#because that's the whole point of freedom of speech and religion

[fiddlepickdouglas]

I know you've got me blocked which is fine, but to anyone else who reads this (and op), this is for you.

You're welcome to feel that way, and it's rare that I ever do come off as condescending. I was aware that might be the case but as evidence from above, did not have the energy to edit that tone. Honestly, my only apology is for not waiting to hit post until I could change my tone in that response, although frankly, I wouldn't have changed it.

My point was, as someone who did come from a Christian background and survived a great deal of abuse due to that upbringing, is that the laughter is more than just a thin shield in many cases. Coming from a world where anything we do is punishable whether it truly is right or wrong or moral or whatnot, because ultimately all the adults around us care more about controlling us than seeing us as people - that turns laughter into one of the greatest weapons.

It's a survival tool and a coping mechanism, and not a mere bandaid to "displace guilt" or "whatever." I know I'm not guilty of anything for my queer identity or for enjoying explicitly sexual/kinky content if I so choose. It's taken a great deal of work to reach that mindset and it's mostly been through the help other other queers who have similar experiences. It's not an excuse to make an inappropriate joke out of anything, but for those of us who have had to radically rewire our brains after letting go of certain beliefs, we've earned the right to poke fun at them.

As a writer (although admittedly one who doesn't typically write or read smut for reasons outside of this discussion), I'm also aware that many of the things people write either as professionals or in fanfiction is an attempt to process their own worldview in some manner. Whether that's to work out their own trauma or make any sort of commentary, or simply to write down what goes on in their head because it's taking up too much space, or some other reason, all of that is equally valid. If people are writing kink and repeating that phrase, then the follow up to how it's treated is more important to pay attention to than the line itself.

Since it is clearly not your thing, you're welcome not to use it in your writing and politely turn down any requests or prompts that include it. That's every writer's right. As a reader in a day and age where filters are a thing, and there's are so many methods to pare down results with a fine toothed comb (especially on AO3), that's the reader's responsibility.

But wishing a level of control so far as to say nobody should be saying that phrase so you don't have to deal with it is where it borders on unhealthy. Which is not to say you're invalid or wrong for those feelings, but the strength of the reaction might indicate that a break is needed from something or several things. Because saying you won't police people when there's some desire there to eradicate something that, ultimately, is far more complex than your personal feelings on it, can lead to a direction that unintentionally winds up sounding exactly like right-wing Christian ideals and control tactics, just with woke terminology. I'm not saying that's where you're already at, not even remotely, but I'm just a little too familiar with the territory and it's dangerous ground you're standing on.

Which is why there is every reason to sort out any anger and laugh in the face of punishment, because that is also an extremely queer thing to do, if not one of the queerest, and taking pride in it has been the point for as long as religion has been used as an excuse to other us. Is it still your choice not to? Absolutely. It's a respectable choice. But so is mine.

If you're spend more time being worried about the language that other queer people use in their fanfiction/daily life where it does relatively little harm than the very real threats several hate groups and governments pose to our existence, all that's likely to do is cultivate the kind of infighting that those same threats hope will keep us distracted so it's easier to legislate our lives away. I know that sounds extreme, but at this point that's the reality. My original response may have been annoying clownery, but now I'm fully serious. The moment you step back and resolve your feelings about people saying "I'm going to hell for this," and find something to focus on in the manner of either supporting yourself or others in a way that encourages growth, who knows. Maybe you'll get the joke, then. But that's still your preference and your choice.

the fact that “i’m going to hell for this” hasn’t dropped out of the lexicon for writing/reading smut pisses me off so much

[spacerockfloater]

Alicent and Criston have every right to be together.

I’ve read a lot of posts regarding their non-existent hypocrisy and I’d like to clear some things up.

First and foremost, stop using Alicent’s “Where is duty, where is sacrifice?” line against her or Nyra’s outrageous “Exhausting, wasn’t it?” speech because you think you’re eating when you’re, in fact, starving. Alicent has done her duty and sacrificed herself. It’s the only thing she’s been doing for the past 20 years. She gave the man she was forced to marry four children and she took care of him despite all the shit he put her through. She has lived all her life based on her principles and now her husband is gone. She mourned him, she buried him, it’s been more than 10 days since his death (confirmed that E1 S2 takes place 10 days after Lucerys’ death) and she is finally fucking free. She deserves a sliver of comfort. Alicent is the only one in this series that’s been faithful and dutiful to a T, yet look where that got her. If someone has the right to break the law a little bit, it’s definitely her.

That being said, I don’t know when it was decided that Alicent is a pious saint that can do no wrong, but I need to remind y’all that following a religion does not magically prevent you from sinning. Is she committing fornication? Obviously. However, you are all under this impression that this is hypocritical on her behalf because she berated Rhaenyra for it when they were younger, without considering that her anger was justified for a myriad of other reasons, such as (but not limited to): 1) the fact that Rhaenyra’s freedom to marry whomever she pleased was a privilege granted to her thanks to Alicent’s efforts, who supported her even if Rhaenyra hated her, yet her friend casually threw that away, 2) the fact that Rhaenyra lied to her by swearing on her morher’s grave and never even mentioned Criston, 3) the fact that Rhaenyra had the guts to call her “sister” while lying to her face, 4) the fact that her lies resulted in Otto getting fired since Rhaenyra misled Alicent so that she speaks to Viserys in favour of her friend and betraying her own father by siding against him (a decision she wouldn’t have made if she knew the truth), leaving her completely alone and friendless at court, even if he was right all along and finally 5) the fact that Rhaenyra is the most sought after bachelorette in the whole world and by having sex she undermines herself (Rhaenyra knows this well, hence why she denies these accusations) and literally endangers herself, because had she been married to any other man but Laenor and had this man found out his wife and future queen is not a virgin, imagine the fucking horrors she could have been subjected to. Like, I hate to break it to you, but a 40-year-old widow, who’s had four kids and has completed her duty to the point where she is actually no longer needed and could leave the palace to go live the rest of her life in peace somewhere else and no one would notice her absence (literally though, she has birthed heirs, her husband is dead, her son is a grown adult king, her job is done there), having sex, is not the same as an 18-year-old princess and future heir in her prime, whose purity is linked to her worth, getting caught drunk in a brothel, hooking up with her uncle and losing her virginity to her guard, all in one night. Viserys himself was outraged. There’s lows and then there’s lows, y’all.

By the way, the crazy assumptions that Alicent has been cheating on Viserys with Criston for a while now need to stop. When Olivia Cooke said that they had filmed a messy sex scene with Fabien Frankel in a recent interview, she never said this was for S1 of HOTD. I don’t know where y’all got that from, but even if it was true, that scene has been scrapped so it is not canon. And don’t make me laugh about Daeron, a dragon rider who canonically has Valyrian features, potentially having brown hair. You’re all so blinded by your hatred for Alicent that you want her to be a lying hypocrite in order to make yourselves feel better about Rhaenyra’s mishaps, that you don’t get that the whole point of her and Criston getting physical is that she is a tortured woman who is finally able to break free, not that she has been a hypocrite all along. You’re heavily misunderstanding her arc.

Finally, when it comes to my good man Criston, y’all have lost it completely. No, Alicent is not raping him, unless he tells her to stop and she closes the door behind her like Rhaenyra did that is. No, Criston did not lie about how important his honour is to him. There’s a whole article on how Clare Kilner, the director of E4 S1, decided that Cole removing his armour slowly was necessary because it symbolises his inner conflict and uncertainty over breaking his vow: should he soil his cloak for the sake of the woman he loves? And he does soil it, because he thinks she loves him back. But that honourable man dies the day Rhaenyra tells him that he’ll never be anything more than a side piece to her. This man stops giving a flying fuck about his honour, oath, position and life. He is trying to kill himself. And you know what stops him? Alicent. Alicent is the only thing between him and death, the only person to show him kindness and understanding, to pull him up from the lowest point in his life. I don’t think you heard Alicent in E7 S1: “No, you’re sworn to me!”. Y’all. His life is hers. He doesn’t care about Rhaenyra, his job, Viserys, anyone else at this point. Only Alicent exists in his mind, Fabien himself has said time and time again that his loyalty to her is unwavering. He only exists for Alicent’s sake. He’s who you wish Daemon was. Crying that “Criston is a bad knight and a liar because he broke his chastity oath yet again!” is so pointless because that knight has been dead since Rhaenyra’s marriage to Laenor. What does an oath mean when you find out the people you swore it to have betrayed you? Why should he keep his promise to the people who abused him?

[generallemarc]

TvTropes got a key part of Metaphor Refantazio wrong.

More's novel isn't supposed to be an overly rosy interpretation of our world for the sake of casting him as being too idealistic from the past. In fact, writing off the novel like that shoots down the central theme of the entire story in how powerful fantasy is. To a feudalistic monarchy where what little potential for social/economic mobility(which are always one and the same) exists is decided nearly entirely at birth by a person's race, is a 21st century first-world democracy not a utopia of boundless freedom and possibility? Democracy, trial by jury, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press-forget Euchronia, even in our world such things would have been borderline incomprehensible to someone living in feudal Japan or Europe, and those societies didn't have a race-based caste system that puts even India(well, modern India anyway) to shame on top of all the other feudalistic woes. Our world is objectively better than that of the game and MAJOR GAME SPOILERS BELOW

because our world is the past of Euchronia, this means that, regardless of how hard the people who wrote this tvtropes page want to push their weird agenda of liking the past being bad or whatever, the past that More wrote about is objectively better than the present day situation in Euchronia, and almost everything the protagonist and the party do after defeating Louis is in service to bringing Euchronica closer and closer to the way the world was before it ended, where people could govern themselves, slavery was considered abominable, and all were equal under the law. Yeah, More's version of our world is utopic in the sense that he leaves out, intentionally or otherwise, the fact that we still have problems, that just because we don't have the caste system from hell that Euchronia does doesn't mean that we have literally zero discrimination whatsoever. But this feeds into, again, the central point of the whole story: the power of fantasy. More's idealized version of our world isn't just meant to inspire the readers of his novel, it's meant to inspire us, the true seekers. It's meant to show us how amazing our world would look to someone in a world like Euchronia, to help us see how many things we take for granted, and how many things can still be improved.

Tl;dr-in Metaphor Refantazio the past was objectively better than the present and TvTropes is dumb for trying to twist things to portray More's flaw as being that he puts too much value on the past instead of his real flaw which is the exact opposite-that he gave up on his ideals of bringing back all the wonderful things we in the present, and their past, had, and that later he tried to escape into a lotus-eater-construct version of the past that didn't actually exist rather than commit to trying to bring it back for real because that commitment comes with risk and fear.

[kaleido-write]

Also it's so sad when you realize hateful movement are linked to lack of knowledge and a lack of basic empathy

So even if they say it's to help someone it's really just to have power over them or have a higher ground .

Theses are really interesting and show how hate will negatively influence someone whole behavior and brain in a way that keeps them from having empathy nor see as human someone they dislike , hence why they will resort to fake debate tactics, dehumanization tactics in order to make themselves feel better in a situation that challenge their empathy.

I've been very lucky to at a very young age develop a special interest in sociology, neurology and psychology. The importance of a well built society based on love and understanding is more than vital especially when you see stuff like in Afghanistan, Gaza and the whole conservative shift the world had .

I was lucky to realize that behavioral pattern young and to absolutely go against it . I litteraly rewired my understanding and approach toward people so I could be open minded and a safe space

And by open mindness i don't mean blind following , but i acknowledge that people from minorities that i am not a part from will likely know better than me , I acknowledge that as long as something doesn't hurt anyone then that people should be free of doing so .

Sometimes the responsibility fall onto the system entirely (patriarchy, christianism ect)

But sometimes people will blame a community for an individuals error (trans , queer , ect)

And it often happen when it's identity wise and not about something inherently white nor predominantly white (see patriarchy and Christianism) and when it's about theses identities people will often accuse a "mob" mentality or "cult like" mentality without truly knowing what they mean by that , because they will accuse people cheering and encouraging someone to discover themselves in a way that is self serving and is a huge evolution as indoctrination , because big change and evolution and the unknown is scary to humans (see xenophobia , its not the best example but it's a vulgarisation of my point) especially to thoses who never experienced it nor are scared to do so

They will then accuse of no freedom of discussion/speech , wich is often a complaint made after disingenuous questioning , such as conversation about drag queens and gender neutral bathroom, probably the most controversial of all too , queer kids , they will assume that queerness is behavioral . When sex , gender and all types of attraction are a spectrum (and yes while you as an individual you may be fixed on your identity someone else's may be probably fluid)

But the real cult like mentality lies in heavy conservatism wich is often found in correlation with religion and hate movement , because theses do not challenges you to change and be better everyday , it make you comfortable in hateful ways and while yes this might be a certain comfort you seek is it really worth sacrificing someone well being and humanity ?

[noxofspades]

Appreciating+analyzing Brokeback Mountain's first tent scene for it's 18th anniversary

It’s been 18 years since Ang Lee used his familarity of repression from his culture to bring Brokeback Mountain to life. Starring legendary actor, Heath Ledger, and his co-star, best friend + the godfather of his child, Jake Gyllenhaal.

And i want to show appreciation to the first tent scene. It’s the most famous scene along with Jack’s final speech. I guarantee that most non-viewer knows about either one or both of these. And while this sex scene is very impactful and a few ppl also like this scene, it's usually met with two types of reactions. First, plain homophobia. Like when ppl just immediately left the theatre, outraged or disgusted.

Ppl made parodies about this, and there was a trend of ppl showing someone this scene out of context and enjoy the shocked, horrified or disgusted reaction

On the flip side, there’s the ppl who loves+appreciates this film but has valid criticisms about this scene. It’s not realistic when it comes to prep. There’s the beans thing (even though Jack threw a whole tantrum about hating to eat this, so Ennis had to give him alternatives like hunting elk+getting soup).either way, that beans aspect is something ppl can't look past,therefore can't take seriously. This scene is too rough for some, too short for others. Or it feels really sanitized to them.

I see all of these points. I actually disliked this scene as well on my first watch when i was a young teen.However, as i grew older and i rewatched this film a few times, i developed a huge appreciation for this scene. i geninuely love this now. And coming from an aro/ace person, this one of my favorite scenes in cinema. And here's why...

We know that Ennis is a virgin from the ‘sinner’ talk. And later on, you get the details of Ennis' trauma from being forced to see the horrific aftermath of a hate crime. So growing up, as he went through puberty…i don’t think he let himself fantasize about guy. And also, his parents were methodists, so add religion in his childhood.

So this isn’t only about him giving into his lust for Jack, this is about struggling with all these repressed emotions of fear, shame. He grew up, being denied the most simple pleasure of life. So this isn’t just about this sexual release, it’s a huge, shattering emotional release as well.

And putting all this together, this backstory is the reason why this scene is vital. I highly doubt that with all this repression+trauma, that Ennis would make any kind of move, romantic or sexual. Heck, i don’t even think he was fully aware of his feelings until this moment. It implied in the short story that even though he doesn’t know why he’s so happy around Jack, he could still just palm the white of the moon.

So i believe this is the only way he could face not only his lust, but his emotions. Having Jack being aroused and explicitly state with his actions how much he wanted this

This being THE MOMENT where Ennis could experience true freedom. Let the restraints go and just vulnerable with another person. And i think it being it at night, in the dark helped give him that extra courage.And because of all the pent up lust went with his emotions, he just lost control at the sound of the belt unbuckle and just roughly took Jack on the spot.

I like how this subverts my expectation. Jack is the impulsive, extroverted and bold one. And also, i'm used to scenes where when someone is hesitant or really scared to be intimate with someone, they are usually soothed and they will slowly let themself experience pleasure. But instead, Ennis is overcome with lust, and fully takes over.

And the moments after Jack is pushed down just gets me. You hear tiny little noises of excitement from him, cuz the shy, reserved man he knew suddenly shoved him down, shaking hard from lust+impatience. And he is just waiting, while Ennis is rushing to undo his pants then practically rips off Jack's . No pleasantries, nothing, just does him raw. Is this ideal in real life? Hell no. But as a fantastical concept, i find that incredibly hot. I may not find ppl sexually attractive, but i appreciate a spicy scenario, as long as i’m not involved.

And i appreciate the film not framing the loss of Ennis' virginity as comedic or even victorious, like a prize he finally won. I often see this in media with male characters having sex for the first time. This, while abrupt, is still taken seriously. Ennis is really clumsy, and even though he’s doing the work, he’s not the one in control. He is barely hanging on, really overwhelmed by all these new sensations. The surprise, the bliss and no matter how hard he tried he couldn’t last long. The way he pressed his forehead onto Jack’s back as the orgasmic sensations abruptly hits him.

And Jack aggressively slamming on the tent floor when the release hits him. Iconic. Apparently, Jake G added that in, which shocked Ang lee in a good way. And yeah, that definitely adds to the level of intensity that this whole scene built up to.

And there’s also this brief scene i like where the two, especially Ennis, is just WIPED OUT. And while a part of me wondered why it’d be like if this scene lasted longer, I think it also really adds to the intensity of Ennis’ experience. The physical and the emotional release is so monumental for him that not only he wasn't able to last long, it also just shattered every ounce of his physical energy.

And i like how it didn’t linger on the afterglow. It’s a quick cut to the outside shot of their tent, as you still hear their panting. I liked this because it emphasizes how this was truly impulsive this act was. How desperate they were to just feel each other that they even couldn’t utter a single word. And they couldn't even take the time to fully undress or enjoy each other's bodies yet. This was just instinctive and animalistic.

And it's the fact that there's no music, and it's all shot close up, alternating from Jack+Ennis that makes it feel more authentic. To me, it doesn't feel staged, and that again, just adds so much.

And i love the contrast between this and the second tent scene. Ennis surrenders in both but has different reactions. Because of the overwhelming lust+emotions, this moment is rushed.

But after struggling to process that he found so much freedom+pleasure in something society deems immoral, he gives into his desires and enters the tent. Now since the physical barrier has been crossed, and the pent up lust is satiated, he is forced to face his emotions. And allow Jack to fully see him the most vulnerable he's ever been. The way he clutches his hat like a shield and struggles to make eye contact.

The way Jack sees all this and responds with so much tenderness. How he kissed him, whispers reassurances and cradles him. And Ennis feels safe enough to properly enjoy Jack's body. And feel his chest. That soft kiss he plants a moment later. Just gives me so many butterflies.

On the first watch, it's really sad to see Ennis so scared. But on a rewatch, when you know the details of his trauma. Soul-shattering. You fully realize how much he needed to be soothed +held like this😭😭

And then i found this great website, Brokeback Mountain Love Scene Tent – Book & Movie Library (whythebookwins.com)

where it talks about the symbolism of the nature+ tent. I love how it points out how nature is their silent witness. Whether it’s for their frantic first time, or more tender ones that happen later on. And how the tent is so confined, which reflects Jack+Ennis’ relationship. Because of our cruel society, they had to hide their love+vulnerability from the world. And because of Ennis’ trauma and internal struggle, it’s only this tent on Brokeback Mountain, that is truly becomes their only safe haven.

Heath+Jake did fantastic in both of these scenes. Especially the first one. I'm glad that there were proper measures to make sure these two were very comfortable and they weren't exploited in any way.

[theculturedmarxist]

Our civilization is sick because all its systems ensure that human behavior is driven by profit, and health isn’t profitable. Nobody gets rich from everyone staying healthy all the time. The gears of capitalism will still keep turning if its populace is made shallow and dull by bad education and crappy art made for profit. Billionaires aren’t made by leaving forests and oceans unmolested, consuming less, mining less, drilling less, using less energy. The economy doesn’t soar when the world is at peace and nations are working together in harmony.

If you programmed an advanced AI to arrange human behavior solely around extracting the maximum amount of profit possible using existing technologies, its world wouldn’t look a whole lot different from the real one. We’re being guided by unthinking, unfeeling systems that don’t care about the good of our minds, our hearts, our health, or our biosphere, which will sacrifice all of the above to accomplish the one goal we’ve set them to accomplish.

It’s just a dogshit way to run a civilization. It doesn’t work. It’s left us with a dying world full of crazy morons hurtling toward nuclear armageddon on multiple fronts. Our systems have failed as spectacularly as anything can fail.

It’s simple really: we settled for capitalism as the status quo system because it’s an efficient way to churn out a lot of stuff and create a lot of wealth, but now we’re churning out too much stuff too quickly and society is enslaved by the wealthy. So now new systems are needed.

❖

So much of modern political life consists of the ruling class tricking the public into trading away things the ruling class values in exchange for things the ruling class does not value. Trading revolution for the feeling of being revolutionary. Trading actual freedom and democracy for the story of having freedom and democracy. Trading away the civil rights our rulers actually care about like unrestricted speech and freedom from surveillance in exchange for culture wars about racism and transphobia. Trading real labor for imaginary money. In every way possible we’re being duped into trading away real power for empty narrative fluff.

❖

One part of the problem is that in this mind-controlled dystopia people are prevented from knowing how deeply evil their government is, so the idea of their government surveilling them and regulating their speech and their access to information doesn’t scare them like it should.

This is why it annoys me when people say “Stop talking about the problems, we need to talk about solutions!” It’s like mate, we’re so far from ever being able to implement solutions — we haven’t even gotten to a point where a significant number of people know the problems exist. Step one is spreading awareness of the problems and their sources, because nobody’s going to turn and fight an enemy who they still believe is their friend. Systemic solutions are pretty far down the track from that point.

❖

It’s a pretty well-established fact by now that free will doesn’t exist nearly to the extent that most religions, philosophies and judicial systems pretend it does. Our minds are very hackable and propaganda is very effective. If you don’t get this, you don’t understand the problem.

Do a deep dive into cognitive biases and how they operate. Look into the research which shows our brains know what decisions we’re going to make several seconds before the conscious mind thinks we’re making them. You’re going to tell me these are organisms with free agency?

In order to understand what we’re up against you have to understand psychological manipulation, how effective it is, and why it works, because mass-scale psychological manipulation is the primary force preventing the public from turning against our rulers in our own interest.

❖

It seems like a lot of the inertia and self-defeating hopelessness that people have about fighting the machine comes from knowing the political awakenings of the sixties fizzled out, but I don’t think that would be the case if people understood just how much hard work the machine had to put into making them fizzle.

I mean, we all get that the death of activist movements didn’t just happen on its own, right? We all know about COINTELPRO? Known instances where one out of every six activists was actually a federal infiltrator? The roll-out of the most sophisticated propaganda machine that has ever existed?

The amount of energy the western empire has poured into killing all leftist and antiwar movement is staggering, but people just think the acid wore off and the hippies turned into yuppies and the Reagan administration happened on its own. It didn’t. They had to work hard at that.

The revolution didn’t organically fizzle out, it was actively strangled to death. And what’s left in its place is this defeatist attitude where people want a healthy society but believe it can’t be attained, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We COINTELPRO ourselves now.

People think we can’t use the power of our numbers to force the emergence of a healthy society, and we don’t deserve one because we dropped the ball. But we didn’t knowingly drop the ball, we were manipulated out of it. And the manipulators had to work very, very hard to do so. Those movements died out because the machine understood very clearly that it needed to stomp them out with extreme aggression and knew exactly what it needed to do to accomplish this, while ordinary people did not. It’s not a fair fight if only one party knows it’s a fight.

The machine won one battle and everyone’s acting like they won the war. They didn’t. We can absolutely pick up the fight again, and we can overwhelm them with our numbers. If we had any idea how hard they had to work to win that one battle, this would be clear to everybody.

[dragoneyes618]

When asymmetrical warfare is discussed, the focus is usually what happens on the battlefield. So, for instance, when the Viet Cong snuck out of the jungle to attack Americans or when Hamas terrorists leave their tunnels to shoot at Israeli troops or hide their weapons while they pretend to be innocent civilians, the battlefield is the subject of unequal or asymmetric warfare. But I want to discuss some other aspects of the asymmetries – the inequalities – in the current Gaza/Hamas war against Israel. These asymmetries are essential parts of the situation and culture of each combatant and so they appear off the battlefield rather than on it.

First, there is a striking asymmetry in numbers of people aligned with each side. There are only approximately seventeen million Jews in the world today and only one Jewish majority country. There are about six-and-a-half to seven million Jews in the U.S., about seven to seven-and-a-half million in Israel, and the rest are scattered around the world, with the largest concentrations of Jews being in France, the English-speaking countries, and then in smaller pockets throughout the world, including Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, and elsewhere. There are, however, approximately four hundred million Arabs in the world and approximately two billion (with a B) Muslims in the world, and fifty-two Muslim majority countries.

Those numbers matter not only regarding the ability of Israel to raise the money and troops to fight in its defense, but also because Israel’s enemies do not ever have to work hard to obtain a majority in the United Nations and to vote along religious-ethnic lines. Add to the Muslim countries in the United Nations the Russian and Chinese allies and puppets like Tajikistan and Khazakstan, and the “post-colonial” sewers that fester under ideologies of hatred of Western civilization, hatred of democracy, and hatred of Israel’s ally, the U.S. – countries like Myanmar, South Africa, Nicaragua, Malawi, and Chad. When Israel-haters and Jew-haters say that the whole world hates Israel, they are partly correct because most of the world lives under nasty regimes that have no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no free press, and no fair and free elections. The pressure of that asymmetry of numbers is always upon us.

Besides the asymmetry between Israel and much of the rest of the world because Israel is a liberal democracy, with its many freedoms, the contrast becomes even more stark with Gaza/Hamas. Even while at war, Israeli politicians are squabbling and posturing, Israeli newspapers are attacking the government’s policies and conduct of the war, reporters are exposing flaws in governmental operations, and people are “leaking” news to reporters so that there is a vast array of negative information, as well as positive information, about the Israeli leadership even during the war. In Israel even now there are public demonstrations against certain government policies. Contrast that with Gaza/Hamas which is a theocratic dictatorship run by an armed group that took power in 2006 and has never held another election. Because it is a dictatorship, there is no opposition party to challenge Hamas or to point to its flaws. Because Gaza/Hamas is a dictatorship, there are no newspapers whose editorial stance is to challenge the government’s policies or to advocate that the government take better care of its citizens. Because it is a dictatorship, there are no public discussions of policy, no demonstrations, no public admissions that mistakes have been made, no acknowledgement that the Gaza/Hamas government has ever done anything wrong.

Hamas does not have to respond or explain why they use the population of Gaza as they do because no one questions Hamas. When Israel makes a mistake or does something untoward, it is on the front page of every newspaper in the world. When Hamas shoots its own civilians, rapes, tortures, or murders a hostage in a tunnel, or steals money or other international aid intended for the population, it is a secret. While all of Israel’s imperfections are exposed, very few of Hamas’ are.

There is also an asymmetry in the conception of time that the combatants have. Because Israel is a democracy, its leaders have to respond to the public and respond to them at relatively frequent intervals. Politicians in democratic countries are usually focused on the next election in a year, or two or three. That conception of time as being related to the next election tends to make for short-range planning and pleasing the electorate now. That may be as much a problem for Israel’s most important ally, the United States, as it is for Israel. In a theocratic dictatorship with no elections, such as Hamas and such as Hamas’ major ally, Iran, which bars most opposition candidates from running for office, satisfying voters is simply not an issue. Hamas and Iran plan for the long term, free from any concern about what the citizens want.

Israel largely has to finance its own wars, although it does receive significant aid from the United States. That financing largely comes from internal taxation and some import duties. Israelis pay income taxes and a high “value-added tax” (VAT) to defend our country and provide necessary services such as schools and medical care. That is significantly different than Hamas/Gaza, which finances its war with money from Iran, Qatar, UNRWA, Syria, and Russia. Iran’s interest, like Hamas’, is in destroying Israel and killing all the Jews. Qatar largely shares that interest. Russia wants to embarrass the United States and have more influence in the Arab world. UNRWA, besides giving fake “refugee” status to third- and fourth-generation descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948, 1967, and at other times, teaches hatred of Jews and of Israel in its schools, gives “day jobs” to Hamas operatives and their family members so that Hamas does not have to pay their operatives a living wage, and provides schools and clinics which also sometimes double as Hamas weapons storage facilities, command centers, barracks, and entrances to the Hamas tunnels. By providing these schools and clinics, UNRWA relieves Hamas of what would ordinarily be the governmental responsibility of building and operating schools and clinics for Gazans. The “international community” thereby frees Hamas from having to pay for ordinary government services and allows Hamas to spend more on making war on Israel.

Last, and perhaps most important of all the asymmetries between the combatants, is their ideologies. Israel wants to live in peace and security inside her current borders. If Israel had that result, it would be the end of the almost constant warfare that Israel has suffered these last seventy-six years. Hamas, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Houthis, and other governments and quasi-governments want to kill all the Jews in the Middle East or, at least, expel all the Jews from the Middle East. They are not interested in peace. They will, at times, consider a truce or a ceasefire for strategic reasons, but not real, lasting peace. Different authorities in the field give different reasons for Arab and Muslim hatred of Jews and the little Jewish state (which Arabs and others try to disguise as “anti-Zionism”). One authority argues that because of their different value system, most Arabs do not believe in living together with other groups in peace and harmony but rather they believe that a group must either dominate or be dominated, oppress or be oppressed. They believe that Israel has dominated and oppressed but that they can right that wrong.

Another authority has contended that in Muslim doctrine, land has a character and that once it is conquered by Muslims, as Israel was in the seventh century, it always retains the character of Muslim land. Other thinkers in the field urge the simple religious explanation for the Arab hatred of Jews and unwillingness to live in peace with us: that Muslims believe that they have received the final word and prophecy as revealed by Mohammed and that we Jews have come to Israel, humiliated them in war, built a nation far more prosperous than any of theirs (at least until the extraction of large amounts of oil in some Arab countries), and have openly and explicitly rejected their prophet and their god. The one thing that is clear is that it is not about “Palestine,” a little corner of the world smaller than many American counties.

Despite those asymmetries between the combatants, there is one more that matters – an asymmetry that weighs very heavily in Israel’s favor. In all the polls and surveys of “happiness” by country, Israel consistently ranks as having a very happy population, much more so than any Arab or Muslim country. It is surely not because of material prosperity that Israelis feel this way. Most Israelis care about the land, about each other, about the fate of the Jewish people, and about Jewish tradition. I suspect that even many secular Israelis, deep in the recesses of their thoughts, no matter their outward protestations, believe that a benevolent G-d watches over the world and over us. What else could explain the happiness of a people constantly under threat, woefully outgunned and outnumbered in a hostile world?

So we will go on as well as we can. We have always faced asymmetries like these throughout our history. We have always been a comparatively small people, a people who had to make our way in a hostile world, a people who had to struggle to survive. We have gotten through these crises before, even if it has been painful to do so. We will get through this one also. Am Yisrael Chai.

[beevean]

Cecile to Annette: Your life has always centered around slavery

Shrodinger's writing: it's simultaneoulsy aware and unaware of having created a one dimensional character

Cecile has gotta be one of the most bruh characters in the whole show, she literally chastizes Annette for acting all superior towards Richter and ignoring his traumas while at the same time literally saying that people like him cannot understand the trauma that slaves like them have suffered and they wouldn't care either way

It honest to God feels like someone jerked the pen from the writer's hand and added stuff of their own after the fact

Cecile's speech to Annette is the stuff of wonders. I need to copypaste it because I dare you to analyze it and make sense of it:

Annette: The Belmont boy turned out to be useless as fuck. He literally ran away. Ran. Away. Cecile: Everyone starts by running away, Annette. Annette: What? That is completely different. How can you possibly compare that? I came here for guidance. I thought I'd seen the worst evil the world could hold. But here, it's been growing roots for centuries. And this Vampire Messiah, she's older still. Cecile: Your power is old too, Annette. Annette: If these are my ancestors, Cecile, they're just a babble. Noise. They are no match for some ancient Egyptian Devil-God. Cecile: They're only a babble because you're not listening. You were shaped, Annette. Everything about you, by being born a slave. Of course you were. It's the source of your fury, but it's not the source of your power. They like to tell you, these petty devils like the Comte de Vaublanc, that slavery is just the way of the world. It's what people do. And you can look around and think, oh, maybe they're right. Evil, violence, and oppression everywhere. Even these French with their high ideals. What do they know about what we've suffered? And what do they care? They'll build their new world, but it won't be freedom or equality or brotherhood for us. If they build it at all. But they know it's not true, Annette. The petty devils. It serves them if we believe it. But humanity didn't enter this world dragging armies of slaves. That came later. And your ancestors. Of course I mean your mother, who loved you. And your father, who was dragged from her by men with whips. And your grandmother, who watched the ships sail, weeping and pulling her hair. But they go back. Beyond them and beyond them. Back to the source. To the Iwa of Ogun. And a world without slaves or masters. Learn to hear your ancestors. There is light in this darkness.

How did she transition from "please have more empathy for Richter, you two suffered a similar trauma" to "THOSE STUPID FRENCHIES WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND US, WE WILL BREAK FREE OF OUR CHAINS"? Like, what is her point at the end of it all? Because what I get is "don't be angry at Richter, but you are right in being angry because you are a slave".

Speaking of which, I love it. "You were shaped, Annette. Everything about you, by being born a slave." You know, it's one thing when fans call a character monodimensional, but to have the writing itself come and admit it? Bold move, I must say. Could we say this writing is... ahem... Wildly Inconsistent™? ;)

I am forced to concede the fans' point and admit that N!Isaac was written better in this regard. He didn't go around shouting "I am Black the Man!", but he told us, and one scene showed us, that the color of his skin lead him to being hunted and dehumanized, which made him bitter. Say what you want about the unfortunate implications of him being a Muslim devil-worshipper who believes he has to kill humans to purify the world, and say what you want about him being a grand pretentious cunt, but he does have a personality, however unlikable, that goes beyond his race and religion, even in S2 where he was at his flattest.

N!Annette, canonically, begins and ends at "angry ex-slave". There is nothing more about her. That's all she is allowed to be, except forced moments like her being forcibly shipped with Richter. The narrative won't even challenge her when her anger leads her to commit serious mistakes, because god forbid we show her being in the wrong. You have to find her cool, and she is cool because she is the Angry Ex- Slave.

[help-help-i-need-an-adult]

I might appreciate Memorial Day more

If I didn’t start the weekend by performing at a Memorial Day service

Where I had to sit quietly and listen to a man, who passed laws denying trans kids health care, talk about the soldiers who gave their lives to guarantee freedom “for all people”

Apparently, not trans kids

And probably not the trans woman my brother served with either, if this man got his way

Where I’m expected to stand for prayer after prayer to the christian god

So apparently not pagans or people of other religions either. Could have at least invited a rabbi or something to diversify it a little? I wouldn’t mind standing so much then.

I go because I honestly believe those kids who died fighting in conflicts caused by the rich and powerful deserve to be remembered and honored. Their death didn’t have to happen, but it did.

And if adding my voice to 2 songs helps give them some crumb of the respect they deserve for that, then cool. I’ll go sit in the hot sun and try not to be too upset at the politicians who’s words feel like a slap

I listen to an old bell ring as each of this past year’s deaths are read out

But as a trans pagan sitting quietly waiting for my cue to sing

I can’t help but think the rich powerful man giving the speech about the dead soldier’s sacrifice shouldn’t be there

But he always is because he is rich and powerful and holds office

3 years now I’ve sat and listened to that man talk about things his policies don’t uphold. Things he admits he, and people like him, convince our kids to go out and die trying to protect

And then I go home and watch people party. My part of the city gets particularly rowdy with block parties and people flooding in from all over for the events and spectacles.

They play loud music into the night

They watch a race and don’t even flinch on how bad the event must be for the environment

They grill out and play silly games

And I sit quietly at home with the paper poppy I was given to wear at the service thinking I’m lucky that my grandfather, cousin, and brother all came back

I think about how my brother would still fight to protect me if it came to that and it very well may because of that rich and powerful man

I think of how lucky my family is that none of my uncles got sent out at one point, barely squeaking by as too young for the draft back in the 60’s and 70’s

I spend it this way not because how others do is “wrong” but because I’m an introvert and the ceremony I sing at exhausts me. Listening to the rich powerful man who thinks kids like me shouldn’t exist exhausts me. Hearing my neighbors around me exhausts me. And so I prefer to stay inside where the noise is slightly muted.

Because with the state of our freedom, it doesn’t feel sincere

It should feel like a feast in Valhalla, but it doesn’t. Not to me.

And I wonder how the gold star families spend this day. How they feel. Do they celebrate or mourn? Both?

Do they listen to the rich powerful man’s speech and silently fume like I do?

Do they think their dead kid deserves more than a half packed service on a Friday afternoon?

Are the speeches and Christian centric prayers and wreaths and horses and bells and chair enough for them?

Do they have a trans kid their loved one died for who isn’t being protected despite that sacrifice?

I look into the audience and see several BIPOC families. Are they angry because they aren’t being protected either despite their loved ones death in trying to ensure their safety and freedom?

Idk. I don’t have the answers to any of this.

I struggle to appreciate Memorial Day as it is

The whole weekend paralyzes me

It should be more and less. Backed up by good laws and less bigotry and genocide

But I go. And I sing.

And I sit quietly at home praying to my gods that next year will feel less like an insult to the dead

[keyboardsmashorsomething]

@templeofvengeance

First, just to get this out of the way, this is all purely hypothetical. Any bingos or almost-bingos that I happen to get or don’t get do not constitute any kind of further obligation to any parties involved. The act of filling this out does not automatically imply interest in any job opportunities that may or may not be open. Okay? Good. Now that that’s out of the way, here’s my bingo sheet.

Detailed breakdown of all the squares (because I’m nothing if not thorough) under the cut.

Prior combat experience: I took a couple of weeks of archery lessons. I’m a terrible shot, but I guess I technically know how to use a weapon. The “technically” in that sentence is carrying a lot of weight.

Willing to commit murder: Never know until you try, right? First time for everything? (For legal reasons this is a joke)

Swear to protect the travelers of the night: Yeah. That’s an important job.

~*Dramatic*~: I’m like the least dramatic person ever. Also, what are the asterisks and tildes for?

Will follow orders: Look, blame my PDA profile or whatever it’s called. Not me.

Trauma: No idea what counts as trauma. Honestly, probably. My therapist says I have most of the signs of childhood trauma. But I remain convinced that because I wasn’t almost eaten by lions or something that I can’t have trauma.

Speaks multiple languages: I took two years of Spanish in high school? That I forgot most of? Yeah, that probably doesn’t count.

No prior religion/would pray to an Egyptian god anyway: I grew up atheist. No idea what I am now, but not someone who cares a whole lot about hard restrictions.

Willing to look crazy in public: Brother, I do this part all on my own, without your help or any god really. (I have so many stories) (No, you don’t need to hear them)

ANGRY: Anger is best emotion <3

Likes the moon: Moon = cool.

Vigilante vibes: What does that even mean?

Few family or friends: No friends. Plenty of family members, but no one I care a lot about I guess. I don’t know how you’re supposed to feel about your family.

Had an Ancient Egypt phase: Who didn’t?

Dislike of other gods: Nope, sorry. Hephaestus they could never make me hate you.

Likes alcohol: Smells terrible. Plus, I don’t need my brain more messed up than it already is.

Likes to travel: No. (I don’t like staying home either, but that’s entirely beside the point)

Knows how to make offerings/willing to learn: During my religious crisis (which is probably ongoing and I’m just repressing it) I dabbled in paganism for a bit. Didn’t stick, but I remember how to do offerings.

Believes in revenge: Very much so.

Belief in ghosts/supernatural: I won’t say I’m a hardcore believer, but I’m fairly open-minded

Talkative: Nope. Like, at all.

Loyal: I’m honestly not sure what loyalty encompasses. And I really don’t like most definitions I’ve heard of it.

Calls him by his PROPER NAME: I mean, usually. But freedom of speech is important too. This is my PDA profile leaking through again, isn’t it?

[dogsplayingpoker]

Ok weird it wasn't letting me reblog this properly. Anways hiiiii

I did read it (over a year ago when i reblogged this) and that isn't what I said, or my criticism of his point and, overall, the neo-liberal ancient-contemporary comparative perspective that Devereaux is routinely writing these articles in. It would be silly to be fully Pro-Rome, sure, but I'm not really accusing him of that persay. I do still think his general perspective is a silly and factually inaccurate one and disagree with it, so I therefor disagree with the arguments he makes starting from this perspective. In particular, I think that no matter how much he claims to actively be against it, Devereaux and the many historians that follow his same playbook end up: 1. romanticizing (I previously said "admiring," which may have been where we got mixed up) Rome by claiming it was a ghastly horrific slave state (true) while also being unable to help from looking to "the good parts" with a kind of breathless nostalgia, and here, overtly for guidance. This is of course a pretty common issue for classicists, unfortunately, including professors of mine that I've generally really respected. Usually the "good parts" = freedom of religion in occupied territories, civil rights afforded to slaves (+the way that pre-Race slavery functioned differently in general), and exactly what Devereaux says in the title of the article, i.e. their "Notion of authority" being likened, often, to a gentle but firm father figure who knows whats best for his children. It is absolutely hilarious to me how often historians, even ones that claim to have left-wing values, can believe in the noble pater familias rule of the romans with a smile and a tear in their eye. Does anyone else here remember 'the white man's burden'? Did anyone see that weird tucker carlson speech where he talks about daddy coming to spank the disobedient little girl that (assumably?) was supposed to be the Biden government? Anyways. Writers try to isolate only that there was religious self determination (in occupied territories of an expansionist empire), that they Ruled the horrible violent imperial war machine Fairly, and then don't even hide the fumble when they get to the slavery part, proudly saying YEAH, they were ENSLAVED, sure, and that's BAD, BUT........ This all ties into issue two, or the underlying issue:

2. Devereaux is a liberal American historian that is either unable to appreciate the full context of the country he lives in OR is actively obfuscating it AND/OR accepts it and thinks its just peachy outside of a few stubborn issues like police brutality and the like which he thinks can be handled in a vacuum by throwing enough good old fashioned liberal values at them. He fails to view issues from a systemic lens and therefor thinks anything he doesn't like is a weird flaw coming from some outside source. In that article (and I can't find this specific article again on Foreign Policy to pull examples from, I'm sorry) he was trying to 'learn from rome' for the sake of America. Even if he's saying Rome was a heavily flawed society, he is saying our empire can still learn a good thing from their empire. I disagree with that. I disagree with the empires staying empires in the first place, or that empires are things worth saving, or that they're even possible to save. My argument is also that we should actually definitely not look to Ancient Rome for advice on law enforcement, or indeed any of our policies point blank period. I personally think this kind of Rome-USA compare and contrast exercise is always fnny because the writer also never seems to reckon with how much we already, fundamentally, ARE Rome-- in all the worst ways, and in the ways he's claiming we can 'learn' from them. We already have. We've been romanticizing and following in their footsteps very intentionally the whole time, just as others were inspired to follow in ours in a horrific timeline of gore and human atrocities. Devereaux, per his website, is really into classical liberalism, liberal democracies, private property, free-market capitalism, and John Locke. (https://acoup.blog/2024/07/05/collections-the-philosophy-of-liberty-on-liberalism/). We simply have really different perspectives on politics that also inform how we view and would choose to write about things as historians.

I think this quote from that blog post on liberalism is especially funny in context: "And of course Cicero himself never fully absorbs the implications of his philosophy: a wealthy Roman slave-holder, it never occurs to Cicero that perhaps he daily violates the natural law by keeping people in bondage." Devereaux himself never fully absorbs the implications of his philosophy: a white well-to-do professor in an elite seat within American Academia, it never occurs to Devereaux that perhaps he daily violates the individual freedoms of liberalism by rationalizing and hiding away the dark parts of a fundamentally unjust empire relying on the slave labor of prisoners, the indentured servitude of sweatshop workers worldwide, the slaughter and subjugation of millions of in the global south and the underclasses within the empire itself, and the theft and hoarding of the world's resources. But okay. Cicero bad, John Locke good. Got it. My argument would of course be that they are both bad, both equally ignoring the reality of the society they lived in and their places within it. Devereaux is starting his argument from an already catastrophically flawed point of view that forces him to look past things like 'context' whenever it becomes inconvenient. He has to say in the post multiple times that like yeah, sure, Locke's view of who counted as a "person" worthy of having things like "rights" was, um...narrower than ours today, but he was still correct because I like him (and it's totally different from how other people cited, like Cicero, were incorrect hypocrites). Ignore the slavery and colonialism, same old same old, it is still correct and not at all laughable to claim that the United States was a nation formed on a defining principle of inalienable freedoms for every single person. He mentions that those things were obviously bad but doesn't see them as truly conflicting, more as growing pains. He even says the founding father's misogyny and racism (towards the enslaved specifically: indigenous people, and therefore the ACTUAL founding principles of the US colonial empire, go completely unmentioned) "[...] represented betrayals of the principles that otherwise document: the crime was common, the hypocrisy was special." American exceptionalism who? Obviously if he was saying we should instate a more 1:1 ancient roman government that would also be ridiculous. But my point is that he's asking the wrong questions about the society we have and what's wrong with it in the first place. He is often wrong about Rome and near-universally wrong about America.

Despite Sparta’s reputation for superior fighting, Spartan armies were as likely to lose battles as to win them, especially against peer opponents such as other Greek city-states. Sparta defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War—but only by accepting Persian money to do it, reopening the door to Persian influence in the Aegean, which Greek victories at Plataea and Salamis nearly a century early had closed. Famous Spartan victories at Plataea and Mantinea were matched by consequential defeats at Pylos, Arginusae, and ultimately Leuctra. That last defeat at Leuctra, delivered by Thebes a mere 33 years after Sparta’s triumph over Athens, broke the back of Spartan power permanently, reducing Sparta to the status of a second-class power from which it never recovered. Sparta was one of the largest Greek city-states in the classical period, yet it struggled to achieve meaningful political objectives; the result of Spartan arms abroad was mostly failure. Sparta was particularly poor at logistics; while Athens could maintain armies across the Eastern Mediterranean, Sparta repeatedly struggled to keep an army in the field even within Greece. Indeed, Sparta spent the entirety of the initial phase of the Peloponnesian War, the Archidamian War (431-421 B.C.), failing to solve the basic logistical problem of operating long term in Attica, less than 150 miles overland from Sparta and just a few days on foot from the nearest friendly major port and market, Corinth. The Spartans were at best tactically and strategically uncreative. Tactically, Sparta employed the phalanx, a close-order shield and spear formation. But while elements of the hoplite phalanx are often presented in popular culture as uniquely Spartan, the formation and its equipment were common among the Greeks from at least the early fifth century, if not earlier. And beyond the phalanx, the Spartans were not innovators, slow to experiment with new tactics, combined arms, and naval operations. Instead, Spartan leaders consistently tried to solve their military problems with pitched hoplite battles. Spartan efforts to compel friendship by hoplite battle were particularly unsuccessful, as with the failed Spartan efforts to compel Corinth to rejoin the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League by force during the Corinthian War. Sparta’s military mediocrity seems inexplicable given the city-state’s popular reputation as a highly militarized society, but modern scholarship has shown that this, too, is mostly a mirage. The agoge, Sparta’s rearing system for citizen boys, frequently represented in popular culture as akin to an intense military bootcamp, in fact included no arms training or military drills and was primarily designed to instill obedience and conformity rather than skill at arms or tactics. In order to instill that obedience, the older boys were encouraged to police the younger boys with violence, with the result that even in adulthood Spartan citizens were liable to settle disputes with their fists, a tendency that predictably made them poor diplomats. But while Sparta’s military performance was merely mediocre, no better or worse than its Greek neighbors, Spartan politics makes it an exceptionally bad example for citizens or soldiers in a modern free society. Modern scholars continue to debate the degree to which ancient Sparta exercised a unique tyranny of the state over the lives of individual Spartan citizens. However, the Spartan citizenry represented only a tiny minority of people in Sparta, likely never more than 15 percent, including women of citizen status (who could not vote or hold office). Instead, the vast majority of people in Sparta, between 65 and 85 percent, were enslaved helots. (The remainder of the population was confined to Sparta’s bewildering array of noncitizen underclasses.) The figure is staggering, far higher than any other ancient Mediterranean state or, for instance, the antebellum American South, rightly termed a slave society with a third of its people enslaved.

[omegaphilosophia]

Collectivism vs. Liberalism

Collectivism and liberalism often conflict because they represent opposing views on the relationship between the individual and the group, the role of government, and the value of personal freedom versus societal welfare.

Key Points of Conflict:

Individual Rights vs. Collective Good:

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and personal freedoms, advocating for minimal restrictions on personal autonomy. It values the individual's right to pursue their own goals, make their own choices, and enjoy personal liberties like freedom of speech, religion, and expression.

Collectivism prioritizes the well-being of the group or society as a whole, often advocating for policies that subordinate individual desires to the greater good. This can lead to limitations on personal freedom if it is seen as necessary to achieve social harmony or equality.

The conflict arises when liberal principles of individual freedom clash with collectivist goals of prioritizing the common welfare, leading to debates over issues like state intervention, wealth redistribution, and personal autonomy.

Role of the State:

Liberalism, particularly in its classical form, promotes a limited role for the state, focusing on protecting individual rights and allowing people to make their own choices with minimal government interference.

Collectivism often advocates for a strong state or community-driven initiatives to ensure social equality, distribute resources fairly, and achieve collective goals. This can involve significant state intervention in the economy, social life, and even personal choices, which liberals may see as an overreach.

The tension lies in the collectivist view that the state should actively manage and direct society for the collective good, while liberals tend to see such state control as an infringement on personal liberty and market freedom.

Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality:

Liberalism, especially in its classical and neoliberal forms, supports economic freedom, advocating for free markets, competition, and individual entrepreneurship. It often opposes heavy regulation or wealth redistribution, believing that individuals should have the freedom to succeed or fail based on their own efforts.

Collectivism seeks economic equality, often supporting policies like wealth redistribution, social welfare programs, and collective ownership of resources. From this perspective, economic inequalities harm social cohesion, and state intervention is necessary to ensure fairness.

The conflict centers on whether economic freedom or economic equality should take priority. Liberals argue that free markets and individual entrepreneurship drive progress and innovation, while collectivists argue that unchecked economic freedom exacerbates inequality and harms the social fabric.

Autonomy vs. Social Obligation:

Liberalism emphasizes individual autonomy, where people are primarily responsible for their own lives, choices, and achievements. It values the right of individuals to pursue their own interests, even if those interests do not align with the goals of the community.

Collectivism stresses social obligations, where individuals have a duty to contribute to the common good and prioritize the well-being of others in the community. This often involves a shared responsibility to care for those less fortunate and ensure everyone has access to basic resources.

This creates a conflict when liberal values of personal autonomy and self-interest come up against collectivist demands for solidarity, cooperation, and the sacrifice of individual goals for the collective.

Pluralism vs. Uniformity:

Liberalism tends to support pluralism, valuing diversity in opinions, lifestyles, and beliefs, and defending the right of individuals to live according to their own values.

Collectivism, especially in more rigid forms, can emphasize uniformity in the pursuit of collective goals, which may involve suppressing dissent or alternative viewpoints that are seen as disruptive to social cohesion or unity.

This conflict is evident in situations where collectivist societies or movements prioritize the collective vision over individual expressions of difference, which liberals view as a violation of personal freedom and pluralism.

Community vs. Individual Responsibility:

In liberalism, the individual is seen as responsible for their own success, happiness, and well-being. Personal responsibility is a key tenet, with the belief that individuals should have the freedom to determine their own path.

Collectivism emphasizes community responsibility, where individuals are interdependent and must work together to achieve common goals. This often means that the community or state is responsible for ensuring that all members have access to essential resources and opportunities.

The conflict lies in how much responsibility should be placed on the individual versus the community or state in addressing societal problems and ensuring everyone's well-being.

The conflict between collectivism and liberalism centers around the balance between individual freedom and the collective good, with liberalism emphasizing personal autonomy and minimal state interference, while collectivism promotes social cohesion, equality, and the collective welfare, often through stronger government intervention.

[dynal]

Can I cheat and tell you to answer ALL OF THEM... i love hearing about altai.

this is DEFINITELY a big cheat but you know what i love you and any opportunity to talk about my ffxiv guys i will take. so as a bonus you'll also get gaius.

HERE COME THE BOYS! i'm putting it below a readmore since it will probably. get long.

🪷 what gives this character inner peace?

For Altai, prayer, definitely. At least at the beginning. As the story continues he feels he can't connect with his god as well and thinks he's losing his mind. That's when sticking around the Scions helps him feel a little better.

For Gaius, staying close to his personal hero (Altai). And reminiscing on the few happy memories he has. But reminiscing on those memories can also bring melancholy or could send him spiraling so it's a difficult balance.

🪰 what is the worst thing this character has witnessed but not experienced?

For Altai: Ugh. Look at the MSQ. Every time one of his allies dies he grieves. Even when strangers die he grieves, whether they're meant to be the "good guys" or the "bad guys" because he's not really sure where they "go" when they die. In his religion they would at least find some semblance of peace, but what about here, in this world he's hardly known?

For Gaius: Basically anything he may have heard/seen while he was trapped in the stone. Without the power to physically influence the outside world he was helpless.

🐁 how are this characters ethics?

You know Altai, he's a pretty typical "good guy" but there's a lot of extra quirks that separate him from a typical hero. Being an older man and being a follower of religion will do that to you. He deeply dislikes prejudice and reductive thinking, and believes in the freedom of all, regardless of who they follow. So whenever some kind of subjugation is happening, his brow furrows a little further and his speech gets a little more sharp--a little more old world one could say.

Gaius will just start eating people if someone doesn't stop him. He's seen the horrors of the world, witnessed the uprising of Garlemald. He's done with the bullshit and done with being trapped and unable to help.

🚬 smoking/drinking habits? signature brand or drink?

For all the jokes I've made about Altai rolling cigars I'm not sure if he genuinely smokes. It may be a more spiritual, every-once-in-a-while-for-a-ritual thing. He did often imbibe in the Utter Poison that was the centuries-aged liquor in the temple's cellar.

Gaius doesn't really get any bodily effects from drinking or smoking, but he does enjoy a good ale with friends. It's a social thing.

🌫️ how does this character feel about lying?

Altai doesn't like to lie. He'd rather be honest about a situation than have to keep up a lie. He's not the kind to think some topics are "off-limits" (like talking to a child about death) because everyone has to learn at some point (and perhaps subconsciously, knowing that he was essentially orphaned and was relentlessly bullied by his peers probably makes him think "hatred can be taught at any age, so can any other topic").

Gaius will skirt around the truth or keep quiet about something. He doesn't like to reveal his own cards (especially regarding his whole shapeshifter "I dunno if I can actually die" situation).

🐦‍⬛ fursona?

Altai is a Takin, a sort of goat-like creature that is more closely related to sheep.

Saying Gaius would be a wolf would be a copout, and he's a shapeshifter, so I guess he could be whatever. Maybe a wolverine.

♟️describe how they would play chess, if they would.

Altai would know how to play chess, but it may be a regional variant. Gaius would know too many regional variants, and would know a variant that would make a historian go "hang on a second, nobody's used this variant for over 500 years".

🎲 are they lucky?

Neither of them really believe in luck.

🐌 do they carry their home with them or is it a place?

they carry their homes with them(they carry it in their hearts)they are never without it(anywhere they go,home goes,they fear;and whatever is done by them is their home's doing,such tragedy)

🦤 are they particularly smart in any way? how so, or not?

Altai is a religious scholar--at least for his religion! He's pretty logical though so he figures out situations well.

Gaius was a scholar of astrology when he was alive, and learned a lot of stuff while he was stuck in the stone. He ends up using a lot of historical evidence to navigate situations.

🪽does this character believe in a higher power?

Altai: Yes, he follows the god Lupus (and by extension, his three blood-bound consorts).

Gaius: Can't remember that which he worshiped in the past but I've been toying with the idea of him following Thanatos. Something about following the embodiment of death but being unable to die.

🦪 how would this character describe their gender, if asked?

Altai: I suppose I'm a man. Have I experimented beyond that? Hmm, well, my god, Lupus Therion Alsaab Kekkuon, praise his name--he had invented himself into the form of man and was punished for it, but lived out his future immortal life as a man. So I suppose it would take some self-invention to make myself a man... But in a way, I've done that... Hmm... Though there was that one time I was transformed into a female succubus. It was interesting.

Gaius: When my body erupted into this world, it may have been deemed of another sex, but I am all man! After all, that's what I've carved this body into. I have the scars to prove it. I don't believe I was disgraced for this choice in my mortal life. At the very least, the people who mattered most to me, they knew I was a man. Well, that doesn't mean I can't shapeshift into something else if I feel the urge. I've been known to turn into women--actually, let's end the conversation here.

🫁 yuri or yaoi?

Altai has the big-hands-big-guy nature of yaoi but Gaius has the inherent tragedy of yuri.

👛 what is always with this character?

Altai: Basically always seen with his satchel (tome, inks, pigments, brushes, pens). Gaius also hangs around with him often enough to count. Also keeps wearing the stone as a memento.

Gaius: After the woman he fell in love with disappears, he keeps her bandana with him, always.

🦇 biggest material fear (ie heights, bugs etc)

Altai doesn't like it when things pop up out of nowhere and scare him. He's got a bit of a weak heart for that. Gaius has a dual fear/attraction to long, golden hair. It makes him think of his old best friend, who he loves, but he also misses dearly. Fear and desire are intertwined you know.

🪱 would this character move a worm off the pavement or save it?

Yes. Altai would feel bad for it if it was drying up, and would try to saturate it with some of his water before finding a suitable mud patch for it to burrow in. Gaius would briefly consider eating it but then would choose to save it.

🐞 does this character have any notable accent or dialect? what about other languages?

Altai: He's from the Isle of Raum in the New World. He has a deep accent that isn't really similar to any found in the other continents (I'd equate it to a Slavic accent). He knows an ancient language that was used in his tomes and can speak it fluently. This also means he can understand old-speak characters like Urianger very well.

Gaius: He's from an unknown place. His accent is a bit of a neutral mish-mash of all the places he's been (ending up with a vague, rough-American equivalent).

🦑 any pets?

Altai has Edme, his personal Chocobo. He makes good friends with all sorts of critters and is sometimes secretly spotted taking care of strays.

Gaius doesn't have any pets. He is the pet.

🛡️how does this character protect themself and others?

Altai is mainly a tank. You already know how this goes.

Gaius will sacrifice his own mutated flesh for others. He can't die.

🪓 would they make it to the end in a horror movie?

Altai would hopefully survive. If not, he'd die protecting others. Gaius would be genre-aware and become a bigger threat.

⚖️ how do they seek justice?

Altai will try his best to go the reasonable route. Gaius is the one who takes Altai's true heart and will forcibly rend justice from the hands of the oppressors if he has to.

[xtruss]

Last Month, European Union Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell called Gaza 'A Graveyard For Tens of Thousands of People and Also A Graveyard For Many of The Most Important Principles of Humanitarian Law'.”

The reality may be even worse. I fear it may become the graveyard of liberalism itself. Three decades ago, liberalism was the lead chariot in the procession of the liberal democratic project. New democracies were emerging in Europe; the Soviet Union had crumbled, and Russia was in transition; the Berlin Wall had fallen; and South Africa's apartheid regime was collapsing. Even China exhibited signs of change.

Liberal democracy appeared invincible, both in practice and in theory. There appeared to be no real competition as it stood out as a triumphant and principled form of governance. Ask any well-versed liberal arts student and they will recite that liberalism is a political and philosophical ideology centred on the principles of individual liberty, equality and limited government.

They will point out that it emphasises the protection of individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion and assembly, as well as the rule of law and democratic governance.

While advocating for a market-based economy with private property rights, free trade and minimal government regulation, liberalism also promotes social welfare programmes to alleviate disadvantages and ensure equal opportunities for all citizens.

Additionally, liberalism supports the idea of pluralism, tolerance and diversity, aiming to create societies where individuals can pursue their own interests and live according to their own beliefs without undue interference from the state. The essence of liberalism lies in its commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Sounds amazing, so what's the problem, you may be asking?

Those observing the "plausible genocide" without a propaganda lens over the last six months have had front-row seats on a systematic erosion of liberal values and ideals. Gaza has exposed western hypocrisy and double standards, and it has shaken liberalism to its core.

Both domestic and international commitment to the rule of law, human rights and a rules-based order are being undermined by, arguably, the most powerful lobby in the world. Pro-Israeli lobbies have hijacked most western liberal democracies.

The whole world is now privy to the shameless pimping of western politicians previously documented in Congressman Paul Findley's 1985 book They Dare to Speak Out and reinforced by the 2007 book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. As an anonymous commentator wrote: "People think Gaza is occupied, but in reality, Gaza is free but the whole world is occupied."

Liberal elites and leaders who joined millions in support of free speech and proclaimed "Je suis Charlie" in solidarity with the French satirical newspaper Charlie Heodo after terrorists killed 12 people at its Paris offices in 2015 to try to shut it down, are now calling for suppression of free speech.

By a vote of 377-44-1, the US House passed a resolution that the "slogan, 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' is antisemitic and its use must be condemned". Of course, the statement is not threatening or condemnable if you substitute "Palestine" with "Israel", as you see being done by many Israeli supporters and in the Likud manifesto.

The University of Southern California, in an unprecedented move, cancelled its Muslim valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, who minored in genocide studies, from delivering her address because of alleged threats from pro-Israeli groups. They cited unspecified "security concerns". I thought the idea was to never give in to what are clearly "terrorist" demands.

To make matters worse, due to the fallout, in another unprecedented move, the university subsequently cancelled all other speakers and honorary doctorate presentations during convocation. Where are the "Je suis Asna" calls from liberal elites and institutions?

Hundreds of students and faculty at Columbia, Yale and New York University have been arrested peacefully (in the words of the police chief) protesting against the killings by Israel. Another 200 mostly Jewish protesters were arrested in front of Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer's Brooklyn residence, where they gathered for the seder, a ritual that marks the second night of the Passover holiday celebrated as a festival of freedom by Jews worldwide. No free speech mobilisation by liberal elites anywhere to be seen.

Those who championed freedom of expression are now banning the keffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian headdress, because it is making some people uncomfortable. Last week, the Ontario legislature banned the headdress, forcing a scheduled meeting between legislators and pro-Palestinian protesters to be held outside the legislative buildings because the activists had donned their keffiyehs.

Israeli military dog tags, Israeli flags and other political symbols, of course, are not political in the same way.

The situation is no different in many European countries.

Who thought that liberalism was so fragile and malleable by those who seek to subvert it for their own illiberal goals, namely promoting ethnic cleansing by the ethno-nationalist and racist state of Israel.

In the wake of the mass killings of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the new liberal world order enacted human rights treaties and enacted humanitarian laws to make sure that such massacres and abuses were "never again" repeated.

Rising out of the horrors of the Second World War we saw the establishment of the United Nations and the drafting of the international bill of human rights that would obligate "every state to recognise the equal right of every individual on its territory to life, liberty and property, religious freedom and the use of his own language".

The bill consisted of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

We also saw the enactment of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which sought to improve the legal protection of non-combatants, medical personnel, medical facilities and equipment, and wounded and sick civilians.

Despite these advances claimed by liberals, today we are witnessing war crimes, crimes against humanity and

"plausible genocide", according to the International Court of Justice, being live-streamed to our devices.

If liberalism cannot offer a moral and ethical form of governance, then what good is it? What are the grandiose declarations, pronouncements and treaties good for?

In the midst of such an unprecedented attack on a corralled civilian population by a western colonial implant and ally, if liberalism shows no will, ability or desire to protect civilian life, regional security, a nation's own national interests and global order, then its mission-defining claims of principle and competence collapse.

Liberal intellectuals have long claimed the moral high ground by championing justice whether it be in favour or against western interests. Why is the Israeli situation different? When blind loyalty becomes the sole or primary consideration, then what makes liberalism different from tribalism?

When global security and safety can be sacrificed at the altar of friendship and similarity, then what becomes of the West's claim to authority as a political and military custodian of a rules-based international order?

Might and dominance can be mistaken for right, but let's not forget that dissenting minorities, the oppressed and colonised may conclude that their only choice is to resist by any means necessary, and revolution is always a higher likelihood.

Even domestically, history has proven that societies that combine responsiveness to the will of their people with robust protections for individuals and minority groups are in the best position to strike a flexible and sustainable balance among these competing forces.

We can only hope and pray (sorry are we still allowed to do that?) that this is some sort of glitch or malfunction, and liberal elites and intellectuals will wake up from their slumber and remind liberal politicians that the very raison d'etre of the liberal democratic project is under threat of collapse.

It is almost too late, but there may be a sliver of hope.

How liberal elites respond to the Gaza challenge and salvage whatever shreds of credibility remain will dictate the legacy of liberalism.

Liberals must stand up for their principles or forever hang their heads in shame.

— ✍️ Faisal Kutty

[luminalunii97]

Iran's protests revolution is not simply about hijab or bodily autonomy, rather those are parts of the issue: a meta post (part 1)

I don't think I can stress enough that today's conflicts between people and the governing system is not to correct the system, rather to make a fundamental change by getting rid of the current corrupted system altogether. Why? Because we came to this conclusion throughout this 4 decades that this system is impossible to work with. (You can't correct ideologies, theocracy, dictatorship, and worst of all a religious totalitarianism) So when you talk about IranProtests2022, don't limit it to mandatory hijab, it goes far far beyond that. As one favorite slogan on the streets states it:

این آخرین پیامه، هدف کل نظامه

(this is the last message, [our] target is the whole system (regime))

*I'm going to use historical facts, people's chants on the streets, and the constitution of Islamic Republic to make my point across*

What you hear today the most on the streets in Iran is the melodic slogan آزادی، آزادی، آزادی (freedom, freedom, freedom)

which is a generic demand that holds all forms of freedom including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom flow of information and freedom of choice in its belly. Seeking freedom is not a recent development in Iranian society. If you study Iran's history for the past century, one thing is very clear: today's protests-going-on-revolution has old roots. You could say the fight for democracy, what is thought by Iranians to be the only path that enables people to gain individual freedom and to establish social justice, has started more than a hundred years ago, by the constitutional revolution.

The incompetency and corruption of the kings and their royal dependents during the Qajar rule, the vast interference of foreign powers in the country's affairs, and the shift in western politics towards liberation were possible factors that pushed Iranian figures and people into rising up for freedom. But due to many obstacles, among them foreign interference especially by Russia and Britain and later on USA mostly because of the natural resources in iran like oil, and furthermore culture and religion, this fight for libration and democracy hasn't been won yet. There have been various attempts in this ongoing fight, two well known examples are Mohammed Mosadegh government and the notorious islamic revolution 1979.

But our main focus here is the issue at hand. Why Islamic Republic of Iran must go?

In every area you could think of, Islamic republic has f-ed up these last 4 decades. International affairs?! F-ed up. Financial prosperity? Safety and peace? Environment? Managing water resources? Saving endangered animals? Job making? Education? Women's rights? Queers rights? Ethnic groups right? Human rights? Even representing Islam? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom? All f-ed up.

I'm going to give you examples;

Women's rights:

This is important because women are the leads in this protests and their demands are at the center of it all. Women's rights are the heart of this revolution.

Women in iran cannot wear what they want. It's not just hijab that's mandatory, it's a specific dress code. I have a hijabi friend who loves wearing long sleeved blouses and long skirts. But she can't. Because hijab should fit into a specific style to be accepted and blouses are not acceptable clothings. There are should and shouldn'ts women must follow. Look at some examples:

No tight pants, no bright colors, no hair, no bare foot, no makeup, no short manto, no tight manto, no buttonless manto, no short pants, and check out, there's more.

So if you wear your hijab like below you're going to either get arrested or be thrown out of a governmental institute:

But the thing is forced hijab is not the only or even the most important problem for women. Here is a list of women's issues in Iran, this is what gender apartheid means here: (tw for misogyny and rape)

*Women can't drive a bicycle or motorbike in iran, the funny thing is they can sit behind a man on a motorcycle but they can't be the driver themselves!!!

*women can't go to stadiums to watch men's sports.

*women can't get a passport or travel without their husbands permission.

*women can't get married without their father or grandfather or court's permission

*women can't go to work or get a higher education without their husbands permission

*University students who are women in case of staying in a dormitory need their father or husband's written consent.

*Women can't even check into a hotel on their own

*women can't become judges because they're "emotional"

*women can't run for presidency because the first condition to become a candidate is to be a man

*Women can't decide to get a divorce, and their child custody goes automatically to the father so they should fight for both

*a woman's testimony in court has half the value of a man because they're not "trustworthy"

*a woman's blood money is half a man's

*a woman's share of inheritance is half her brother's

*a man can marry up to 4 wives but polyamory not only isn't recognized for women, there are serious punishments including death penalties for women who have sex with anyone who's not their husband

*The law considers sex within marriage consensual by definition and, therefore, does not address spousal rape, including in cases of forced marriage. It gets worse. Women are supposed, by law, to always say yes to their husband's sexual advances. A man can take a complaint to the court about his wife saying no to him for sex!

*fathers are considered the "owner" of their child therefore if a man kills his child he won't get appropriately punished and only spend a brief time in jail. This worsen honor killing in iran where some fathers kill their daughters for reasons like having a boyfriend.

*the legal age of marriage is very low, 13 for girls and 15 for boys, and even that's more of a formality. It's possible to get married at any age. That is by far one of the most alarming things about Iran's human rights violations, child-wives shouldn't exist.

...

The thing is, fighting for women's rights isn't something new in Iran, it has never been this widespread though. After the failure that was 1979 revolution, the government started to oppress women more and more as it went on. Women's protests against discrimination started early on and continued after islamic republic was stablished. Watch this report made by TIME around 2 years ago. Look how far we've come:

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Thank you for the advice, I will be sure to see if they can be applied to my situation. I enjoy reading the information you out out and have learnt a great deal from you. I did have a last question regarding Dr. Jordan Peterson, please do educate me on his stance as I am left confused at some of the religious information he puts out. I understand nuance, but sometimes his information does tend to lean toward religious ideology. What would be your best explanation of his stance on religion? I do try to separate his political ideas from his religious ideas, but in recent interviews/podcasts he seems to be leaning towards religious talks (specifically Christianity) or maybe he has done so all along and I am just recently noticing this. Again, thank you for the advice on the next steps I can take to address my issue in college. I do look forward to your input on this topic. Thank you and have a great rest of your day/night.

Hi again. Yes, he's an interesting character, and you've expressed thoughts and come to similar conclusions as me.

I can already hear some people sucking on their teeth, going "ooh."

The thing I find is that he's perceived as more controversial than he actually is. If you listen to what he's saying, in his own words, rather than through the interpretive filter of an activist of some stripe, much what he's saying is decidedly uncontroversial, even if it's delivered in his no-nonsense manner.

The classic example is the “interview” with Cathy Newman. I say “interview” because it might be the single most juvenile, unprofessional performance I’ve ever seen. One ideologically motivated strawman after another trying to manipulate him into saying something he wasn’t saying.

If you didn’t already know who she is before watching the interview, you now know her only as the British lady who turned herself into an internet meme. If you didn’t already know who he was, well, let’s just say that the interview probably did more for promoting him than he ever could have dreamed.

Despite her attempts at hyperbole, such as:

Newman: “Let me just get this straight. You’re saying we should organise our societies along the lines of the lobsters?”

and the fact she appeared to be primed from the beginning to be offended, she was rather charmed by him when she demanded to know why he should have the right to freedom of speech if (an unspecified) someone might get offended, to which he pointed out that she was willing to risk offending him in order to get to the truth, rendering the claim rather hypocritical. Especially considering how childish she behaved through the whole thing.

Peterson: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable. [..] You get my point. You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell’s going on. And that is what you should do. You’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. I think, more power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”

Newman: “So, you haven’t sat there and... I’m just trying to work that out...........”

Peterson: “Ha. Gotcha.”

https://quillette.com/2018/02/02/deep-dive-jordan-petersons-channel-4-interview/

I've seen that hypocrisy myself, where many believers insist that you must respect their religion and avoid offending them, while being perfectly comfortable threatening warning you about hell. Watch outraged Muslims or Hindus call you a name as they lecture you about how they should not be offended.

“One of the things that is a classic trope of the religious bigot, is while they’re denying people their rights, they claim that their rights are being denied. While they are persecuting people, they claim to be persecuted. While they are behaving colossally offensively, they claim to be the offended party. It’s upside down world.“

-- Salman Rushdie

So, to the teeth-suckers, I ask you to watch the interview yourself, and peruse a list of his quotes and consider how many of them the reasonable person could honestly perceive as controversial or offensive?

In one of his books he talks about how he's noticed a trend during his lecture tours that the audience goes the most silent, pays the closest attention during the sections on Responsibility. His thesis seems to be that the several generations have grown up since the Civil Rights Movements, being told about their rights and what they can expect from society. But are no longer being told what society should expect from them. Rights and responsibilities are one and the same. When you have the right to drive a car, you have the responsibility to drive it safely. When you have the right to your freedom of religion, you have the responsibility to not impose your religion on others.

Coupled with this has been the message that one should pursue Happiness, however this doesn’t lead to fulfilment. What’s more valuable is the pursuit of Meaning, and he contends that Meaning is obtained by taking on responsibility, some purpose, some mission or objective to provide that meaning, that you don’t find life meaning in merely existing and being happy.

A good example would be the Social Work you were looking to do. This is not easy work and has a lot of responsibility attached to it. But that responsibility might be what gets you out of bed each day and gives you fulfilment.

This is actually not that controversial, except to those who are pushing narratives feeding victimhood and entitlement mindsets. It makes a ton of sense. We see this play out in many ways.

Some prisons have a dog fostering program where prisoners look after and train a rescue dog to be ready for adoption. The dog learns behaviors that make it more suitable for adoption, and the prisoner has to think about, look after and take responsibility for someone other than themselves for once. It can be extremely transformative for both.

It's also not uncommon for people to change professions (or want to), and even accept a lower level of pay, for work that is more meaningful to them, that isn’t just about pursuing money and status.

So, this really isn't actually controversial. The Swedish even have a name for it, fredsskadade, "injured by peace." The notion that people are existentially dissatisfied when they don't have something for which to work or struggle.

Stating that biological dimorphism and evolution are real, and influence gendered traits, habits and preferences, as well as aspects of the way society functions. Somehow controversial. Except it’s not. It’s completely uncontroversial, except to those who adhere to anti-science ideologies and scold everybody else. It is to the social constructivists what “teach the controversy!” was to the creationists.

In another observation, he laments the decline of religion (which I, obviously, do not) and the rise of ideological faith to fill the void. Something I've observed and lamented myself. It was particularly visible in the Intersectionality-vs-Rationalist schism that imploded New Atheism in the early 2010s, instigated by ElevatorGate. The entire episode and schism demonstrated that even self-described "skeptics" can succumb to ideologically motivated inconsistent skepticism, and faith-based beliefs.

Where he swerves into oncoming traffic, however, is that even traditional religions are succumbing to the mind-virus of Intersectionality. If churches and religion were the traditional and reliable generators of Meaning, what void is it filling there?

Then, and to your point, he makes the following assertion about those who've adopted ideology as a replacement for "god":

“They are all monotheists, practically speaking—or polytheistic worshippers of a very small number of gods. These gods are the axioms and foundational beliefs that must be accepted, a priori, rather than proven, before the belief system can be adopted, and when accepted and applied to the world allow the illusion to prevail that knowledge has been produced.”

This is extremely lacking in self-awareness, as it's literally how Xianity itself functions. What he's describing is "faith.”

So his point is blunted by the fact you must accept the bible, a priori, in order to find the Xian god. Xians decline to prove the existence of their god, and constantly fall back to assuming its existence axiomatically. Yet still assert a claim to knowledge.

Or this rather poetic quote:

"To learn is to die voluntarily and be born again, in great ways and small so speech must be untrammeled so that dialogue can take place so that we can all humbly learn so that truth can serve love so that suffering can be ameliorated

so that we can all stumble forward to the Kingdom of GOD."

Wait, what?

He had me in his corner right up until the end.

A chapter titled:

WORK AS HARD AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN ON AT LEAST ONE THING AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS

descends into a lecture about the Ten Commandments, and a reading from the Gospel of Mark.

Why?

That's the same question you asked, and I just don't know.

His stated profession is "professor of psychology, clinical psychologist". Why does a self-improvement book by a clinical psychologist rely on faith, and why is it espousing any particular religion?

To be completely fair, it's his book and he can say what he wants in it. It's not to me to dictate how he should communicate what he wants to say any more than it’s for someone else to dictate what I post on my blog and how I say it. It just seems like a very limiting approach for something that is such a broad topic as “12 Rules for Life.”

To be even more scrupulously fair, but raising an even bigger question, he often refers to other myths or fables or stories to illustrate his point, including Hansel and Gretel and The Little Mermaid. With this in mind, it’s unclear why he needs to refer to biblical scripture at all.

The only conclusion I’ve been able to settle on is essentially the same as for religious scientists such as Francis Collins: inconsistent skepticism, inconsistent epistemology, paired with an emotional attachment to the belief. It provides comfort or peace or fulfils some other need. He himself has said:

“i'm amazed at my own belief and I don't understand it.”

He tearfully goes on to say, having already conceded that he can’t be sure Jesus actually existed - as best as I understand it - that Jesus Christ is the embodiment of where the worlds of objective reality and moral narrative intersect. I don’t know what to make of that. I’m not even sure I know what that’s actually supposed to mean. Or why anyone can’t insert someone like Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur or Robin Hood, or for that matter, Mavis Beacon; any other fictional character that people think was real.

Watch the video for yourself to see what you make of it.

Suffice to say that maybe Jesus is more of a psychological, moral totem to him. I don’t know how the “kingdom of god” fits into all this for him.

What I will say is that you can take from him, and anyone else, whatever ideas or viewpoints are useful, meaningful and worthwhile to you, and ignore the parts, like religiosity, that do nothing for you, or you can’t get on board with.

It may be useful to consider whether he’s using a Xian myth as an illustrative fable, and perhaps has gotten into the habit (lazy?) of leaning on the bible for suitable fables (Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel seem to be recurring motifs in “12 Rules”) instead of branching out to Aesop or Homer (Iliad/Odyssey) or other source, or is actually hinging his point on a principle of Xian doctrine.

Yes, I’m advocating cherry picking. However, unlike the quran or bible, we’re not talking about inspired godly word or divine revelation.

There’s nothing wrong with taking from JP whatever strikes a chord with you, inspires you or helps you understand more about yourself or others, and discarding the Xianity stuff. There’s a couple of Xians whose views I listen to, particularly in relation to social issues in the USA, e.g. thisissavvy and Adam Coleman, despite the fact we will never agree on the god thing.

I would expect, even hope, that people are picking out from me what’s valuable to them and if they don’t find something resonates with them, they can just ignore it.

I don’t know that I’ve necessarily helped here, as I think the only one who could adequately explain it to you is Dr. Peterson himself. And he may not even understand it himself.