#based on misunderstanding and or bad faith

[padonvillogo]

Hi, if I had to define myself, I would say I'm closest to a left communist, so I want to address some of your points, mostly the last two, as you yourself had said that the first one on dogmatism is more or less just an impression you've got.

On anarchism

I don't really engage with anarchist discourse online so I'm speaking from an irl experience. I'm sympathetic to anarchism a lot! There are a lot of anarchist concepts and practices that have great revolutionary potential. What I see as a problematic continuing limitation for them is that their refusal/inability to clarify basic concepts and their own positions often leads them into contradictory positions, which are at best soc-dem and therefore counter-revolutionary and/or into this simplicistic worldview that is black and white, such as "rich people are bad, poor people and good". More to that on the second point.

On Ukraine

I'm a revolutionary defeatist, so I'd like to react to your critic as such. And let me preface that these are not my own personal opinions, they come from a clear revolutionary tradition and is a position both held by internationalist anarchists and (non-bolshevik) communists.

The war in Ukraine, like all capitalist wars, is a war against the working class: a war against the working class in Ukraine, who are used as cannon fodder for the defence of imperialist NATO in the interests of their homeland, and a war against the working class in Russia, who are sent to the front to kill and die on the nation's gruelling altar. And indirectly, war against all working class people.

The Ukrainian state, for its part, is neither "better" nor "less bad", nor more or less "fascist" or democratic than the Russian state, since it is qualitatively no different from the latter, but only quantitatively, since it is smaller and has less imperialist power, but is just as bourgeois and anti-proletarian.

It is perfectly legitimate to want to protect the lives of people in bombed cities. But to do so in the form of conventional warfare is to effectively protect the integrity of one state or another. Moreover, it is questionable to claim that most lives can be saved in this way. Continued mobilization for war leads to a progressive brutalization of war and the death toll increases.The state doesn't require soldiers to participate in the war to protect their own community, their own home. They couldn't care less about that, in fact, after the war, some Ukrainian capitalists will have a great investing opportunity in rebuilding the destroyed properties. They need the military to serve the bourgeoisie state's interests and as such, the interest of capital, and the capitalist class.The only one who loses in this case, again, as always, is the working class.

I have not seen anyone claiming that holding a revolutionary defeatism position is easy or that "soldiers should just shoot their superiors". But there have been historical examples since at least WW1, of sabotaging military actions, both from inside from soldiers, and from civilians. And it is also happening right now, on both sides of this war! Soldiers refusing duty, deserting, civilans throwing Molotov cocktails on military bases, on recruiting centers, burning down relay cabinets. Of course, mainstream media won't report these acts, as they are entirely contrary to their framing of the war as a moral duty for "Ukrainians protecting their homeland and their nation from invasion" or for "Russians to fight against the far-right/fascist Ukrainian government". And of course, these actions are individual examples, nowhere near mass organized movements, but shouldn't be this the priority of self identifying anarchists and communists? To support and help the self organization of the working class in a way that would lead to international communist revolution? Instead of taking action in support of the interest of capital, and cooperating with the bourgeois nationalist state and fascist para militia?

Random Thoughts on Marxists

This is gonna be me just rambling about things I saw on marxist spaces. I'll be focusing on experiences I had with council communists (CC) and Left communists (LC)

Dogmatism

Ok, I wanna be honest, this is just a vibe I got. If u had to ask me for tangible evidence, I'd be 🤷‍♂️

Is just a feelin I got of "this is the way to go cause Dude in 1924 said so". It feels very restricting, takin away the potential that human imagination has in socialist movements

It felt like "this is the way! Oh ure more keen on this idea? Let me see what Dude said in '32...mmm sorry! Can't do it!"

But maybe is just me! I'm the type of kid to ask why a 100 times! Did I ask why a 100 times? Not really I was a shy kid, but in my mind I did it so it counts

On Anarchy

Idk the hate coming from Marxists towards anarchists! And I'm not even talking about MLs, I'm talking about marxists/communists that have more in common with bakunin that with lenin!

Like, I remember a CC (council communist) talking about an anarchist revolt (in a hypothetical communist revolution) on the same terms of a counter revolution by reactionaries!!

Or how a CC insta page made fun of an anarchist comparing Lenin to Lasalle (socialist that though that socialism could be achieved by takin control of the state. Marx didn't like him) and being something like "anarchist critique of lenin is bad!"

And I was like "Bro, half the memes u posted are just you sayin that lenin and lasalle are the same!!"

Another thing that I notice is this mentality off "if a marxist said X, that's good, if an anarchist said the same thing, then bad!"

I heard ppl talk about Marxists sayin that the "dictator of the proletariat" is the revolution itself and I was like "ok, that feels like anarchism but with some marx sprinkles in it!"

The end goal is the same, the way of achieving it is the same, the anti-authoritarian sentiment is the same BUT we ain't anarchists! No no no, we're total opposite actually!!

On Ukraine

Since the beginning of the invasion, I heard so many shit takes from the left. When I heard em from MLs I was like "shit take? Yes, but I wasn't expecting something else from yall" But from the left communists?

They can only chant "no war but class war" wich is nice, don't get me wrong, but is...just bs

They always go against the MLs cause they're not good enough on examining the world, that MLs are just too blinded by propaganda, how MLs don't have a grip on the world, and then the only solution they give is "the Russians and ukranians soldiers should go against their generals and politicians (to achieve socialism)"

In what world will this happen? Defenetly not in this one!! How distant can you be from the real world to say that ukranian soldiers just have to go and fight their politicians!

I'd be like telling someone's who's house is burning down to go and beat the cops that arrived at the scene cause they're class traitors! They are, but saving the house from the flames maybe takes the priority!!

I'm not a patriotic person. I never was. So my thinking doesn't come from "we must save our country!" type of sentiment. It comes from a "This is my house, the street where I used to walk my dog, the bar where I used to go and chill with friends"

Idk how to end this ramble...if u read it all, damn, ure one cool person. If u have something to say, be nice about it. Have a good day!!

[daz4i]

i like watching videos tearing into shows i'm never gonna watch and. i noticed a repeating element in a lot of them is that many shows dumb things down and leave nothing to subtext and have to say everything out loud, thus leaving out any air of mystery or any option for the audience to piece things together on their own

and i can't help but wonder if this is a small part of a bigger problem we see with media literacy lately. people not wanting to take the extra second to think about anything, because the way information is presented in everyday settings - through social media, mostly - is through short videos that don't *want* you to take an extra second to think, they want you to move on to the next thing as fast as possible, and they want you to feel what they need you to feel in order to agree with them.

so, this is expressed through regular media as well - no scene is allowed to ruminate in your mind. you need to binge the entire show in one or two days, so they need to fit in a lot of information in a short time. they need to keep your attention the entire time, they don't want you to get distracted by thinking too much. they need you to feel what they want you to feel, so they just straight up tell you what it is.

maybe i'm just reaching, but. i think there's a case to make here

[also mandatory disclaimer: ik there's also a lot of good media these days! ik my view is skewed here bc i purposely watch videos about the *bad* media. however, what i'm looking to highlight here is less "look how bad media is today" and more "bad media today is bad in this specific way and that wasn't always the case".

and ofc i say "people" but i don't blame individuals here (well, maybe only a little), ik this media literacy issue is purposely designed by corporations who want you as enraged as possible and as engrossed in their content as possible so they can show you more ads. and look at me explaining things literally instead of letting you make these connections yourself too. damn. sorry]

[96percentdone]

there sure are a number of transfems extremely comfortable with talking about transmascs and their experiences like they get to be the arbiters of our oppression because they are also trans. i don't think that's how that works. trans people as a whole do have a lot of overlapping experiences, and transfems are oppressed under transmisogyny, which involves plenty that i don't relate to or understand. like there aren't hordes of caricatures of trans men in the media used as a punchline (i don't think i can even think any frankly), so i have no idea what that would be like. i don't get to be the one who defines what that experience is or means. it would be nice if those people (and i do mean those people because it certainly is not every single transfem on this website) could also do that.

i think the community would be a lot healthier if everyone just stopped talking over one another all the time, cause there sure are transmascs doing the same shit in reverse. there will be transmascs hopping onto a trans woman's post to 'debunk' things that i know we as a group do not experience. erasure operates differently from hypervisibility. i also know i have my own blindspots inevitably because i can only be me, but i dont think that transmascs doing this (bad) means that transfems don't and it isn't like. also a bad thing for them to do.

idk. this community feels fucked six ways to sunday. half the time you go into any trans tag ever to keep up with the entire community you not only have to block actual terfs on their perpetual bullshit but you also have to read 60000 posts made by trans people indirectly arguing with and talking over other trans people with some of the most bad faith reads of your own community imaginable. like. real 'i like pancakes' 'so you hate waffles' energy. the idea that a trans person who is different than you might say something in a clumsy way, or made a typo, or was half-asleep, or was uninformed about a particular nuance, or just maybe has natural, obvious limitations in how they can understand or experience the world because a person can only ever be the person they already are, none of that can ever happen! if someone says something and i don't get it, or i disagree, or whatever it is, it is malicious attack on my dignity and principles, they are the real enemies trying to oppress me and keep me down and they must be destroyed.

this place sucks. i hate it here.

[proudfreakmetarusonikku]

disappointing to see another wave of forcibly binarising nonbinary experiences again. like i don’t want to assume bad faith i don’t think people are doing it on purpose but any examination of nonbinary experiences that equates us to trans men or trans womens experiences based on perception is inevitably going to misgender and misunderstand a large portion of our lives. even transmasc and transfem nonbinary people often don’t experience the exact same thing as binary trans people and can have a mix of experiences that might seem contradictory to binary trans people, and a large amount of nonbinary people do not fall into that binary. a lot of us are agender, or multigender, or third gender, or a million other combinations that don’t fit neatly into transmasc or transfem frameworks. defining transness as transitioning towards masculinity or femininity, reducing it to transitioning when a lot of us literally have no way to transition socially or physically outside of the bare minimum bc our bodies and identity are seen as aberrant and therefore we're denied the ability to transition at all, forcing people to exist as masc or fem, having to choose one whether they feel like they’re both neither or something else that doesn’t fit with that, all of this effectively denies a large amount of nonbinary people transness at All. it’s a slightly more subtle way of excluding us but it inherently denies us our gender identity, either forcibly assigning onto us labels that are inaccurate and misgendering or directly calling us lying fakers. like it directly feels like a return to transmed shit where we're either forced to constantly misgender ourselves and present ourselves in ways that make us miserable to be counted as trans at all or hated for being lying fakers who are just hysterical women (regardless of Anything in our lives, be it our gender or assigned sex) who want to be special.

[paradoxarchive]

hey, op here! just wanted to chime in real quick and say that, while everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, with the first quote i didnt mean god in the religious sense, but rather, as if 'god' was the universe itself. im not religious by any means (im athiest) and it's not what the intended meaning behind this post was but i acknowledge that others might interpret it differently because of the first quote (which is also the one and only quote that even says the word god but i digress) if you personally dont relate to the quote thats fine!

in short--its not about god. and sure, thats not explicitly stated in the post but to say that this entire post is attributing all the wonders and beauty and chaos of existence is thanks to The God, and not just a post simply about the beautiful chaos of living and how much someone finally doesnt want to die and would rather live, is a bad faith interpretation of the post at best

my own personal meaning/reasoning for this web weave is under the cut

simply, i made this because--as someone who isnt religious--i struggle a lot with the concept of death and the idea of the absence of living

im not going to go into the extent to which i obsess over it, and how it affects my day to day life, but my intention with the quotes i picked out is because they captured how, for the first time in my life, i dont want to die and actually quite enjoy living despite whatever pain there is

it probably wouldve been a lot simpler to keep scrolling if you didnt like/relate to the post based on how you interpreted it. hope this helps!

i am too in love with life, i don't want to die (i cannot fathom the absence of living)

arthoesunshine | sunlightafterdark | joseph cambell | mary oliver | amy krouse rosenthal | joseph brodsky | unknown | gregory orr | colette, tr by matthew ward | anaïs nin

[gffa]

Okay, so. The senator's speech. Here's why I'm okay with it: It fundamentally misunderstands the worldbuilding of Star Wars and the Force, in a way that's reasonable for a senator to misunderstand. To say the senator is right, you would have to say that the entire foundations of the Force are wrong, as well as it's pretty laughable to say that you shouldn't control your emotions. "Check yourself before you wreck yourself." is pretty good advice and that's literally just "control your emotions, before they control you". Because that's how the Force works, it's based on the emotions you pour into it--if you don't control your emotions, then you will run wild and out of control. To say that the Jedi seek to control their emotions, which is an impossible thing to do, fundamentally misunderstands that it's entirely possible. This is a speech coming from a member of the Senate, which has historically not always had the purest motivations, that Padme and Bail and Mon are written specifically as a contrast to the vast majority of senators who don't actually care beyond their own desires. We don't know anything about this senator specifically, but that's the weight that comes with having a character like this introduced--especially one who is trying to drag the Jedi into being more politically bogged down. Because that's the solution he's suggesting here, to weigh the Jedi down with outside oversight that doesn't actually understand who they are or what they do, who fundamentally misunderstand who they are (they're not a religion? come on, my guy, they are very clearly a religion, they have specific beliefs, practices, rites, and attitudes, to say they're not a religion is either dumb as shit or malicious bad faith lmao) and is very clearly not interested in the Jedi beyond them being a political enemy of his. He says, "But it's only a matter of time before one of you snaps." as if the Jedi haven't existed for literally 20,000 years at this point in galactic history and been aligned with the Republic since it's inception, something like 900 years ago at this point. His speech acts like a Jedi has never gone bad before or that the Jedi pretend they're above it--they very much don't. The Jedi are constantly making a point about how no one is above the dark side within them (TCW has a whole scene where the High Council say not even Yoda is beyond the dark side, and Yoda straight up agrees immediately), to say that one of them will snap and "who will be powerful enough to stop them?" is deliberately ignoring the worldbuilding. It ignores what the Jedi actually practice (it's a lifelong challenge not to give in to anger, so they're constantly on the path to turn away from it), it ignores that emotions very much are controllable, it ignores that the Jedi Order has been keeping a handle on their shit for thousands of years at this point, and it ignores that there's dark siders out there that were never trained by the Jedi, so if the Jedi aren't around to stop them, the Sith would have been wrecking the Republic's shit for the last 500 years. To be fair, they don't know that (but we the audience do, so we should know a bullshit argument when we hear one), but "who will be strong enough to stop him"? Idk, maybe the rest of the level 100 psychic space wizard monks? Pretty sure there's enough of them to stop someone who "snaps", if that happens. The senator's speech just flat out doesn't work with the established worldbuilding, in a way that really works for me, because that's kind of a huge established point throughout just about every piece of canon with the Jedi in it--people just do not understand them and hate the idea that anyone might actually be truly good because they can't imagine it for themselves. Because, as is a theme in Star Wars: "As much as people loved the Jedi, they also hated them, on some level. It is hard to look at people who have become their best selves. It reminds you that you have not."

The senator cannot fathom the idea that a group of people could become their best selves, he doesn't believe that it's possible, because he has not achieved it, and so seeing it in others unsettles him. And, yeah, that's a whole thing that happens with the Jedi in Star Wars, so this speech made a whole lot of sense to me, especially combined with, "So the answer is more bogging them down in political oversight that does not bother to or even want to understand them?" Like, yeah, I see where you're coming from, sir. And that's not even touching the idea of calling the Buddhist-inspired religion (which the Jedi explicitly are) a "cult", because anyone who unironically says that should not be trusted.

[mightyostanes]

Why Jews Aren't "Trying to Trick G-d"

(Note only secondary sources are cited in the bibliography)

For my second post I had originally planned on writing something more fun but unfortunately, I feel the need to write this. Lately I’ve seen quite a few people on twitter saying that the way Jews interpret Halakah is that Jews are trying to trick G-d. While this is obviously a bad faith argument designed to be shitty, I still think this subject should be explained in greater detail. Mostly because I think there’s a fundamental disconnect in the way people imagine religions should interact with their deity and how Judaism has historically interacted with G-d. Furthermore, due to the Haskalah and Counter Haskalah I feel that a lot of these ideas have been lost to a lot of Jews in the English-speaking world. Replaced by Platonism that has much more in common with Philo and Maimonides then it does with anything the sages actually wrote or believed. Or to put it in much franker terms the toilet demon Rabba Bar Rav Huna mentioned in Gittin70:A6 probably wasn’t a metaphor. Instead, it seems incredibly likely that both he and Rabbi Tanhum Bar Tanilai believed in a literal Sheyd that lived in literal toilets no matter how embarrassing that sounds. 

    The reason this bizarre tangent is important is because if you actually look at the biblical, rabbinic, medieval, kabbalistic, and hasidic literature it utterly destroys the idea that the relationship of the Jew to G-d is of one sided kowtowing submission. Granted, it’s quite easy to interpret it that way but that’s mostly due to conditioning in terms of what people think a theistic religion should be about rather than any wiggle room in the texts themselves. In fact, I’d wager most arguments against this have more to do with people’s idea of the Tanakh than the Tanakh itself. 

      The biggest reason for this misunderstanding in my opinion is that very few people actually know what a covenant is let alone its context. To illustrate my point, I’d like you to think back on the last time you made a covenant with someone or something. Assuming you aren’t a ceremonial magician the answer to the question just posed is probably never. In the modern world covenant has become almost solely associated with the Bible and has almost no context. Especially because the idea of the ‘New Covenant’ talked about in the works of Paul the Apostle has very little to do with what covenants historically were. Rather than statements of blind faith, covenants in the Ancient Near East were more analogous to contracts and treaties. There are even some scholars who think that the covenantal theology in Deuteronomy may be based on Ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties. (1)

    In these treaties a bigger state or kingdom would make a treaty for a smaller kingdom to accept fealty to them. (1) In these treaties, at least in paper, rather than being a slave the ruler of the smaller nation was supposed to be a junior partner. Said vassals would also continue to be junior partners to the larger power if they held up the obligations given to them by the treaty. (1) Similarly, just as the smaller party holds obligations to the larger party the larger party also holds obligations to the smaller party. Including ostensibly having to listen to complaints or suggestions the smaller party made. 

   In the Tanakh or Five Books of Moses, there are exactly three covenants mentioned that occurred between G-d and humans. These three aforementioned covenants are the covenant with Noah and his descendants once the Ark lands, (Gen 8:20-9:13), The covenant for Abraham’s descendants where an unknown light phenomenon signifying G-d passes through Abraham’s sacrifice (Gen: 15), and the famous covenant between G-d and the Israelites on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-24). Shortly after the establishment of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants G-d or an emissary of G-d appears and holds a banquet with the covenant members (Gen 18:1-10, Exodus 24:9-18). In the Ancient Near Eastern context that these texts were written in, banquets and feasts thrown by a king or senior covenant partner were incredibly important tools for control or consolidation. In both the Neo-Assyrian Empire and in the kingdom of Mari not only eating with the king but being at the table with him showed that you were considered as part of the king’s metaphorical family (2). These constructed family hierarchies would be clearly delineated by how close one sat to the king and how one sat, with the people right next to the king being seen as close immediate family members analogous to sons or younger brothers. In the two previously mentioned covenants the Elders of Israel and Abraham’s family sans Lot were sitting with G-d or his emissary suggesting an incredibly close relationship instead of merely that of master and servant. Especially as the angels or heavenly host were not seated ahead of the human participants at the metaphorical dinner table. 

          This idea of man as junior partner and consultant is also seen in the way that humans can critique, give advice to, or argue with G-d and G-d takes their words into consideration. A famous example of this post covenant is Abraham giving G-d suggestions on what to do with Sodom and Gomorrah and G-d accepting his input (Gen 18). An even more extreme example is in Exodus 32 when Moses actually argues with G-d and seemingly wins the argument thus saving the lives of the Hebrews. Similarly, complaints were by no means unknown by the rulers of vassal states to their overlords. The famous Amarna letters addressed by Egyptian allies and vassals to Pharaoh Akhenaten are filled with complaints and requests, with a few even being acknowledged (3). Considering that Pharaoh’s considered themselves living gods this just adds more background to the precedent of complaining towards, making suggestions to, or arguing with the divine.

    Beyond the kinship of all the community of Israel, and not just a singular son, with G-d there are also many notions that have to be cleared up in regard to humankind’s place in creation. A famous Midrash Tanhuma Tarzia 5 has a Roman Consul asking Rabbi Akiba why Jews circumcise male children when G-d has them born uncircumcised. In response Rabbi Akiba shows the consul grain, created by G-d and bread which is that same grain altered by man. Rabbi Akiba then asks the consul which one is better, before giving the obvious answer that most people prefer bread. This little story besides giving a philosophical explanation for circumcision also gives a good summary of the main ethos of Rabbinic Judaism. That G-d made the world unfinished so that mankind in general and Jews in particular could finish it. To establish the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than merely waiting for it. The translation of ‘Tikkun Olam’ as repairing the world was meant to be understood literally and not just as a metaphor for social justice.

    Lastly and perhaps most shocking to an Abrahamic Gentile reader, the G-d of Judaism was not traditionally portrayed as unchanging or infallible. The idea only gained traction in rabbinic Judaism after Maimonides inserted it into his theology after borrowing it from Aristotelian, Islamic, and Christian ideas in the 12th century. Historically the G-d of Judaism has been shown to change their mind, and according to Moshe Idel is even affected by theurgy (4). As evidenced by many stories in the Torah where G-d explicitly changes their mind on what they want to do. The mutability of G-d’s mind in terms of human prayer and action carries over to the realm of Halakhic interpretation assuming the other party has a good point. The most famous example of this rabbinical overturning G-d’s decree is in Baba Metzia 59B where Three Rabbis tell G-d that G-d and Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation of a ruling regarding an oven is invalid. They achieve this by citing Deuteronomy 30:12, and Exodus 30:2 stating that the Law is not in heaven and is for the majority to decide its correct meaning. Instead of smiting the group of Rabbis G-d simply laughs stating that ‘My children have beaten me’. Indeed, the Great Maggid even goes as far as to say that G-d, like a parent teaching their child Torah, actually prefers a novel interpretation instead of just parroting the interpretation given by the parent (5).

           In Pauline Christianity Deuteronomy 30:12 which states, “The Law is not in Heaven” has been taken to mean that Halakah isn’t binding in the kingdom of heaven. However, the mainstream rabbinic interpretation means that only living humans can truly follow the Torah and perform Mitzvot to their fullest extent. In the Talmud in Shabbat 88B there is one of many Moses vs angels battles found throughout Jewish literature regarding whether humans should receive the Torah. Just like all of the other stories with this mytheme, Moses obviously wins this battle and takes the Torah to Israel. What makes this story different is that rather than using theurgy to bind the angels or just beating the tar out of them, Moses defeats them with a well-reasoned argument. I’ll let the passage I copied from Sefaria speak for itself.

     Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, the Torah that You are giving me, what is written in it? God said to him: “I am the Lord your God Who brought you out of Egypt from the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2). Moses said to the angels: Did you descend to Egypt? Were you enslaved to Pharaoh? Why should the Torah be yours? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Moses said to the angels: Do you dwell among the nations who worship idols that you require this special warning? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8). Moses asked the angels: Do you perform labor that you require rest from it? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? “Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7), meaning that it is prohibited to swear falsely. Moses asked the angels: Do you conduct business with one another that may lead you to swear falsely? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). Moses asked the angels: Do you have a father or a mother that would render the commandment to honor them relevant to you? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13) Moses asked the angels: Is there jealousy among you, or is there an evil inclination within you that would render these commandments relevant?

-Shabbat 88B (Babylonian Talmud)

       The Mitzvot, something occasionally seen as higher and holier than the immanent aspect of G-d (6) were meant to be performed solely by humans. Because just like the angels, G-d lacks many of these physical imperfections that give many of the Mitzvot any real weight. Therefore, as the ones who do the most mitzvot, how we interpret and follow them is fundamentally up to us.

    Admittedly I could go on and on about the theoretical frameworks behind the ideas. Such as the status of the Torah vis a vis the status of G-d, or the tradition of prayer as legal battle with the divine realm but that’d be a whole other bag of cats. One that’d probably take 20 pages to accurately give my thoughts, thoughts that would be at best heretical to at least a fair number of Jews. So instead let us end this here, there is no way for Jews to cheat Halakhah because it fundamentally belongs to the Jews. It is our burden that we have to bear and our most cherished treasure. Even if it did indeed come from G-d, like any gift the receiver usually is the actual owner and the one who decides what to do with it.

Citation List for non primary sources

Koller, Aaron. “Deuteronomy and Hittite Treaties.” Bible Interpretations , September 2014. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2014/09/kol388003. 

Milano, Lucio. “Naptan Ḫudûtu Aškun". Practice and Ideology of Neo-Assyrian Banquets.” Thesis, Storia Antica e Arceologico Ciclo , 2013.Section 3. Eating With The King: The Earthly Banquet. PG 60-80

Nutter, Nick. “How the Great Kings Managed Their Vassal States during the Bronze Age.” nuttersworld.com, August 15, 2024. https://nuttersworld.com/civilisations-that-collapsed/managing-vassal-states/. 

 Idel, Moshe. Middot: On the emergence of Kabbalistic Theosophies. Brooklyn, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 2021. 

Idel, Moshe. “The Son of God as a Righteous in Hasidism .” Chapter. In Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, 531–85. New York, NY: Continuum , n.d. 

6. Idel, Moshe. “The World Absorbing Text.” Chapter. In Absorbing Perfections Kabbalah and Interpretation, 26–45. New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press, 2002

[patricia-taxxon]

I really enjoyed Allirontalks total deconstruction of Joseph Anderson's The Witness video that immediately made me understand why The Witness really walks the walk, where the base broke anyway, and the kind of philosophy it bumps up against. A lot of criticism I hear seems like a regurgitation of his unbelievably bad-faith experience he had with it so it's fun to see someone explain that

Okay, I had some issues with Anderson's video too, but this response is anemic, I'm having trouble getting through it. The assertion that Joe doesn't like puzzle games or being challenged is very unfair and inaccurate. When he says he found the theatre videos to be drawn out and unwelcome she just insists that they're optional, when like, I'd argue that they're extremely essential, and Joe didn't play himself by trying to give the game's philosophical content a good faith effort even if it left him cold. She makes fun of him for not understanding the shipwreck puzzle and then fails to accurately explain it herself??

She fundamentally misunderstands many of the points that Anderson makes in a way that feels like she just didn't give herself to them. When Joe says "I got this quickly, but I can imagine someone missing this and not being able to reason through it, which is why I'm so conflicted." She responds "Well, he complains when he doesn't get it quickly, AND he explains it when he gets it quickly, hypocrite much??" which is a baffling level of missing the point. The repeated comments at the fact that Joseph links his novels in the descriptions of his videos are also just, cruel? She references Dan Olson's video on Doug Walker and The Wall, and it feels like she wants Joe to be her Doug, but he's just not? Idk, he's not stupid, imo.

She's right that he misrepresents Rupert Spira, and she's right that Joseph is overall extremely closed minded regarding art that is abstract or subjective or asks you to bring some of yourself to it, but her repeated attempts to turn Joe into her Doug is just asinine and horrible to sit through.

[saintjosie]

Thanks for answering my anon. You made a free blocklist of people who liked your response which happens to be almost exclusively tme people. Maybe reflect on why that is and why you sidestepped the issue of the comic implying that having testicles makes someone a man

look, i’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not a troll and just someone who is upset. and in that case i have some things you might wanna consider.

first, you’re claiming transmisogny but the character you’re talking about is an established character. he’s a fem boy and his name is garret. this is not transmisogny. you’re just flat out wrong.

second, by assuming that he is trans fem when he is not, who is the one actually making judgements and assumptions about someone’s gender? and isn’t that a little transphobic? doesn’t that erase non-binary identities in the same way that you are claiming the comic perpetuates trans misogyny?

third, you’re clearly very bothered by this. enough to presumably block and unblock me to send me an ask on anon again. but why do you feel the need to make this about trans women when we as trans women have so much other real and pressing shit to deal with? have you considered that perhaps you are the one making yourself upset over this? have you considered giving this artist the benefit of the doubt and looking into the comic before you reach for your pitchfork? cause if you did, you would have very quickly discovered that there was nothing to be mad about in the first place.

and fourth and final, if you are upset about something that you misunderstood and took out of context the how does that make you any different from the people who try to invalidate trans people? the people who try to invalidate us do so because our existence threatens their worldview even though our existence has literally no impact on them and they are choosing to have rage over it. and isn’t that what you’re doing now? continuing to have rage over something that is based on your own misunderstanding?

isn’t being a trans woman difficult enough without us creating more problems for ourselves?

isn’t my experience of being a trans woman of color on the internet difficult enough without angry members of my own community engaging with me in bad faith?

i’m not gonna block you and my inbox is still open to you. i hope you take a second and look at yourself because right now, you are the one creating your own hell. and i wish that upon no one.

[criticalcrusherbot]

This critique is a cocktail of cherry-picking, bad-faith interpretations, and outright fabrication, so let’s shred it systematically.

1. “If you don’t want to be cheated on, don’t be a bitch harpy!”

This is clearly referring to Stella in Helluva Boss. Stella isn’t just a “bitch harpy”—she’s written as an abuser. Her portrayal as toxic isn’t about blaming her for Stolas’s infidelity; it’s about giving context for why their marriage is a wreck. Stolas cheating isn’t excused, and the show doesn’t portray him as morally clean. His guilt and struggles with his actions are major plot points.

Also, let’s not pretend that Helluva Boss endorses cheating—it shows the fallout of Stolas’s actions hurting everyone involved, including Octavia. If anything, it condemns cheating while exploring why imperfect people do it.

2. “If you don’t like catcalling, stop being a bitch to men it will make things worse!”

The argument that Vivziepop suggests women are responsible for harassment or catcalling because they’re “bitchy” to men is a gross distortion of her comments, and frankly, an intellectually lazy take. First, harassment is about the behavior of the harasser, not the victim’s response. No one should ever be blamed for unwanted attention, regardless of how they react to it. The idea that someone “asks for” harassment by not being pleasant or accommodating is not only outdated but dangerous. It perpetuates the toxic myth that women are somehow responsible for the actions of men, which is flat-out wrong. Viv’s comments, poorly worded as they may have been, don’t excuse catcalling or harassment—they’re being misrepresented as an attempt to justify it, which is an unfair oversimplification. Harassment is never the victim’s fault, and trying to shift blame onto women for how they handle unwanted attention only further enables the very behavior that should be condemned.

3. “Don’t get surprised when someone sexually harasses you as a minor if you spoke to the person first!”

The argument that Vivziepop somehow implies victims of sexual harassment—particularly minors—are to blame for their own abuse simply because they engaged with the perpetrator is a gross misinterpretation of both the context and her statements. While Viv was criticized for her responses to certain fan interactions, suggesting that she condoned or excused harassment based on the victim’s actions is both misleading and harmful. Viv’s comments were likely poorly phrased and taken out of context, but they do not justify blaming victims for being harassed, especially minors who should never be held responsible for the inappropriate actions of others. Sexual harassment is about the perpetrator’s behavior, not the victim’s engagement. To reduce a complex and sensitive issue to victim-blaming rhetoric not only ignores the actual power dynamics at play but also undermines the real harm caused by harassment. Vivziepop has clarified her stance over time, and this argument against her is based on a misunderstanding of her intentions, not an accurate reflection of her views on harassment.

4. “If you signed a contract you can only blame yourself for being raped, suck it up and don’t feel sorry for yourself.”

This is a Hazbin Hotel reference to Angel Dust’s storyline. Let’s be clear: Angel Dust is a victim of exploitation and sexual abuse, and the show portrays it as tragic. The power dynamics between Angel and Valentino are explicitly shown to be abusive. The narrative doesn’t blame Angel Dust—it focuses on his struggles to regain agency and dignity. This take reeks of someone deliberately misreading the material to fit their smear campaign.

5. “If you don’t like your pay or treatment, you don’t have to work here.”

Mischaracterizing Vivziepop as someone who tells her employees to just “leave” if they don’t like their pay or treatment is not only dishonest, but also ignores the fact that these critiques are usually based on a few bad-faith interpretations of online exchanges. Vivienne has addressed complaints about the work environment and compensation in her projects multiple times, and while her responses may not have always been perfect, reducing her stance to “just quit if you don’t like it” is an oversimplified, lazy take. This kind of narrative conveniently ignores her efforts to build her shows and team from the ground up, often under tight budgetary constraints, and ignores the nuances of creative labor in independent spaces. Criticizing her for not offering a “one-size-fits-all” solution only proves you’re more interested in tearing her down than actually engaging with the full context.

6. “If you’re talking about killing systemic racists, you just want to feel superior to them yourself.”

The claim that Striker is vilified simply for fighting against the system misses the point entirely. Striker isn’t vilified because he opposes the upper class—he’s vilified because he’s a hypocrite who uses that opposition as an excuse for violence and self-interest. His actions aren’t about dismantling systemic injustice; he’s just trying to replace one form of power with his own. The show doesn’t portray him as a victim of the system—it shows that his so-called fight for change is actually a power grab, and he’s willing to kill anyone who stands in his way. Striker is not being punished for opposing the system, but for being a selfish, violent character who manipulates his supposed cause for personal gain.

7. “The real answer is having sex with and having families with your oppressor.”

The relationship between Stolas and Blitz isn’t about endorsing romantic relationships with oppressors; it’s about the toxic, complicated nature of their connection. Yes, Stolas holds power over Blitz, but their dynamic is full of emotional manipulation, unhealthy dependencies, and broken people trying to navigate their flaws. It’s not about glorifying the power imbalance; it’s about showing how it leads to dysfunction. This take oversimplifies the relationship, ignoring the fact that both characters are victims of their own choices and circumstances. The show isn’t celebrating the power imbalance but highlighting how it’s destructive. Additionally, it explores the complexities of navigating differences between social classes and challenges societal expectations, illustrating that oppression is a systemic issue that affects groups, not just individuals. The characters are trying to figure out how to navigate that as individuals within those systems.

8. “If you didn’t want to be put in an arrangement of sexual favours for work, why did you go in the man’s bedroom?”

The idea that Helluva Boss is saying “if you didn’t want to be put in an arrangement of sexual favours, why did you go in the man’s bedroom?” completely misses the point. The show doesn’t condone Stolas’ manipulative behavior—it’s about showing how toxic their power imbalance is. In the episode “Full Moon,” Stolas recognizes how unfair the arrangement is and genuinely tries to make things right by offering Blitz more respect and autonomy. But due to miscommunication and emotional baggage, things blow up, and their relationship falls apart. It’s not about blaming Blitz—it’s about showing how both characters are trapped in unhealthy dynamics, and Stolas is actively trying to fix it.

In short: try again when you’ve actually watched the shows and done the bare minimum of engaging with their themes instead of concocting an edgy hate post for internet clout.

[tocomplainfriend]

I wonder how Hazbin will treat religion, I wanted to talk about Morel Orel.

If you don't know, Is about Orel a kid how tries to follow the religious (fundamentalist Protestant Christian) teachings. But always takes it too far, and makes a mess. The series is really more rough and heavy that you would guess. I don't think is perfect, I hate episode 2 from season 1. But I really like how they treat the topic. If you are going to watch it, keep in mind: Season 1 is really unserious until the later. But it was done on purpose - the ending of the season it hits! Season 2 and 3 is really serious and heavier. -and takes its time to explore the characters and the problems going on in the town.

The end of the series pretty much resumes the point the series is trying to make about religion. During the hole series, the biggest problem is Clay (Orel's Dad) and how he is. In the series is the one, two tell Orel incorrect lessons based on religion and stuff. After all of that, the last episode shows Orel years later as a father. -And he is loving and the nice person he has always tried to be. You can see in the photo, he still is religious to despise everything. The problem really wasn't believing in god, but how people did bad things upon it.

Also, just to mention this scene! At the end of season 1, where things get serious. After many fights between his parents, Orel ignores them, misunderstanding the gravity of the situation. But by the ending of the episode he realizes the problem but yet he says; "But you still 2 minutes left, I got faith in you". He prays to God to fix the situation in the two minutes that he got left of Christmas. In complete silence, the camera goes away in to the sky. Orel waits for a response of God, but gets none......

I don't think Orel Morel is perfect, but I really like it, and it has a lot better writing that Helluva!

Hazbin is pretty different cause it takes place directly in hell and heaven. Instead of looking at the brainwashing as a critique or even the acknowledgment of religious people who are good? I really hope they don't fully fall into the Heaven is 100 percent bad and alt eat try for a gray moral. I wonder how they will treat all this stuff.

+one joke I liked in the series:

Orel does a little clay animation movie and shows it to people in town, but another kid presents it instead, who understand what's going on more than him. -and also accidentally showing many others that his dad beats him with a belt.

"Orel: Joe completely change the meaning of everything I wrote.... Doughy: Gosh Orel that too bad! Orel: Yeah, I guess certain things gets misinterpreted. Doughy: Like what? Orel: Hmm... not sure!" then he scratches his face, with the bible.

Hopefully it won't be that bad, right?

[mine-fujiko]

I’m sure you’ve seen pictures like this one over the internet in the form of memes, in self-declared manifestos and articles that claim to be from the queer community.

Looks like it’s Jigen asking Lupin, right? This does indeed get sold to the internet as if Jigen is asking Lupin such a big question.

The actual scene:

I posted a while ago an example of a very piss-poor translation of a chapter from the original manga that is used by the same people who write this so called propaganda as evidence of ‘gayness’ going on with these characters. You can read it here, TokyoPop simply made a poor job but that also is, apparently, taken seriously and spread all over the internet.

It all could be easily dismissed with a laugh because in the end the show itself is meant to be fun and being in the fandom should be fun but I keep asking myself if this fandom attitude qualifies as queerbaiting. What’s sad is that it comes from other fans who are... in good faith??? (color me suspicious) fooling people into believing things that are not there.

I’m sorry to have to say this but apparently there are some who actually trick people who are invested in certain characters and who might be fragile. People who, right because of this propaganda based on wrong translations, fake pictures, jokes being taken too seriously and too far and cultural misunderstandings, might end up deluded and hurt.

The list of these ‘misunderstandings’ or even misrepresentations can go quite on, here you get just the basic idea.

We’re all up in arms when queerbaiting comes from the powers that be authors and producers but when it comes from allegedly fellow fans is maybe even worse.

“Propaganda” in itself is already a bad word, if you need propaganda to convince people through memes plastered all over the internet that’s another sign that something is wrong. Not to mention most people only know the characters through the internet grapevine and therefore completely out of context, because by their own admission, they don’t even watch the show.

These characters have been around since the 60s, in Japan... I wouldn't even go near them being 'coded' because it could mean having to code them in a really bad way.

Feel free to share your view.

[cackled0g]

I think a lot of people on here fundamentally misunderstand the TMA/TME dichotomy. TMA or TME isn't a label you are designated based on how you look, it's an identifier of the forms of oppression you face. It's no different to me that using terms like "person with a penis" or "person who can get pregnant."

Do some people use the terms in bad faith? Yes. People can use neutral terms in bad ways. If I say "all people with penises are horrible creeps who prey on others", that's clearly using a neutral term in a bad faith way to invoke a mental image based on a history of bigotry.

But that doesn't mean the term is inherently useless or bad.

[amyrlinegwene]

Some thoughts:

The Wheel of Time is a piece of literature and it’s okay for people to interpret things in different ways or have the text resonant differently for you than another fan. And that even if you find some interpretations/ships/character arcs that people are interested in distasteful, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are right and the other person is wrong, and vice versa.

Sure, some opinions might be based more in canon than others, but RJ was an author that was deliberate in leaving room for ambiguity, misunderstanding, and critique in his characters, relationships, plots, and cultures. He also was creating a framework of the world in WoT that might have not completely reflected his own beliefs but rather an attempt to create an interesting world and power system. Canon should of course be the stable foundation of any fandom and it’s important to remember what is canon and what is not. But is also important to remember that canon can be interpreted or critiqued in many different ways.

If someone is not actively taking a bad faith approach to the text (ex: blatantly misogynistic takes on Egwene, Elayne), I feel like we have to allow multiple interpretations of the text because two contradictory views can be true at once, especially in a work as complex as the WoT.

Some examples:

- RJ’s tendency to pair women characters up with a heterosexual partner by the end of the series can be critiqued for being misogynistic. However you could argue that he was trying to fit the theme of balance between genders. You can also find a particular ship out of these pairings interesting and want to explore it more through analysis or fic. ALL three of these things can be true. You can also not agree with some or any or all of these points without completely invalidating that other fans see it this way.

- Some fans find polyamory representation they relate to in Rand having three girlfriends/wives. Other fans critique it as a misogynistic trope. Both interpretations can be valid.

- Similarly, in different wot fandom spheres Elayne and her relationships are seen different ways. Some fans insist she’s straight, some that she’s bisexual, and others that she is a lesbian who experienced compulsory heterosexuality in her relationship with Rand. These fans all have their own reasons (namely, in order: her only canon relationship is with Rand; her first sister bond and relationship with Aviendha can be interpreted as romantic in addition to her relationship with Rand; and some find the difference in chapters/care/detail that RJ gave Elayne and Avi’s relationship compared to hers with Rand to be a compelling argument for comphet). The text and a healthy fandom allows for all of these interpretations, even if you may personally disagree with some of them.

In short, consensus in fandom is great, but allowing for differing opinions and healthy dissent is better, especially with a text as rich as the Wheel of Time.

[wardensantoineandevka]

Bor'Dor's story about his mother and family is WILD because like, and these are just rambling thoughts about the wild parts of the story...

He says that his mother was blessed by the Wildmother, that she had to teach him her ways in secret, and they lived away from the watchful eyes of the people of Port Damali and the temples. But, that's really odd, considering Melora is one of the most popular gods in the Coast. You can't swing a sling in the Menagerie Coast and Swavain Islands without hitting a temple or shrine to the Wildmother. Her presence and worship has been strong there since before the Divergence, and the Coast's geography has been deeply shaped by Melora while she was on Exandria. (Sidebar, Inflict Wounds doesn't necessarily point to anything bc all Divine Sorcerers regardless of alignment CAN learn Inflict Wounds.)

The thing that Bor'Dor also points to is that his mother believed that her faith in the gods would protect her from everything. That's a dangerously naive and immature conception of faith, frankly. (I won't unpack it here, but that's also prosperity gospel.) There is something to be said about misunderstanding the role of the gods especially post-Divergence and power meted out when gods materially exist, but it's a naive exceptionalism to believe that because you are blessed by a god that nothing bad can ever happen to you. (Generally, the idea is that one is empowered by the gods to help themselves and, critically, to help others. Evodon and Deanna talk about this actually, about their role as people of faith and those blessed to help, serve, and support others in need, even when they do not have access to those gifts and blessings.) Apparently, Bor'Dor's mother believed she was special and exceptional among people because of her faith! The fact that she isn't for her faith alone is, actually, interestingly proves the reverse of what Ludinus's rallying point is, where he rails against the favoritism of the gods and lifting up those who don't deserve it. It's interesting that Bor'Dor is angry at the gods for not intervening to save her—when that exact act would get the gods criticized. (It's been broadly discussed about the moving goal posts of the Vanguard rhetoric. The gods are bad for not intervening in each scenario; the gods are bad for helping anyone at all.) But, it's really interesting that Bor'Dor points to his mother's faith was not borne out as core to his perspective—but his mother's faith beliefs are inherently flawed and a misunderstanding of that relationship of faith!

On top of that, and I fully understand this point and the previous is the Point Of Contention and the mis-alignment on this one is how Bor'Dor got recruited into the Vanguard in the first place, but it wasn't the temples or the religious people who came for Bor'Dor's mother, but the Zhelezo at the behest of the rich. The Coast has a tendency toward money rules, and Port Damali especially so. Damali runs entirely on wealth and who has it, and that's why it stands out to me that Bor'Dor accidentally almost killed a rich child. What killed her was, ultimately, the intense stratification and social inequality based on wealth in Port Damali, rather than the gods or temples. Melora didn't kill his mother by not intervening; rich assholes killed her!

[nezumikozo6th]

Pulptober 2024 Day 24-Team of Elites-Lupin III gang

I stumbled across this funny activity that based on Pulp Hero prompts and it seems to allow for anyone participation(hope I didn't misunderstand),so I took the liberty of coming uninvited(And I'm obviously posted late).I think Lupin the Third is one of the most pulp-style long-going anime series that still going now,and one of the most common story templates is how the protagonist and his companions become a team of adaptive anti-hero,so they deserve to be put under this topic.

This adventuring team consists of four capable criminals who are equal and independent,Lupin the third is usually the mastermind and the one leading the action,but he isn't a real leader and the gang isn't named after him or anyone else.All of them can carry out theft or other criminal work alone.Compared with professional criminal groups with clear division of labor,they are more like a family of professional thieves with their own specialties,and it's interesting to see how they work closely together while maintaining their own independence and sometimes conflicting for that.

Daisuke Jigen(次元大介) is the closest one who is literally an assistant of Lupin on the gamg,even though he actually isn't,and he is definitely the member who drives and smokes with Lupin on screen the most.The two interacted so frequently and naturally that some fans jokingly called Jigen the gayest man alive(On the other hand many fans believe they're bisexual).He is the best gunman of them and known for his extraordinary shooting ability and familiarity with various firearms,on the contrary he rarely shows his (not bad) hand-to-hand combat ability.I think sometimes people put too much emphasis on his feuding moments with Fujiko,he was often angry at her betrayal,but most of the time he did not blame her any more than Lupin and Goemon did except verbally.

Goemon Ishikawa XIII(石川五ェ門) is a character who is a symbol of Japanese/East-Asian culture that deliberately placed in this Westernized(for the Japanese at the time) gang,although it's far from a stereotype,he is undoubtedly the member who has the most clearly culture marked,that includes a samurai/ronin costume,a Japanese sword and his Iaidō skills,which makes him the only member who does not use firearms and has a irreplaceable skill(swordsmanship).He is often as a handy member to cut through bullets,obstacles or various things in front of them,and the one most often leaves the team for personal reasons(Except Fujiko when she betrayed them).

Fujiko Mine(峰不二子) is the regular femme fatale in this series,but in my experience,even few of characters of this type could be like her that able to maintain the companionship with a gang she betrayed multiple times,especially considering she isn't the leader.Fujiko is a wind card between Lupin gang and their opponents,she often betrays them,also often betrays their enemies and returns to the gang after considering the situation,or is rescued by them after being betrayed by their enemies,and fairly,working with them in good faith many times.Regardless of her initial decision,finally she always ends up siding with the gang at critical moments since of luck or intentionality. 

Koichi Zenigata(錢形幸一) is the Inspector Ganimard of Lupin the third,he is an Interpol police officer who has traveled around the world for many years to hunt down Lupin III,but they respect each other and have a special friendship with each other.Of course Zenigata can't be a real member of the Lupin gang,but like other empathetic inspector characters,he is often involved in their fights with other criminal forces,and is usually willing to join them in fighting against more evil elements for the sake of morality and justice,whether both are acting independently or actually working together.This happens so often that make Zenigata deserves to be considered a special member of the gang,and becomes the best and worst cop:he is unable to arrest Lupin most of the time,but thanks to this he has achievements in fighting crime that ordinary police officers cannot match.