioning in accordance with its design. But the question is “designed by who or what?”

They cite a paper from 1945 about how “in biology design is dictated by intended function”, but the issue there is that intended function is also determined by design, the entire thing is circular logic! And so who or what is responsible for this “design”? Well, they never state this in the paper, but the orgs responsible for this paper are associated with the Christian Right, and so the answer to that question is “God”. This not only assumes the existence of God, but also has the troubling implication that God designed humans purely to be cisgender and heterosexual. This is a problem because people are queer, not because they choose to be, but because they simply are. This means that either the orgs who wrote this paper are wrong, or that God makes mistakes.

I’m an apostate, I know for a fact that “God makes mistakes” goes against pretty much all theology ever written. You take away their idea of “design” and their entire argument turns to ash and blows away in the gentle breeze.

Also, looking at this paper now that I’ve completely invalidated it, some of the shit they try to pull is so fucking funny.

They present “de-transitioning statistics”, but you’ll never fucking guess where they came from, because we are at the source right now. They got statistics from a FUCKING TUMBLR POLL. Holy shit, they presented this shit to Parliament, how fucking embarrassing for them! Tumblr! Because Tumblr definitely doesn’t contain any echo chambers! It certainly isn’t responsible for any misinfo!

Beyond that, a whole bunch of their sources are random fucking news articles, if I did that I’d get laughed out of university forever! (unless my stated goal was specifically analysing news media).

They use a Biology paper on sexual dimorphism like it’s some kind of epic gotcha, they deliberately misinterpret sources that directly contradict them, they make reference to papers written by TERFS (one of which I went looking for, and only found reviews written by other feminists dunking on it mercilessly for being a terrible paper).

All their medical information comes from the early 2000’s, nothing more recent? Nothing from the mid to late 2010’s or even 2020 or 2021 when the paper was published? What’s wrong? Surely it’s not like those in positions of authority within the Medical profession have come to overwhelmingly disagree with you on everything you believe, right?

Another highlight comes when they say “To paraphrase one feminist writer on these issues” and then never state who this mystery feminist is, and just leave the statement completely lacking citation.

They also cite dictionaries to define words constantly, which is pathetic. You define the concepts you use yourself. Letting a dictionary do your thinking for you is some weak shit, dictionaries are good for giving you a quick definition of a commonly used word you don’t know, not to give you your understanding of broad concepts you intend to use in debate and discussion.

Also, just to finish off, in order to express my response to so much of that sad excuse for a paper, I created this:

It’s all such shit, I’m arguing with fuckwits.