#and that we are people with a vast amount of culture that should be respected than alright

[tariah23]

https://x.com/imlost_mp44/status/1734726462605779390?s=46&t=QiKHdDdvKoMxWGyakqTvxA

But until then they will be at each other’s throats

Tbh, If you aren’t Black or Asian then I don’t think it’s fully appropriate to comment on like, any of this, especially even mentioning “the being at each others throats,” part if I’m being honest, like. Black ppl as a whole don’t really have much of an issue with anyone else, it’s usually just the other way around really and for the most part, we accept everyone (sometimes to a fault,) into our space and culture. Just as long as it’s not appropriative or making fun of us then it’s like, what can you do? There will always be conversations needed to be had in order to build some kind of common ground between poc but yeah.

[mesetacadre]

What should be done with royal palaces and the like after revolution? Obviously any extant monarchies will be abolished but I'm curious what you think should be done with the stuff they leave behind

Hi! In the vast majority of cases, as far as I'm aware, the palaces and castles of monarchs were turned into public places for cultural purposes, such as the Winter Palace becoming the Hermitage Museum, its first exposition was on the history of the October revolution, and the private rooms and such were open to the public so they could see the wealth the Tsars had accumulated. Throughout the Soviet era, the emblems of the Tsars and other objects were gradually removed and dispersed to museums throughout the country.

Unless there is a very pressing need to reuse the materials with which these properties are decorated and built, I don't see any reason to blow them up or demolish them or remove them in some way. Palaces specifically are places with a lot of room and usually well communicated, they are ideal for those cultural purposes as well as for the sake of not forgetting the absurd concentration of wealth monarchies accumulate.

In North Korea, for example, although this isn't specifically about the property of a monarchy, they opened the various resorts and villas for the recreational use by the Korean people:

Nonetheless the North Koreans have the right to feel proud of their achievements. In one respect they can claim to surpass their Chinese brothers – their well-equipped social insurance. The Japanese had more health resorts and summer villas in Korea than in China and the present Department of Labor has taken them over. The North Koreans have also a larger amount of publicly owned industry than the nearby Chinese, for Korea was highly industrialized by the Japanese.

In North Korea: First Eye-Witness Report, Anna Louise Strong, 1949

And I think this should be the attitude that has to be taken towards the more lavish properties of the old bourgeoisie/imperialists/monarchy, of putting that wealth in service of the workers whenever possible. Revolutions don't create a blank slate, we are forced to build upon what remains of what came before. And ultimately, it's the workers who should decide what to do with these vestiges of the past. If the workers of Leningrad preferred the Winter Palace to be a museum, who can criticize them? It's not like it brought the Romanovs back ;)

[boybff]

wait hiiiii hi hello bestie i didn’t know u like video essays!! i’ve been trying to find more to watch recently, do u have any other recs? about any topic 👀

HIIIIII bestie Robin, are you ready?? After harvesting my Youtube subscription and liked video lists here is what I have compiled. I'm gonna put my current top 5 video recommendations and then the rest of the list, under the cut, is organized by creator.

Why Are There So Many Confederate Vampires

The art of religious interpretation (midnight mass vs god’s not dead)

Defunctland: Walt Disney's City of the Future, E.P.C.O.T.

Hogwarts Legacy, JK Rowling, and Trans Advocacy

Cultural Inspirations in Avatar: The Last Airbender Book 1 - Water 

CHANNELS

biz barclay - hilarious, brilliant, my best friend who drinks wine and weaves me long insightful stories while sitting on the dresser or in the bathtub. The vast amount of knowledge, historical 

understanding snapewives: religion, fandom, sociology, & erotica

Goncharov (1973) video essay

The art of religious interpretation (midnight mass vs god’s not dead)

Xiran Jay Zhao - Author of one of my FAVE YA novels, “Iron Widow” (which is a MUST read). I always want more avatar content that focuses on cultural inspirations from trusted sources. Xiran taught me so much about the avatar universe I already loved as well as valuable critiques. They also do retellings of historical events such as- Bisexual Han Dynasty Emperors and Forgotten Warrior Queen - Fu Hao.

Cultural Inspirations in Avatar: The Last Airbender Book 1 - Water 

Cultural Inspirations in Avatar: The Last Airbender Book 2 - Earth 

Cultural Inspirations in Avatar: The Last Airbender Book 3 - Fire 

Fundie Fridays - Jen, a leftist queer feminist, and her husband James examine different aspects of Christian fundamentalism, American conservative politics and pop culture. She has remade a lot of her older videos so make sure to watch the updated versions! She was also featured in the Amazon docuseries “Shiny Happy People” which I would HIGHLY recommend. 

Vacation Bible School of Rock (3 part video series History of Contemporary Christian Music)

Ken Ham’s Creation Museum & Ark Encounter

Ask a Mortician - Caitlin Doughty!!! The adult Wednesday Addams we should have got. So compassionate, informed, and moving!! I love her work and she has taught me so much about what it means to have a relationship with death and grief. Her work deals with heavy topics and you can tell she does this work from a deeply respectful, informed place. 

The Lake That Never Gives Up Her Dead

Let’s Visit the Churches Made of Human Skulls

Why are Black and White Funeral Homes STILL Separate? With Dr. Kami Fletcher

Iconic Corpse Series

Princess Weekes -  Nuanced video essays on pop culture, race, feminism, and other social issues. Takes time to break down complex concepts, their origins and material consequences. The essay on confederate vampires and the connection later made to sci-fi media like Firefly were so paradigm shifting to me!

Why Are There So Many Confederate Vampires

The Magical Negroes of Stephen King

Ro Ramdin - Poetic, biting, and introspective essays on pop culture. 

Do Celebrities Hate Their Fans? (Doja Cat, Frank Ocean)

Hogwarts Legacy, JK Rowling, and Trans Advocacy

DefunctLand- History of extinct theme parks and themed entertainment experiences. 

Defunctland: Walt Disney's City of the Future, E.P.C.O.T.

Disney Channel’s Theme: A History Mystery

Mina Le - Fashion, movies and pop culture

WHY IS EVERYTHING SO UGLY: The Curse of Modernism

FAIRYTALE COSTUMES: it’s giving renfaire but why?

Quinton Reviews - Extensive videos covering niche topics, most popular for Nickelodeon deep dive retrospectives.

How Documentaries Lie to You

The ICarly/Victorious Saga Playlist

TheEpicNate315 - yea i fucking love endless hours of useless skyrim lore because the conspiracies are so deep and I have to do 0 of the research to get all of the information years of scouts worked to piece together! 

The Skyrim Mysteries Iceberg (Part 1 of 4)

The Fallout Mysteries Iceberg (Part 1 of 2, incomplete series)

Mike’s Mic - Silly, goofy, and thorough breakdowns of nostalgic TV shows

Any of his unhinged recaps - LOST, Pretty Little Liars, Glee

Tiffanyferg - Media criticism and commentary

Internet Analysis Series 

Zoë Ligon - sex educator, artist, and writer, who also owns SpectrumBoutique.com, a health and education oriented sex toy store. Such a special place in my heart for her!! Her bondage mini-documentary with Midori was so touching. 

Sex Stuff | Japanese Rope Bondage with Midori

Channels Newer to Me

Broey Deschanel - a mixture of film analyses, retrospectives, politics and just absolutely overthinking anything to do with pop culture

Elvis (2022) and the Utter Mediocrity of Biopics 

Meeptop - rambling about movies and stuff

Who is Dahmer Even Made For?

LadyJenevia - discussing entertainment media content including films, television series, etc. Expect to find reviews of recent cinematic releases, video essays on older releases, and interviews with talent from the film/television industry

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery and The Art of Hiding in Plain Sight (Netflix Review/Video Essay)

As a disclaimer, I am not endorsing any creator fully and if you see someone you think I should not promote please reach out to me so I can edit this list. As a general rule of thumb the more I had to write about someone, the more informed the recommendation.

[halliescomut]

Y'all want another rant??

I have seen so MANY cracked-out, poorly considered 'hot takes' this weekend, and wow are they aggravating. We can start with the continuing discussion regarding HeartStopper and it's author, who feels the fact that there are no sexual scenes in their work make it inherently better than other queer media. (Edit: The initial comment ppl point to is from 2017, but there has also been no clarity or further statements made despite this being regularly discussed, which is certainly not the norm for addressing divisive statements.) Now, the fact that she's mentioned things like this in conjunction with dismissal of East Asian and South East Asian BL, makes it clear that this is not simply a 'purity' thing, but also has racist undertones. My biggest issue though, is that it clearly demonstrates that they have not attempted to consume any of the available content out there. Are there BLs that focus on the sexual aspects of relationships? Yes, there's the Pornographer, but there's also My Dining Table. You have TharnType, but you also have My Only 12%. Hell, my absolute favorite BL is GameBoys, which first season ends in the ONLY kiss and the couple is still separated by a plastic barrier.

So how can you say that EVERY show revolves only around sex? Realistically you can't. And there's a whole slew of other issues with such statements, like the fact that for a vast majority of romantic couples, sex and physical chemistry is a vital and valued part of their relationships. Or the fact that reducing the queer media of a non-white culture down to sex alone contributes to the misleading idea that people of color are ruled by base human desires, and don't have the intellectual ability to create a romantic relationship based on something other than sex. Honestly, it's giving very British, unsurprisingly.

The reality is that in the world they created in HeartStopper, an overt focus on a sexual relationship would feel vastly out of place. Both because of the age of the characters, but the tone of the story. It's a romanticized coming-of-age/coming out story that revolves around first love. It's intention is to focus on the emotions involved in those experiences in a 'rose-colored glasses' type of way. It's why we've seen plenty of gay men criticizing the show by saying it's unrelatable. And while I don't imagine that it's 100% true representation for every gay man out there, I'd say that's based more on it being distinctly romanticized in a way the real life rarely is. I think it's also intended to be slightly aspirational, it shows a world where more often than not a queer teen's family, friends, community, and society are supportive, kind, and loving; something that has rarely been the reality of many queer adults today. It's not wrong or bad to be aspirational, it's a facet of the queer experience that is necessary, but it should not be taken as a replacement for more 'realistic' queer media, especially in an attempt to sanitize the lived experiences of thousands of queer men.

(I'd like to note that I do intentionally tag any posts that I make about HS as BritishBL because I'm a petty bitch.)

The amount of sex either alluded to or shown in a piece of media does not indicate it's value. If you have done even a mild foray into BL outside of Thailand, then you are likely well aware that Chinese and South Korean BL is often promoted as being more 'tame' or 'respectable' than Thai BL, or even Japanese BL. But if you think critically about it for even a moment, you're able to easily conclude that the reason those countries often produce queer media that's more on the level of a PG or PG-13 rating is because there are still very strict societal AND governmental standards that prevent the presentation of queer media. It's rare if not unheard of to have shows or movies based on queer written media show even a single kiss, and it's because of homophobia, when you move outside of China to places like Taiwan (which China still considers to be part of it's empire) you may see more 'explicit' presentations of queer relationships, but they often still skew towards being more in that PG-13 range. I've inserted below a chart that I pulled for another project, but is applicable here as well showing the legality of same-sex relationship as well as the legal protections of them (i.e. same-sex marriage recognition or adoption)

While for China and North Korea in particular, we have to sort of accept their word, you can see that for the vast majority of East Asian countries, same-sex relationships are not illegal, but they area also not actively supported. And while progress has been made in many places, there is still a long way to go to offering them equal opportunities and protections. And, as is always true, the negative effects of bigotry and homophobia have the largest impacts on those that live in poverty or are members of other marginalized communities. So while, you may see rich and privileged queer people from these countries living their life without much backlash, that is never going to be the lived experience of your everyday gay salaryman.

Just want to pause here and say this next part is not related to Alice in any way, it's just another aspect of upsetting to me discourse I saw this weekend.

Moving on to another very concerning discussion that I saw revolving around Mew and Top in the first episode of Only Friends. The are SO MANY comments being made on edits all over social media dissing Mew for choosing not to have sex with Top once they got to his apartment. With the vast majority saying something along the lines of 'He's hot, Mew should have just done it", "Virginity isn't even a real thing", "He knew what Top wanted when he invited him over", and it honestly gets more frustrating and disturbing from there. The #1 key to consent is that it is ALWAYS ongoing and you have the right to revoke it at anytime. It is an incredibly valid criticism of Thai BL that they waffle a little bit with that consent line, and I feel like some of the same people who argued that the sex between Lom and Nuea in Wedding Plan last week was iffy consent because Lom was clearly drunk, are spouting these bullshit opinions about Top and Mew. Consent can be and often is a VERY nuanced conversation. Mew believing that he was ready for sex with Top when he left that bar, and realizing that he wasn't once they got back to his apartment is incredibly realistic. It happens to a lot of people, and unfortunately those people are often not with someone like Top, who in that moment was willing (even if not precisely happy) to forego sex. This is a scene that shows what a reaction SHOULD be to a removal of consent. You don't have to be happy about it, but as a human who hopefully has respect for the other human involved, you should respect it.

As far as the 'virginity is a social construct thing'--you're right it is. But it is not wrong or weird for a person to prefer that there be a personal and emotional connection between themselves and a potential sexual partner. There's literally a whole sexuality where a person does not feel romantic or sexual attraction WITHOUT an emotional connection.

That's not to say that this automatically concludes that Mew is definitely intended to be demisexual, it's possible that this is fully unintentional on the part of the writer, director, or actor. But in terms of negatively reacting to this scene on public social media, you are actively dismissing the very real feelings of very real people who you may be interacting with. Because just as there is absolutely nothing wrong with being comfortable having sex without feelings being involved, the same is true in reverse. As with all things related to sex, it's about the comfort of the person participating in the act, beyond that there is no 'better' or 'right' way to feel about it.

And moving onto that last incredibly upsetting point...that Mew knew what was going to happen when he left the bar with Top, how disgusting of a take. There are literally thousands of people, most female presenting, who get asked that same question when reporting sexual violence from people they were dating, or met in bars. The dismissal of a person's autonomy because 'they knew what they were getting into' is nothing more than disgusting. It's not just a bad take, or a problematic one, it's a take that feeds into the victim-blaming society that we live in and makes it more and more difficult for survivors of sexual violence to come forward, and impedes our ability to install tenets of consent in our society as a whole. By continuing to spout such ridiculous and disgusting ideas, you are setting a standard that prevents ANYONE from revoking consent at any time and enables assaulters to pressure people into sex, or just bypass their consent completely, knowing that the likelihood of actual repercussions is very low.

So I guess TLDR- All levels of intimacy (both physical and emotional) are important in queer media, from the most innocent to the most carnal, and healthy representations of consent conversations, especially those that show people's autonomy as being fully respect should be praised, not dismissed.

[dailyanarchistposts]

I.4.9 Should technological advance be seen as anti-anarchistic?

Not necessarily. This is because technology can allow us to “do more with less,” technological progress can improve standards of living for all people, and technologies can be used to increase personal freedom: medical technology, for instance, can free people from the scourges of pain, illness, and a “naturally” short life span; technology can be used to free labour from mundane chores associated with production; advanced communications technology can enhance our ability to freely associate. The list is endless. So the vast majority of anarchists agree with Kropotkin’s comment that the “development of [the industrial] technique at last gives man [sic!] the opportunity to free himself from slavish toil.” [Ethics, p. 2]

For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually leads to further exploitation and domination, displaced workers, economic crisis, etc. However, it does not have to so in an anarchist world. By way of example, consider a commune in which 5 people desire to be bakers (or 5 people are needed to work the communal bakery) and 20 hours of production per person, per week is spent on baking bread. Now, what happens if the introduction of automation, as desired, planned and organised by the workers themselves, reduces the amount of labour required for bread production to 15 person-hours per week? Clearly, no one stands to lose — even if someone’s work is “displaced” that person will continue to receive the same access to the means of life as before — and they might even gain. This last is due to the fact that 5 person-hours have been freed up from the task of bread production, and those person-hours may now be used elsewhere or converted to leisure, either way increasing each person’s standard of living.

Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology used, but also (and critically) from its use in an equitable economic and social system: in the end, there is no reason why the use of technology cannot be used to empower people and increase their freedom!

Of course technology can be used for oppressive ends. Human knowledge, like all things, can be used to increase freedom or to decrease it, to promote inequality or reduce it, to aid the worker or to subjugate them, and so on. Technology, as we argued in section D.10, cannot be considered in isolation from the society it is created and used in. Most anarchists are aware that, to quote expert David Noble, “Capital invested in machines that would re-enforce the system of domination [within the capitalist workplace], and this decision to invest, which might in the long run render the chosen technology economical, was not itself an economical decision but a political one, with cultural sanction.” [Progress Without People, p. 6] In a hierarchical society, technology will be introduced that serves the interests of the powerful and helps marginalise and disempower the majority (“technology is political,” to use Noble’s expression). It does not evolve in isolation from human beings and the social relationships and power structures between them.

It is for these reasons that anarchists have held a wide range of opinions concerning the relationship between human knowledge and anarchism. Some, such as Peter Kropotkin, were themselves scientists and saw great potential for the use of advanced technology to expand human freedom. Others have held technology at arm’s length, concerned about its oppressive uses, and a few have rejected science and technology completely. All of these are, of course, possible anarchist positions. But most anarchists support Kropotkin’s viewpoint, but with a healthy dose of practical Luddism when viewing how technology is (ab)used in capitalism (“The worker will only respect machinery in the day when it becomes his friend, shortening his work, rather than as today, his enemy, taking away jobs, killing workers.” [Emile Pouget quoted by David Noble, Op. Cit., p. 15]). Vernon Richards stated the obvious:

“We maintain that the term ‘productivity’ has meaning, or is socially important, only when all production serves a public need … “Productivity has meaning if it results both in a raising of living standards and an increase of leisure for all. ”‘Productivity’ in the society we live in, because it is not a means to a social end, but is the means whereby industrialists hope to make greater profits for themselves and their shareholders, should be resolutely resisted by the working people, for it brings them neither greater leisure nor liberation from wage-slavery. Indeed for many it means unemployment … “The attempts by managers and the technocrats to streamline industry are resisted intuitively by most work people even if they haven’t two political ideas in their heads to knock together, not because they are resistant to change per se but because they cannot see that ��change’ will do them any good. And of course they are right! Such an attitude is nevertheless a negative one, and the task of anarchist propagandists should be to make them aware of this and point to the only alternative, which, in broad terms, is that the producers of wealth must control it for the benefit of all.” [Why Work?, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 206]

This means that in an anarchist society, technology would have to be transformed and/or developed which empowered those who used it, so reducing any oppressive aspects associated with it. As Kropotkin argued, we are (potentially) in a good position, because ”[f]or the first time in the history of civilisation, mankind has reached a point where the means of satisfying its needs are in excess of the needs themselves. To impose, therefore, as hitherto been done, the curse of misery and degradation upon vast divisions of mankind, in order to secure well-being and further development for the few, is needed no more: well-being can be secured for all, without placing on anyone the burden of oppressive, degrading toil and humanity can at last build its entire social life on the basis of justice.” [Op. Cit., p. 2] The question is, for most anarchists, how can we humanise and modify this technology and make it socially and individually liberatory, rather than destroying it (where applicable, of course, certain forms of technology and industry will be eliminated due to their inherently destructive nature).

For Kropotkin, like most anarchists, the way to humanise technology and industry was for “the workers [to] lay hands on factories, houses and banks” and so “present production would be completely revolutionised by this simple fact.” This would be the start of a process which would integrate industry and agriculture, as it was “essential that work-shops, foundries and factories develop within the reach of the fields.” [The Conquest of Bread, p. 190] Such a process would obviously involve the transformation of both the structure and technology of capitalism rather than its simple and unthinking application. As discussed in section A.3.9, while a few anarchists do seek to eliminate all forms of technology, most would agree with Bakunin when he argued that “to destroy … all the instruments of labour … would be to condemn all humanity — which is infinity too numerous today to exist … on the simple gifts of nature … — to … death by starvation.” His solution to the question of technology was, like Kropotkin’s, to place it at the service of those who use it, to create “the intimate and complete union of capital and labour” so that it would “not … remain concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploiting class.” Only this could “smash the tyranny of capital.” [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 90–1] So most anarchists seek to transform rather then eliminate technology and to do that we need to be in possession of the means of production before we can decide what to keep, what to change and what to throw away as inhuman. In other words, it is not enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!

Anarchists of all types recognise the importance of critically evaluating technology, industry and so on. The first step of any revolution will be the seizing of the means of production. The second immediate step will be the start of their radical transformation by those who use them and are affected by them (i.e. communities, those who use the products they produce and so on). Few, if any, anarchists seek to maintain the current industrial set-up or apply, unchanged, capitalist technology. We doubt that many of the workers who use that technology and work in industry will leave either unchanged. Rather, they will seek to liberate the technology they use from the influences of capitalism, just as they liberated themselves.

This will, of course, involve the shutting down (perhaps instantly or over a period of time) of many branches of industry and the abandonment of such technology which cannot be transformed into something more suitable for use by free individuals. And, of course, many workplaces will be transformed to produce new goods required to meet the needs of the revolutionary people or close due to necessity as a social revolution will disrupt the market for their goods — such as producers of luxury export goods or suppliers of repressive equipment for state security forces. Altogether, a social revolution implies the transformation of technology and industry, just as it implies the transformation of society.

This process of transforming work can be seen from the Spanish Revolution. Immediately after taking over the means of production, the Spanish workers started to transform it. They eliminated unsafe and unhygienic working conditions and workplaces and created new workplaces based on safe and hygienic working conditions. Working practices were transformed as those who did the work (and so understood it) managed it. Many workplaces were transformed to create products required by the war effort (such as weapons, ammunition, tanks and so on) and to produce consumer goods to meet the needs of the local population as the normal sources of such goods, as Kropotkin predicted, were unavailable due to economic disruption and isolation. Needless to say, these were only the beginnings of the process but they clearly point the way any libertarian social revolution would progress, namely the total transformation of work, industry and technology. Technological change would develop along new lines, ones which will take into account human and ecological needs rather the power and profits of a minority.

Explicit in anarchism is the believe that capitalist and statist methods cannot be used for socialist and libertarian ends. In our struggle for workers’ and community self-management is the awareness that workplaces are not merely sites of production — they are also sites of reproduction, the reproduction of certain social relationships based on specific relations of authority between those who give orders and those who take them. The battle to democratise the workplace, to place the collective initiative of the direct producers at the centre of any productive activity, is clearly a battle to transform the workplace, the nature of work and, by necessity, technology as well. As Kropotkin argued:

“revolution is more than a mere change of the prevailing political system. It implies the awakening of human intelligence, the increasing of the inventive spirit tenfold, a hundredfold; it is the dawn of a new science … It is a revolution in the minds of men, as deep, and deeper still, than in their institutions … the sole fact of having laid hands on middle-class property will imply the necessity of completely re-organising the whole of economic life in the workplaces, the dockyards, the factories.” [Op. Cit., p. 192]

And some think that industry and technology will remain unchanged by such a process and that workers will continue doing the same sort of work, in the same way, using the same methods!

For Kropotkin “all production has taken a wrong direction, as it is not carried on with a view to securing well-being for all” under capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 101] Well-being for all obviously includes those who do the producing and so covers the structure of industry and the technological processes used. Similarly, well-being also includes a person’s environment and surroundings and so technology and industry must be evaluated on an ecological basis. Technological progress in an anarchist society, needless to say, will have to take into account these factors as well as others people think are relevant, otherwise the ideal of “well-being for all” is rejected (see section I.4.15 for a discussion of what the workplace of the future could look like).

So, technology always partakes of and expresses the basic values of the social system in which it is embedded. If you have a system (capitalism) that alienates everything, it will naturally produce alienated forms of technology and it will orient those technologies so as to reinforce itself. Capitalists will select technology which re-enforces their power and profits and skew technological change in that direction rather than in those which empower individuals and make the workplace more egalitarian.

All this suggests that technological progress is not neutral but dependent on who makes the decisions. As David Noble argues, ”[t]echnological determinism, the view that machines make history rather than people, is not correct … If social changes now upon us seem necessary, it is because they follow not from any disembodied technological logic, but form a social logic.” Technology conforms to “the interests of power” but as “technological process is a social process” then “it is, like all social processes, marked by conflict and struggle, and the outcome, therefore, is always ultimately indeterminate.” Viewing technological development “as a social process rather than as an autonomous, transcendent, and deterministic force can be liberating … because it opens up a realm of freedom too long denied. It restores people once again to their proper role as subjects of the story, rather than mere pawns of technology … And technological development itself, now seen as a social construct, becomes a new variable rather than a first cause, consisting of a range of possibilities and promising a multiplicity of futures.” [Forces of Production, pp. 324–5]

This does not mean that we have to reject all technology and industry because it has been shaped by, or developed within, class society. Certain technologies are, of course, so insanely dangerous that they will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt in any sane society. Similarly, certain forms of technology and industrial process will be impossible to transform as they are inherently designed for oppressive ends. Many other industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous commodities will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance of their commercial or social rationales. But many technologies, however they may presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. They could be easily adapted to other uses. When people free themselves from domination, they will have no trouble rejecting those technologies that are harmful while adapting others to beneficial uses.

Change society and the technology introduced and utilised will likewise change. By viewing technological progress as a new variable, dependent on those who make the decisions and the type of society they live in, allows us to see that technological development is not inherently anti-anarchist. A non-oppressive, non-exploitative, ecological society will develop non-oppressive, non-exploitative, ecological technology just as capitalism has developed technology which facilitates exploitation, oppression and environmental destruction. Thus an anarchist questions technology: The best technology? Best for whom? Best for what? Best according to what criteria, what visions, according to whose criteria and whose visions?

Needless to say, different communities and different regions would choose different priorities and different lifestyles. As the CNT’s Zaragoza resolution on libertarian communism made clear, “those communes which reject industrialisation … may agree upon a different model of co-existence.” Using the example of “naturists and nudists,” it argued that they “will be entitled to an autonomous administration released from the general commitments” agreed by the communes and their federations and “their delegates to congresses of the … Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will be empowered to enter into economic contacts with other agricultural and industrial Communes.” [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 106]

For most anarchists, though, technological advancement is important in a free society in order to maximise the free time available for everyone and replace mindless toil with meaningful work. The means of doing so is the use of appropriate technology (and not the worship of technology as such). Only by critically evaluating technology and introducing such forms which empower, are understandable and are controllable by individuals and communities as well as minimising ecological distribution can this be achieved. Only this critical approach to technology can do justice to the power of the human mind and reflect the creative powers which developed the technology in the first place. Unquestioning acceptance of technological progress is just as bad as being unquestioningly anti-technology.

[spitefulfemme]

Hey, idk if my ask got received, just in case it didn't here's the thing again, have a great day

hey there, fellow lesbian here. Little rant up coming, about a few things on your blog. Please, please, read it all the way through and the article I linked before you call me a Nazi. (I may have German heritage, but we left to the US in the late 1890s, I'm German and Polish American, if you're curious) I put way too much thought into this.

So, I do really like your blog, and I like a lot of other blogs that kinda post the same stuff about Gaza and Israel every once in a while. I don't agree with what Israel is doing. It's abhorrent. But so is the hate *you* guys are spreading. Below: My thoughts and rant. (yeah I commented this like yesterday, but I wanted to make sure you and other could see it, so I shot in an ask.)

Uhm...guys...this isn't the answer. First statements: I'm not Jewish. I'm not Zionist. I'm not Muslim. Raised kinda Christian, like I'm baptized, my family rarely goes to church, and we are very open and affirming. (two pride flags in the sanctuary, open gay members, we do ceremonies, all that jazz)

However i think neither of them are right in the first place. Israel, yes, they're the aggressor. But the way the world has responded is shocking. I don't support Israel's actions. I don't support Palestine. But I scroll through these blogs and the amount of hate towards people who aren't directly involved in the conflict, from people it's lives are not going to affect is crazy! Comparing Zionism to Nazis??? Wtf??? I think y'all don't know what Zionism actually is.

This, is taken from annefrankhouse.com. (https://www.annefrank.org/en/topics/antisemitism/are-all-jews-zionists/#:~:text=Zionism%20is%20about%20the%20pursuit,inhabitants%20of%20Israel%20are%20Jewish.)

"Many Palestinians and supporters of the Palestinian cause no longer distinguish between the words 'Jew', 'Israeli' and 'Zionist'. That is not correct. Most Jews do not live in Israel. Not every inhabitant of Israel is Jewish; there are also many non-Jews living in Israel. And not all Jewish Israelis are 'settlers' who want to conquer more and more Palestinian land. The vast majority of Jews believe that the State of Israel should continue to exist. But many Jews, both living in Israel and elsewhere, are in favour of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as a possible solution to the conflict. To cut a long story short: although many Jews identify with Zionism, there are still many different points of view. That is reason enough not to mix up the words 'Jew', 'Israelis' and 'Zionists'."

so, what is wrong with wanting to have a state, a free state, where your religion is respected and your culture is celebrated? Wouldn't anyone want that? Yes, Israel's done some bad shit, I ain't denying it. But that is NO reason to go full anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. From reading your posts and such, I get the feeling some people don't know what they're getting into.

Also, stop. Stop calling them Nazis. As much as you may hate acknowledging this, this is how Holocaust denial starts. This is how more people, end up dead. So, before you 'pick a side', do your research. Know what that phrase you're chanting at protest actually means. (some of them mean kill all Jews) And know this; what is happening in Rafah and Gaza is wrong. What is happening around the world is wrong. But by only increasing the hate? You're making it worse. So, please try to voice your concerns and be open about your thoughts, without spreading more hate! Anti-Semitism is already a huge problem in the US. We don't need to be making it worse.

And for the people calling for the dissolution of Israel? Where tf are all those people gonna go? Cause you've made it clear you don't want them, so for many citizens, you'd be creating another massive Human Rights issue.

For the people calling Zionists Nazis? What the ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? I'm sorry, yes, terrible things are happening. But that does NOT, AND WILL NEVER give you the right to call them Nazis. Six million people. No. Just no. That's near as bad as denying the Holocaust happened.

**YOU MAY NOT LIKE ISRAEL, YOU MAY OPENOY DISAGREE AND PROTEST THEM. BUT THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TI DISGRACE THE DEATHS OF SIX MILLION PEOPLE BY CALLING THEIR DESCENDANTS NAZIS.**

And even if you're taking this from a strategic standpoint, the Israeli army is not using tactics and methods the the Nazis did. They're completely different. So please, I beg of you, think about what you're posting. Don't call people Nazis if they aren't fucking Neo Nazis.

I hope you actually read this. I hope you read the article I sent from annefrankhouse.org. And please, think about what I've said.

Sincerely,

-a concerned Bleh-345.

you are right. no one should be called neo nazis if they aren't nazis. i apologize for the harm i've caused by spreading this narrative around. thank you for taking the time and writing this out. i haven't outright called the jewish people nazis but i will look into my blog and delete any reblogs that even feel like an anti-semitic post. it isn't activism by ignoring the harm caused by the holocaust while advocating for the palestinian people. it's ignorant, inconsiderate, and dumb, to put it bluntly. i am so very sorry for any negative feelings i've caused by my own negligence. (sorry if this seems half-assed, i hope it doesn't come off that way. i am so down to have a further conversation with you though if you'd like.)

[transhawks]

your last meta abt enji is very interesting and nuanced. i think its the closest one to what hori is trying to say that ive ever read. im one of those ppl that can relate to touya and dabis anger so i dont relate to whats going on with endeavor. like in the beginning his atonement felt to me like humiliating shoutos, reis and eventually dabis characters, and i still cant find myself caring for enji. but tbh so far theres no malice in the way hori writes it so lets see where it goes.

Thank you.

I just think there's a lot of resistance to the idea Touya might love/want his father. It's definitely not the... idea we had years back. The Dabi reveal(s) threw a lot of fanon out the window as to Touya's backstory and motivations and I think a lot of people have trouble moving past that too because it also means looking at Enji a little more.

But also, and I want to be clear - the vast majority of people opposed to Enjidemption and anything that goes with it are people who are abuse victims. That's why I respect that so many people are upset by this narrative. It upset me too. I have a very complex relationship with my own folks, and come from a culture with an enormous amount of mandated familial closeness (divine-ordered) and guilt/shame if you don't follow through on it, so I get the emphasis on ties with your parents being important no matter what that certain cultures like to impose. I understand wishing, wanting, some reassurance that our reactions to our abusers are fine - that we don't need to allow them back into our lives if we so choose.

But I also think it's important to note that the Todoroki family is complex! Not everyone has the same reaction to the abuse! I'm pretty sure if Natsuo hadn't been pressured by Fuyumi he might have cut off Enji completely!

Victims do not all think the same (which MHA does do well in showing), do not all want the same things, do not all have the same feelings in regards to their abusers. It kind of hurts when I see people take an extremely severe stance on this because as much as I can hate Endeavor-defending, a lot of time when it turns to criticizing Horikoshi's choices, it skews or nears hating on victims who choose to have contact with their abusers or complicated relationships with them despite admitting to the abuse. Or to those who, despite everything, still feel some love for their abusers (aware we are, that the love we get back is a conditional mimicry of the love we wanted). It goes into victim-blaming; "if you were strong and correct you'd cut contact and condemn them." or "if you really genuinely were abused you wouldn't still be there".

Again, I acknowledge that those of us who don't personally favor reconciling with abusive family have the short end of the stick when it comes to societal views. And there's nuance; some of us love our parents but cannot have them in our lives.

Abuse is complicated! Trauma makes for irrationality and inconsistency in thoughts and feelings, heck, just mere human existence does that too!

But yes, I don't think it's malicious on Horikoshi's part or him "misunderstanding" abuse as I've seen said for years on here. That charge never sat right with me given the consistent theme of child abuse, especially the focus on over-bearing patriarchal figures throughout this work and in Horikoshi's other works, I think we should also acknowledge all of that is coming not from Horikoshi misunderstanding abuse, but forming his own interpretation through likely his own experiences of it.

So, yeah. Shit's complicated and didn't go the way many of us hoped - but we can still sympathize with the anger at being rejected and discarded by a love one, even if we won't like the ending to this story.

Edit: I wrote this a few years back, but there's no shame in dropping BNHA if the Todoroki narrative and likely resolution are too triggering to you as a victim of child abuse or survivor of sexual assault. Take care of yourselves first.

[do-me-erotic]

A Guide to Shopping for Intimate Products

In a world that increasingly values openness and self-expression, shopping for intimate products has become less taboo and more empowering. Whether you're looking to enhance your personal pleasure or improve your overall well-being, the market for intimate products has grown significantly, offering a wide range of options to cater to various preferences and needs. In this article, we will explore the reasons behind the growing popularity of intimate products and provide some tips for a comfortable and informed shopping experience.

The Rise of Intimate Products

The surge in demand for intimate products can be attributed to several factors. One of the most prominent is the evolving societal attitudes towards sexual health and well-being. People are becoming more open and accepting of discussing intimate matters, leading to greater awareness of the importance of sexual health. This, in turn, has fueled the market for intimate products, as individuals seek solutions to enhance their intimate experiences.

Another contributing factor is the availability of information on the internet. With the vast amount of information available online, people can easily access reviews, recommendations, and educational content related to intimate products. This wealth of information helps demystify the subject, enabling individuals to make informed decisions when shopping for these products.

Choosing the Right Intimate Product

Shopping for intimate products should be a personal and enjoyable experience. To make the best choices, consider the following tips:

Do Your Research: Take the time to research the different types of intimate products available. Understand their functions, benefits, and potential risks. You can find valuable information on reputable websites, forums, and blogs dedicated to sexual health and wellness.

Consult with Experts: If you have questions or concerns, don't hesitate to reach out to professionals or specialists in the field of sexual health. They can provide guidance and recommendations based on your specific needs.

Consider Your Preferences: Everyone is unique, so what works for one person may not work for another. Consider your preferences and what you hope to achieve with the product. This will help you narrow down your options.

Read Reviews: Reviews from other customers can be a valuable source of information. Reading about the experiences of others can give you insights into the product's effectiveness and quality.

Buy from Reputable Retailers: When shopping for intimate products, it's crucial to buy from trusted and reputable retailers. Look for stores or online platforms that prioritize product safety and customer privacy.

Respect Your Comfort Zone: Shopping for intimate products can be a deeply personal experience. Don't feel pressured to try something you're not comfortable with. Only explore products that align with your desires and boundaries.

Practice Discretion: Many retailers offer discreet packaging and billing to protect your privacy. Take advantage of these options to ensure a discreet and stress-free shopping experience.

Conclusion

The evolving cultural landscape has made shopping for intimate products a more comfortable and empowering experience. As people become increasingly aware of the importance of sexual health and well-being, the market for these products continues to grow, offering a wide variety of options to suit individual preferences and needs.

When shopping for intimate products, it's essential to do your research, consider your personal preferences, and choose reputable retailers to ensure a satisfying and safe experience. With the right information and a comfortable approach, you can discover products that enhance your intimate life and overall well-being, ultimately leading to a happier, healthier you.

for more info :-

visit the site

learn more

domeerotic.com

[sidneyfirefae]

Hello!! I'm Sidney (she/fae). Welcome to my blog!

This is just my personal blog so it doesn't really have a theme or anything, just me reblogging stuff that interests me or feels important or is funny, etc. There's also an about me section further down, but first off, I wanna make sure to say this is a welcoming and safe space for:

TL;DR

All genders/gender identities (neopronouns/xenogenders included)

All romantic & sexual orientations

Intersex folks

Neurodivergent folks & mentally ill folks (if and when the distinction is important)

Self-diagnosed folks

All systems (traumagenic, endo, tulpa, etc)

Disabled folks (physical and mental disability)

Fat, plus-size, and other non-dominant body types

All religions & spiritual beliefs

All ethnic/cultural backgrounds

Kink

Furries

Probably forgetting some but will come back and add

Longer version

Queer folks!

This includes all members of the LGBTQIA+ community/communities outside of the Western episteme around what is considered "queer". Neopronoun users, intersex folks, ppl who are xenogender, and probably a lot of other things I can't think of are all welcome.

Neurodivergent & mentally ill folks!

Brains are Weird and the range of human experiences with said brains is very broad. There's still so much we don't really know, but I know to be kind. Self-diagnosis is valid! We are intimately familiar with the gaslighting and systemic/financial barriers involved in the diagnosis process and that diagnosis is not nearly as simple a thing as it's made out to be. People who self-dx have almost always done vast amounts of research into themselves and their experiences. Mental illnesses count as ND, as we have definitely experienced with OCD (although that's hardly the only exquisite flavor of brain sauce we have going on). It's still important to distinguish the two and be mindful of the nuance, especially since people's relationships to their own minds vary greatly.

Systems of all kinds!

Whether that be traumagenic, endo, tulpa, or any of the many other kinds of systems, plural folks are all welcome. I'm part of a traumagenic system myself and can only restate the previous point that Brains are Weird. Plurality is a broad spectrum and can be both healthy and not; in our experience, having each other has been critically helpful and we can't imagine life without each other. Syscourse is ... a lot and we try to avoid it, and I think ultimately it falls into the same issues any sort of excessive online discourse does, which is forgetting to account for diverse lived experiences and the real people experiencing them. Don't fakeclaim people.

Disabled folks!

Mentally and physically disabled folks, spoonies (or users of other systems) and all. No matter your needs, no matter how far you stray from that terrible concept of "normal", you have a place here. I'll do my best to be as respectful as I can, but there's still a lot I don't know about, so I apologize in advance and thank you for bearing with me. We identify with the label of disabled, but our experiences are unique just like everyone else.

All ethnicities/racial backgrounds!

Just like everything else here, this should go without saying, but I just want to be clear. We have studied anthropology and the history of conceptions of race/racism, and we know how ridiculous it all is. We're all just people. We are POC, but our experiences are only of our own ethnic background, and we're always trying to learn more about other cultures and experiences.

Religions of all sorts!

Any and all religious/spiritual beliefs and practices, so long as they are not used to harm people. We're not religious, but we also know that religion and identities that have historically been targeted by religious institutions can and absolutely do co-exist. Like a lot of things here, we're not very knowledgeable about many religions, but we hope to express nothing but respect and curiosity.

Kink!

I'll admit I don't know much about kink -- I'm aspec and an incredibly romantic sapphic with OCD -- but just because I don't personally vibe with the incredibly kinky stuff y'all be getting up to doesn't mean it's wrong in any way. Sexuality means different things to different people, and as long as it is explored consensually and healthily, there's nothing wrong with it. One of our system members is quite kinky, so I know firsthand that mutual understanding and acceptance of varying sexual preferences is absolutely possible. I'm also not a furry and don't entirely get it, but y'all are lovely and just as welcome here.

There's probably a lot I'm forgetting, but when I remember I'll make sure to add it. Basically, don't be a bigot. People are people, and I love you all.

____________________

About me

Howdy! You can call me Sidney Firefae. I'm a grey-ace nonbinary sapphic trans woman who uses she/fae pronouns. I'm part of a nameless system with a range of interests, and consequently I'm currently the only one of us who uses tumblr.

Anyhow, thanks for reading. I know there's probably stuff I've missed, hopefully I remember and can come back and add it.

Have a nice day!

[joyce-stick]

So first I should say, I appreciate your posts as a mutual and respect your opinion, even if nothing I argue changes it. But as to these points,

While 1) is true, I feel it's somewhat fallacious for the same reason that "a movie torrent download equates to a lost ticket sale" is. Not everyone who viewed the art was going to commission or otherwise give money to the artist- a vast majority aren't and were never going to.

On point 2), I'd say that similarly to the corporate anime producers, the people who get paid for others viewing social media posts (where a lot of art tends to circulate) are the people in charge of that site. And they get paid through ads and such, which can only exist because of our posts being monetized for their benefit. And who created this toxic algorithm feed system where views and likes could equate to *some* carrots being dropped *maybe* if either individual users decide to pay someone or they decide to let you monetize it? In a just system, we'd be paid a fair share for our role in that. So, I feel the situation's really not all that different.

There's a lot of reasons why it's difficult to make money on art and I don't think users reusing or resharing that art on the internet are really to blame. And to attack them for doing so is just another example of working-class infighting.

On another matter, one thing I forgot is that I feel policing re-circulation of art is sort of anti-preservationist. Like, the reality is, a lot of art accounts on deviantart, twitter, pixiv, et al, have been deleted or suspended or otherwise disappeared. And a lot of those accounts had art that we liked and, when we tried to find it again, we found it reposted on subreddits, imageboards, and other social media sites.

Sure, the artists might not like it, but a thing about media preservation is that the feelings of the artist are, or at least should be, kind of be a neutral factor. Lots of influential artists and writers and other creators (Franz Kafka for instance) would have rather their work not have been recirculated, but we'd be without an innumerable amount of powerful and influential art and culture if they'd got what they wanted.

So, yeah, in general, I don't think people reposting art is a problem. At worst, it's maybe a little bit rude, especially if the artist isn't credited appropriately. But it's ultimately not something to get upset about. At least, I don't think.

I do not care about committing art piracy. views and likes are not money. Views and likes do not equate to people paying money. You cannot "steal" views and likes from people

when I say I don't respect copyright, that doesn't mean I suddenly respect the copyright of people who ask nicely for me to respect their copyright. It means I don't respect copyright. using someone else's art from twitzer as your profile picture isn't any more a theft than using an anime screenshot

[asparklerwhowrites]

Writing Indian characters, from an Indian person

India is a huge country! while most characters in mainstream media are from the 'big cities' i.e Mumbai, Delhi, Hyderabad, etc, there are many, many more places and areas to look at! since India is such a vast country, there is incredible diversity. 19,500 languages and dialects are present, with people of different skin, eye, and hair colors and types! there are, of course, a lot of inherent prejudices present, which I'll address a little later.

#1. Know their roots

There is no 'one' Indian experience. People from different places celebrate different festivals, worship different gods, and speak different languages!

A checklist of things you should know about your Indian character's background, in essence:

Which state and city/town/village are they from?

How many and which languages do they speak, and with what frequency? (Mostly, people can speak at least two languages!)

Are they religious? (more on religion later)

What are some of their favourite memories/moments linked to their culture? (festivals, family gatherings, etc)

#2. Naming your character

Some common names for boys: Aarav, Advik, Shlok, Farhan, Ritvik, Aarush, Krish, Ojas, Zain.

Some common names for girls: Arushi, Ishita, Trisha, Rhea, Riya, Zoya, Vedika, Khushi, Charvi.

Common last names: Shah, Singh, Agarwal, Banerjee, Dala, Bhat, Joshi, Iyer, Jain, Dhawan, Dixit.

Be careful while picking a last name: last names are very much indicators of the ethnicity/community you're from! most older folks can guess the ethnicity of people just by their last name - it's pretty cool.

Naming systems usually follow the name-surname format, and children usually take the last name of their father - but I believe some regions have a bit of a different system, so look that up!

#3. Stereotypes to avoid

This goes without saying, but I'm gonna say it anyway. Being 'Indian' shouldn't be your character's entire personality. Give them traits, feelings, and a purpose other than being a token diverse character. Some stereotypes that are really a no-no when it comes to Indian characters:

Making them good at math and academics in general (my Cs in math beg to differ that all Indians are good at math. often, the reason Indians are stereotyped to be so smart stems from an incredibly toxic and harmful environment at home which forces children to get good grades. unless you've experienced that, its not your story to write)

Making your Indian character 'hate' being Indian (not everyone?? hates their culture?? like there are many, MANY faults with India as a country, and it's important to recognize and take action against that - which often makes us iffy about how we feel about our country, it's genuinely not your place to write about that UNLESS you are Indian. don't bring in 'hatred' of a place you've never visited, and don't know much about.)

Make them scaredy-cats, 'cowards', who are good at nothing but being the 'brain' (I will literally behead you if you do this/lh)

#4. Why India shouldn't be portrayed as 'perfect' either

It's likely that most of you won't be going in SO deep with your Indian character, but India isn't the perfect 'uNiTy iN diVerSitY' as it's depicted in media. There are incredible tensions between religions (especially Hindus and Muslims), and even remnants of the 'untouchable' way of thinking remain between castes. There's a lot of violence against women, and misogyny is definitely something Indians are not foreign to. People with paler skin are considered to be 'better' than those with darker skin (in the older generations especially)

#5. Some common customs

Removing your shoes before entering the house, since your house is considered to be 'godly' and shoes shouldn't be brought inside

Eating dal (lentils), chawal (rice), sabji (a mixture of vegetables/meat that's cooked in different ways) roti (Indian flatbread) is considered to be a full, well-balanced meal and at least aspects of it are eaten for lunch and dinner (if not all four elements)

The suffixes -bhai (for men) and -ben (for women) are added to first names and are commonly used by adults to refer to someone of importance or who they hold to esteem.

However, 'bhai' (which literally means 'brother) is often used as slang when referring to friends or family. Other slang includes 'arrey' which is used to show irritation or 'yaar' which has the same context.

It's custom to call adults who you refer to in a friendly way 'aunty' or 'uncle', like the parents of your friends.

Talking back to your elders is forbidden, especially your grandparents who you have to refer to with utmost respect.

#6. Religions

India is a very religiously diverse country. The most common religion is Hinduism, then Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, and Buddhism. All religions have their own complexities, and since I'm a Hindu, I can tell you a little bit about that!

It's common to have a mandir which is a small altar dedicated to the deities your family worships. (Fun fact - they're usually placed in the East direction because that's where the sun rises)

Most kids can say a few shloks by-heart, which are a few lines of prayer! (lmao I've forgotten most but I used to be able to rattle off at least ten when I was younger)

Most people know at least the general plot of the Ramayan and Mahabharat - two famous epic stories. (I'm not sure if they're inherently 'Hindu' or not)

Many people wear necklaces with a small pendant of the deity they worship!

Common Hindu deities: Saraswati, Ganesha, Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu.

It's important to note that religious violence is a thing. Muslims especially, are oppressed and discriminated against. It's a very, very complex issue, and one that's been going on for thousands of years.

#7. Myth & Facts

India is a very poor country

Yep! Lakhs of people live in villages with no electricity, clean water, or amenities nearby. There's no point sugar-coating it. There are HUGE gaps between the poor and the rich (have you heard of Ambani and Adani :D) and while our millionaires rejoice in their thirty-story mansions, people die of famine, disease, and hunger every day. I am personally lucky enough to be EXTREMELY privileged and attend an international school and live in one of the most developed cities. Most people aren't as lucky as me, and it's a really true, horrifying reality.

Everyone in India is vegetarian

No lmao - while many people ARE, there's a greater and equal amount of non-vegetarian people.

We burn our dead in parking lots

This circulated back when the second wave was going on in India, and the media blew it out of proportion. First of all, what the actual f!ck. Cremation is a Hindu ritual, and by saying that aLL Indians burn their dead you are erasing the other religions here. Secondly, cremation is a sacred ritual only attended by close family of the deceased member. It does not happed in PARKING LOTS. It's a time of grief and loss, not a way to humiliate a religion for the way they treat their dead.

Drop any other questions about India in the comments/DM me!

[will-o-the-witch]

Heya! I’ve been starting my journey with witchcraft and reading about the vast amount of beliefs and history, and what the people are like within the community. I’ve come across a few blogs and videos of people talking about Wicca and they had very standoffish attitude towards Wiccan beliefs and the people that practice them, it kinda seemed like these people had a collective experience but maybe I just came across negative people, but I was wondering if maybe you’ve ever come across this? And if so why do people feel this way? I hope this isn’t a stupid question it’s just been on my mind ✌️✌️

Not a stupid question at all! There are many Wiccans who are perfectly lovely folks, but lots of people have beef with Wicca as a collective. This might be kind of long in order to explain properly...

Wicca, in the grand scheme of things, is probably one of the most widely-practiced forms of Paganism/Witchcraft in the modern day. It oversaturates the market and is often treated like the only kind of witchcraft there is. The more you start reading books on your journey (welcome, btw!) the more you'll notice the trend of books saying they're for all witches, then only ever being Very Wiccan. Finding truly all-inclusive books is actually very difficult. Because it's the most mainstream it's also where you see the luxurious high-end mystical products being marketed towards high-income white women at prices the rest of us can't afford.

Wicca is also (kind of by design) very palatable to suburban white people. It was formed by a Straight White English Man in the 1950's, and you can smell the imperialist energy on a lot of it still. It believes that all deities from other traditions are simply faces of their own God and Goddess, which is fine if you're Wiccan and kind of offensive if you're not. It creates this "world is my oyster" vibe that doesn't challenge the colonialist attitudes we should all be unlearning, so Wicca is pretty notorious for its cultural appropriation. (To some degree this is baked into the structure, being a grandchild of appropriative ceremonial magick and getting a lot of its "aesthetic" from the same Celtic cultures England tried to consume.) I

Wicca has a strong structural emphasis on the gender binary and splits everything along the line of male vs. female. The Goddess is supposed to be on equal footing (and sometimes even higher) than the God, but a lot of her depictions still focus primarily on her role as a birth giver. (Heck, the three stages of her life are Maiden, Mother, Crone, for goodness sake.) This teeters on the edge of benevolent sexism at the best of times. Some sects like Dianic Wicca are focused almost entirely on the Goddess aspects and end up just being TERF conventions.

Because the structure of all of this is an easy stepping stone into the world of magic in general, Wicca is a "gateway drug" for a lot of people who are disillusioned with Christianity but haven't yet/don't want to unlearn their cultural Christianity. That means many Wiccans are concerned with respectability politics, aren't concerned with cultural appropriation, hold non-Wiccans to Wiccan standards and beliefs (and shame those who don't comply), and will push their faith onto people (aka why so many witches specifically ask not to tell them "Blessed Be" any more.) All of this mixed together does a lot to piss off everybody else.

Now, Wicca is still a fetus of a religion (less than 100 years old) and there are some great people working on the inside to address some of these issues both within themselves and the community, but it's still a major work in progress. In the meantime, lots of people have had very negative experiences with Wiccan people and spaces who exemplify these problems, and are understandably a little distrusting of the whole scene until we start seeing some major change.

[zutarawasrobbed]

So Zutara happens. Then what? War over, everyone else returns to their homes and loved ones while Aang wanders the world alone burying what's left of his culture before dying of depression next to Monk Gyatso's skeleton? Kataang's narrative purpose is to show that Aang can have belonging, bring back his people, have a life beyond being the Avatar. Without it, there's no happy ending. This could be avoided if they set up another romance for Aang after letting Katara go but they didnt.

Okay, so there is a lot to address here, and honestly, I had a hard time knowing where to begin because wow...

First of all, all I see here is how Aang feels. Why is it that whenever anyone discusses Kataang, it's all about Aang and his feelings? Even in the show, it's only ever really shown from his side and what he wants, not Katara. Does Katara have a say? Is Katara’s only purpose in life to be an airbending baby maker? Does Katara's very existence hinge on her being Aang's girlfriend? What about how she feels? What about what she wants? What about her happiness? Or is Aang's happiness all that matters, and Katara should just deal with it?

Now for the culture argument. I want to point out that no genocide is ever really successful in wiping out an entire group of people. Air nomads are literally nomads meaning they move around a lot. It's in the name. This means that there are most definitely other airbenders out there hiding too afraid to come out until after the war is over. But, let's say we go with all the airbenders are dead narrative, then it makes even less sense for Kataang to happen because that means the entirety of the future of one nation depends on how many airbending babies Katara pops out. So this plan is stupid. But Aang is 12, so this plan might make sense in his brain. However, as he grows up, he would come to the obvious realization that if he wants to bring back the airbenders he needs to make a lot of babies with a lot of different women, so monogamy makes no sense and Katara would likely not be down for her boyfriend/husband "planting his seed" in every willing woman given that she's from the water tribes where family units are central to her culture.

Another thing Aang is 12, he'll survive not getting his first crush to date him. We all have at some point or another experienced heartbreak over someone who didn't like us back. We get sad for a bit and then move on. That's life. I also speak from experience as someone who was in a relatioship at 12 that no one should date at that age, and it is extremely unlikely you will end up together in the end. My relationship lasted a grand total of three months, and it is by far the dumbest decision I ever made. I was an idiot, he was an idiot, we were both idiots not ready for a relationship like all 12-year-olds are. So the idea that Aang and Katara would even last beyond a few months is ridiculous and unrealistic. In fact, the idea of me still being with that same person makes me visibly cringe because it was very unhealthy for a multitude of reasons I am still recovering from emotionally. If I was still with him, I would not be in the amazing relationship I am in now. Every relationship contains lessons that help us grow, and we keep with us when entering another relatioship. Sometimes we grow in relationships, and we realize we aren't right for each other, and that's okay. That's life. It goes on. That said, I know some people do get together at that young age and end up happily married. I know two people from my high school personally who got together at 14, got married a year after high school, and just had their first baby. But, the likelihood of that happening is extremely slim. On that note, relationships are hard work and require a certain amount of maturity. The maturity gap between Katara and Aang is vast, with Katara having the mental age of at least 25 and Aang still having the mental age of 12. It's unbalanced. 

Furthermore, the idea that Aang's happiness depends on Katara being with him means that his other relationships pale in comparison to his crush. It also makes him kind of pathetic if he's gonna end up "dying of depression next to Monk Gyatso's skeleton" as you so eloquently put it if he doesn't get with Katara. Also, it makes the connections he has with the others in the gaang worthless, especially his friendship with Katara. Because that means Aang doesn't really care about being in Katara's life if it isn't in the way, he wants it. It makes their friendship conditional, with no value because there was always an ulterior motive, and in his mind, it was always just a means to an end. That just makes him a selfish dick.

The argument that Aang is alone without Katara is dumb. He has Toph, Sokka, Suki, Katara, and Zuko. Plus, I don't know if you know this, but you can make more friends than the ones you made in your teens. You don't just stop making friends after a certain age. You continue to meet people and form connections. And given how charismatic Aang is, he's gonna make a ton of more friends and have the opportunity to form new bonds, including romantic ones as well. Furthermore, as a 12-year-old, Aang should be allowed to expand his circle around the world because he is the Avatar, and he is going to need to make new friends because his main ones aren't always gonna be available. Moreover, the idea of Aang being alone without Katara implies that Aang will only ever have katara at his side and cut ties with everyone else and expect her to do the same.

The idea that to have a happy ending Aang must get into a romantic relationship makes no sense. What about Toph? She didn't have a romantic relationship in the end, and she was perfectly happy. Because she's 12 and knows life doesn't depend on being in a romantic relationship all of the time. Furthermore, on the topic of Toph, I would like to bring up another argument you made about Aang not developing other potential love interests because he does. Toph is one of them. In season 2, we are introduced to Toph by way of a vision that is pretty romantic and used as a common trope in both modern and ancient literature. We also see their compatibility in the way they are naturally with each other. Aang wants to be a kid and have fun. With Toph, he can do that. But, he also has someone who won't let him shirk his responsibilities when they matter most. They match and balance each other in their personalities, and we see some possible romantic development in both seasons 2 and 3. Another potential love interest we are introduced to is On Ji in season 3, episode 2, "The Headband," where we see her have an obvious crush on "Kuzon" (Aang.) But what's appealing about this pairing is that she doesn't know he's the Avatar, meaning she genuinely likes him for who he is without the glitz and glamour. Which I personally find adorable. Side note, I am aware that "the headband" is supposed to be a hallmark "kataang" episode. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this episode actually proves the "Katara doesn't treat/see Aang as a son" argument wrong. Because in that same episode, before the dance scene, Katara literally pretends to be Aang's pregnant mother.

Moreover, Aang is not without purpose outside of being the Avatar. The very notion is ridiculous. Yes, he has to rebuild his nation, he's a symbol of peace, but he is also a person who wants friends and a family, which he has found in the gaang. He also has the purpose of being a kid, which now he can be contingent on him meeting his obligations as the Avatar.

Lastly, I would like to reiterate that not only is Aang 12 and a child, the rest of the gaang are too. Granted, Aang is by far the least mature as he grew up in a time without war and has not had to a childhood with the effects of war the other members of the gaang have throughout their lives. But, in regards to Zutara, I personally do not see them getting together immediately after the war, they both have responsibilities to their respective nations. Katara, in rebuilding her tribe and Zuko in redefining the Fire Nation. Therefore, it would take years just to find some stability. But that doesn't mean they don't keep in touch. We know out of everyone in the gang, Zuko and Katara are closest to each other. They both share a bond with each other no one can match. You might be tempted to argue that Aang is closest to Katara and her best friend, but that is pretty debatable because both Aang and Katara have more positive interactions with other gaang members than they do with each other. For instance, if I had to choose out of everyone in the Gaang who Katara's best friend was, aside from Zuko, I would be tied between Toph and Suki. But, given Suki is not part of the gaang long enough to really expand on her relationships with the others beside Sokka, Toph would be my answer. That said, after the war, everyone would keep in touch with each other. They are all friends for life regardless of romantic relationships. Therefore, the gaang would most definitely be keeping in touch with each other, not just Zuko and Katara. But over the years as they grow, I can see Zuko and Katara growing closer and building on that strong foundation to form a strong and healthy romantic relationship.

[cryptovalid]

Racebending is a good way to promote racial equity in representation

To long-time followers this should be obvious, but for some reason there is still  a vocal kind of anti-fan that gets upset when a character conceived of as white is adapted as a character of color. 

I say anti-fan because if you won’t give an adaptation the benefit of the doubt because there’s less white characters in it, you are more committed to white supremacy than to the IP.

Just in case somebody hasn’t been told, white people have historically held, through force, a vastly disproportionate amount of economic, cultural and political power, which has had a profound effect on popular culture. Popular culture has, pretty much since its inception, reflected the interests and perspectives of white people more than any other ethnicity: their stories were more respected and distributed by publishers, by tv- and movie-executives, they rose to fame and were adapted more often, and until very recently, white people (especially white cis men) were the default audience for anything aiming for mass appeal. As a result, pop culture is not a reflection of reality, but of a perspective of reality that white cishetero men prefer. This is not just unfair on a theoretical level, it’s actively deepening racist attitudes. As this article notes, watching tv increases the confidence of white boys, but does the opposite for girls and black children. If you don’t see yourself relected in the stories other people tell, and you listen to enough stories, you might begin to wonder why people like you are ignored this way. Representation is important in building a sense of confidence. It is also a proven way to diminish bigotry. Racebending established white characters to be more racially diverse is a good way to adress that.

Many white anti-fans will act like this isn’t true (because they don’t believe psychology is real, unless it confirms conservatism), and will also come up with a bunch of alternatives for racebending that don’t address the root problem at all. 

First of all, the idea that racebending somehow demeans audiences of color by ‘not giving them a story of their own‘ is a false dichotomy. We can absolutely promote new characters of color and new stories, as well as update stories that are already popular to be more diverse.

It’s also frequently an argument made in bad faith, by people who complain about or ignore stories from the perspective of a person of color whether it affects an existing canon they like or not.

Moreover, it feels very much like this suggestion is at best promoting racially diverse media that is ‘separate but equal‘ to stories that are disprortionately white. The whole value of diversity is that audiences enjoy them together.

The power of franchises is also so vast, that it is practically impossible to create media that is as widely distributed and promoted as the oldest fandoms, like Sherlock Holmes, Lord of the Rings, Marvel and DC Comics, and Star Wars. Keeping those franchises completely focused on white men is never going to result in a more representative media-landscape.

Paradoxically, representative media is also inevitable from a purely capitalistic perspective: by its own definition, whiteness is going to go away, and so is heteronormativity. White, cishetero men will be the minority someday, and that is inherent to the way they police identity, not to anything anyone else is doing. So why would a company with a profit motive exclusively cater to a community that excludes more and more members from itself? Why not change with the demographics?

And that brings me to another argument against racebending: that it is always a cynical move that is inherently detrimental to a story. I would simply state that racebending a character to make a story more diverse is a neutral act in regards to the quality of a story, unless the racial uniformity of a community or its relationship to colonialism and racism are an important part of the themes. Otherwise, it can be done in better or worse ways (but opponents of racebending like to pretend it’s always worse).

In reality, more diversity often improves a story. Imagine how much less douchey Iron Fist would come across if he were a Chinese adoptee to white parents.I’m always curious about the perspectives a prosecuted minority brings to a story about vigilantism, the law and criminal justice. The perspectives LGBT people bring to stories about identity and acceptance. To say that keeping everything the same for decades is inherently better or more artistically authentic is really limiting. 

There is often a demand that racebending is justified within the story itself, but only if a white character is racebent. Even in fantastical places, whiteness is considered the default, normal race. Everyone else needs a special reason to be there, but a white character is never considered unnatural. This assumption is racist. The idea that racism would have prevented a certain character from being anything other than white is a selective demand for realism. 

Neither realism nor canon are good arguments against racebending in pursuit of a more representative pop culture. The idea that diversity makes properties worse is not based in logic.   

[daubigny-stan]

so i wanna take a minute and compare 2 of the most recent Disney movies, Raya and The Last Dragon and Encanto. these movies are extremely interesting considering that Disney is moving away from vaguely European fairytales to fairytales of other cultures. looking at the general reception, critical acclaim, and people watching, Encanto has obviously captivated more hearts. as someone Southeast Asian (Indonesian) i cannot deny that i loved Encanto way more, We Don’t Talk About Bruno is in my head nonstop. but what should also be noted is that Encanto is also much more specific about which culture it wants to take inspiration from. is this a factor to its success? let’s discuss.

from the movies opening shot, to its inspiration, to its setting, to its credits theme Encanto is in Colombia, the movie gives us no room for doubt. therefore, it is much easier to pin down primary sources, references, and inspiration for the film. just ask Colombian people, go to Colombia, ask a Colombian anthropologist, etc. heck, this Colombian YouTuber is able to pin down the exact time in history it might’ve taken place. that makes the end product much more specific and ultimately a much richer experience. the setting feels like a real place, the story it tells is extremely relatable and feels real, the culture is much more immersive. if i were Colombian (which im not so take it with a grain of salt) i bet it would have been an even more breathtaking experience watching this movie. now look at Raya. you can see even from analyses of the movie’s wardrobe that it takes inspiration from all over the place sort of indiscriminately. although most of the movie is inspired by Thai places and culture, it takes references from all over Southeast Asia. the head of story is Thai (Fawn Veerasunthorn who I’ve followed for YEARS she’s great), the academic consultant is from Bali (iirc), and a lot of the cast is actually East Asian; it feels like they were grasping at straws to make the lore for this movie. i know what they were going for, a fantasy land based on Southeast Asian culture. but Southeast Asia isn’t a monolith. Southeast Asian countries being part of ASEAN is the last thing we have in common. we have vast array of cultures, languages, and beliefs. SEA countries on the mainland and SEA countries south of the equator are literally 2 different language groups. heck i don’t think the ones on the mainland have that much common with each other. Raya’s lore didn’t do justice to all these cultures. what should’ve happened was Raya should’ve been a TV show with proper built up lore to honor all these cultures OR Raya should’ve solely based on Thailand and stayed a movie. i think it would’ve been a much richer experience. this is coming from a place of disappointment for Raya. it was a movie i first heard when i was like 15 or 16 and i waited 5 years for it. i think i would’ve been just as happy if the movie was solely based on Thailand if it meant that it would be a much better movie. my first instinct was to forgive the movie; there isn’t a huge amount of Southeast Asian immigrants in the US, thus not everyone is familiar with the SEA experience. but no. Disney’s got the dough, it’s fucking Disney. they can get any resources they want. ultimately, it felt like Disney didn’t care enough about Raya to make it good. it didn’t think that Disney audiences would care enough about a Southeast Asian or a Thai story.

TLDR: Encanto is good because it respects the culture it takes inspiration from and Raya isn’t as good because it doesn’t.

[hundtoth]

while this should not have to be said aloud - heathenry is not a racist faith! unfortunately, such a statement is necessary to voice... unless you’re a chauvinistic and/or a xenophobic heathen, that’s what this post pertains to: sure, it’s not untold that in the modern world heathenry has been pockmarked by the allotment of symbols seized by hate groups alongside the adulteration of our religious ‘brethren’, with hateful individuals that warp our teachings to portray their hateful demands. our much beloved germanic neopaganism has become a justification for racist behaviour, from the propaganda of the nazi party which applied many of our symbols (such as the fylfot), to the germanic people pointing with pride as the pinnacle of the aryan race. a big problem that faces the heathen practice, while it is innocuous at heart, are the attempts to bear on labels to various heathen sub-groups as ‘racist’ and ‘not racist’. it has become favoured by heathens to cleave up heathenry into splinter groups; universalism, tribalism, and folkism (as the dominant ones), which are often viewed as ‘not racist’, ‘racist?’ and ‘racist!’ respectively. let me be the one to unburden that and say that these terms are not key definitions to those three groups, and that this is the root of the problem. the issue is that these terms are neither here nor there and cannot be applied in whole to the groups that they are supposed to attain to. this is because there exists no foundation within the religion for racist beliefs, which means that those who venture into the ancient praxis could fall under the folkish bracket and may not be and are often not racist. albeit, it’s commonplace for people to label themselves such things to be closer to those who share their views on racism, but that causes some to abandon a title tailored to their practice in favor of one that doesn’t, simply to avoid the bleak implications of said title. in my mind, i believe that we should not be giving monikers to those within the faith with racist tendencies as they simply are not deserving of them. they do not deserve to ornament themselves with the title of a specific group as this just causes a continuation upon the idea that their beliefs around that area of the faith are valid, altering its meaning entirely. to clarify the true to life meanings behind these groups, as they are applied to the preferences of method of practice by each heathen, we have;

universalism - a belief that anyone, irregardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, may practice under the heathen umbrella. the universalism belief structure has been criticized often for failing to motivate its followers to the same depth as others, and allowing the prevalence of contrary philosophies to those present within heathenry. universalists reproduce declaration 127, also known as havamal-stanza 127, which can be cherished by anyone for its simple utterance of: recognize evil, speak out against it, and give no truces to your enemies. however, declaration 127 is denounced commonly due to its poor efforts (similar to the criticism of social media campaigns for ‘likes’ with no physical backing) and it’s false sense of security within heathenry.

tribalism - considered to be ‘in the middle’ by many heathens. tribalists try to vindicate the old and new methods through moderate reconstructionalism, and have a tendency to conceptualise ethnic heritage without maintaining boundaries within practice. the purest way to describe a tribalist is a practicing heathen that integrates the ‘old ways’ into their lifestyle, and they often assert that one must earn the title of heathen - that it doesn’t matter who you are, you must put in the effort and study, which may span years.

folkism - folkist beliefs carry the most stigma, in which racist beliefs are widespread, claiming that germanic paganism is an ethnic right. while this is not always the case, it gives the impression that germanic paganism is only open to those with a connection to the germanic peoples, in a ‘heretic’ kind of way. within folkism, there exists a cross-section as to how this should be enforced, though it is unclouded that it has become a seedbed for racism within the overarching faith that is often under-fire for being contradictory to itself with no substantive evidence that the nordic peoples were racist.

what these terms have set out to do is prognosticate the beliefs of heathens away from how they comfortably choose to practice their faith. the three groups aforementioned fell into those titles not solely due to racism but to essentially describe a heathens practice through daily life. these terms inflict uncertainty to several thought processes within heathenry where race is not a factor, thus cold-shouldering heathens who heed to such traditions when they are presumed to be mirroring the racist views held by their counterparts under the tribalist or folkish stamps which have precured their titles because of racist prospects, not because of how they adopt practice, which is the true basis of these terms. in retrospect, trying to rank the groups within heathenry with the aim of plucking out a method of practice under ‘racism’ only adds more conflict to our community as a whole. i suggest that, especially to new heathens, you should explore these groups further to better your understanding of the people that you may be dealing with and what their ideas are but, be mindful of the fact that you are not required to declare yourself as anything, as these terms tend to only exist as a guide into finding like-minded people. additionally, it would be baseless to create suppositions about anyone within heathenry for the titles that they have chosen to align under as each group is diverse, not only in its members but in its beliefs. another important concept to mention when discussing racism in heathenry are the origins of germanic paganism. germanic ancestors adored the idea of ancestry through honour and worship, and as they would of been white, such ancestors must of been white, too. this would give the impression that when one turns their hand to ancestral veneration within heathenry, while not being white, by very definition they would be inclined to practice their own ancestral faith, which would not be heathenry - because they are not white. to connect to one’s ancestors, many heathens find it essential to practice their ancestral ways through faith and culture, but when someone has no nordic ancestry, heathens may imply that other heathens should be following their own ancestry instead, which is quite paradoxical and backs many people into a corner. an argument often occurs within heathenry regarding spirituality and how it is ‘passed through the ages’, validated by claims that we assume elements of our fate and soul from our lineage and how our ancestors could be reincarnated as a factor of that. as such, it is only those with nordic ancestry who may hear the call of the old gods. they attempt to rationalize this by claiming that white people cannot feel the call of other ancestral ways and other religions, and thus is all fair and equal. however, when we are called back to the ‘old ways’, the old ways are our own individual pasts, as something ingrained into our spiritual histories. for those who are non-whites, this path would not be heathenry, at least according to those who convey this claim. withal, symbols, in my own opinion, have greater intrigue for racists undertaking heathenry above all, with many already falling victim to the racist facets of such symbols whilst being used erroneously by hate groups for many years. additionally, new symbols are often purloined and misappropriated, rather than observed as segments of a faithful movement, instead they are seen as the ideograms of ancient whites; mjolnir, runic othala, valknut and ravens, amongst many more. as mentioned in an earlier paragraph, many symbols now associated with the nazi regime (the SS and swastika) are, or were, once deep-heathen symbolism. ofcourse, the swastika is immediate throughout history but if we were to be straight-thinking, we can surmise that the nazis used it for its association to heathenry, not its association to buddhism, etc. even if these people understood the symbols that they clutched on to and their authentic meanings in a religious sense, they are still related to the previously mentioned concepts within the origins that they have already manipulated to suit themselves, for example, the othala rune, which at a very basic level relates to heritage and ancestry. with a racists obsession with white ancestry, its very easy to see why an ancestral symbol from a white culture would be appealing. within this post, i have tried to emphasise that there is no basis for racism within heathenry if one was to, with all intents and purposes, understand heathen-history and its logic. here are a select few reasons as to why i personally think that any racist who applies heathenry to validate their intolerant opinions are both wrong and uneducated:

assuming that one’s spiritual inclination was genetic, which a vast majority of pagans today discredit, it simply wouldn’t matter. conducting a shallow study on genetics would reveal that it would be almost impossible in the ever-present to have a direct gene from any ancestor who would have been pagan in the viking era. some of the most controversially racist heathens today haven’t had a directly european ancestor in the last 200 years, oops! to paraphrase wayland skallagrimsson, there have been roughly 50 generations between the end of ancient heathenry and today, which means that for most people, contributions to DNA from any heathen ancestor amount to ‘less than 1 ten-trillionth of one percent’. contributions from christian ancestors would be 25-50% of one's genes. let us entertain the concept that one had inherited the genes of their heathen ancestors, scientists largely agree that thoughts and beliefs are culturally influenced anyway. while it is understood that mental illnesses can be inherited, they hold basis not in memory but in brain development, hormonal signals and genetically encoded processes within the body. perhaps it is true, after all, there is the disorder of victim mentality where one believes themselves to be under constant attack, so perhaps racists are just merely ill? poor souls.

there exists no single indication within the eddas and sagas of racial exclusion. our ancient germanic ancestors were well travelled and would have had a large sense of worldliness, caring little about those of other ethnicity, otherwise we would have a myth expanding upon that. in point of fact, odin seeks knowledge from the jötuns who, from a mythological standpoint, represent the ‘outsiders’. despite being the adversaries to the gods on almost all occasions, they often married into the aesir and were included amongst the figureheads (see loki and skadi), and had children together that were pivtotal to the tale of the world, such as magni and modi, children to thor and the jötun named jarnsaxa, whom of which are not only divine, but so pure that they take up the role of thor, and his hammer, after ragnarok to be the defenders of all. the mixing of the ‘outsiders’ to the central gods conveys a pespective from the ancients that position of birth has no bearing on one’s own ability to be pure and welcome.

similarly, there exists no historical evidence to say that ancient germanics were inherently racist. ibn fadhlan, an arabian traveller with produced written works on the germanic people of his age, was entitled to observe and learn of the ‘northern way’, involving himself in rites, alongside slaves who were integrated into the culture and religion historically - which is how we now have accounts of such things. not only do we have have the assimilation of others into the norse culture, we also have norsemen’s graves decorated with arabic emblems, proposing that they themselves diverged from their own ‘righteous path’, to be open and embracing of other cultures and faiths. in fact, germanics have been depicted on many occasions to have participated in the religious celebrations of the cultures to which they travelled, most notably the baptism of king radbod, in honor of a christian friend. additonally, archaeologists have deliberated in many different practices that the norse learnt skills and adopted traits from other cultures, such as the filling of teeth, prior to the occurrence of those practices in nordic culture, telling us that they took back cultural idiosyncrasies of other cultures to their own homelands - our faith would not have kept body and soul together without the aid of many ancient scholars belonging to other creeds and races, and it is a disgrace to disregard them today.

my final disproof is purely opinionated, which is that racism as a whole goes against the very tenants of heathenry. to strive to bar another person from coming into your ‘territory’ shows an acknowledgement of threat from that person. a threat, of course, can only be a threat if you acknowledge that they could overtake you, should you be weak. so, in being racist and fearing the prevalence of other races, racist whites are putting themselves into a position of weakness and equality with those other races. after all, if they weren’t equal certainly it wouldn’t take any effort at all on the part of the white peoples to be dominant, right? no! racism is cowardly and shows an easily wounded ego on the part of the racist; some of the greatest insults in the old norse language are to be weak and cowardly, and thus it is impossible for any racist to truly uphold the values of heathenry.