#but in many cases it's simply personal preference not bad faith

[utilitycaster]

Always important to ask yourself whether the post is in bad faith or if you just don't like what it says.

[therealestidealist]

idk dude I'm NT too and something I've learned is that sometimes you don't have to understand something to respect it. so you don't get why commercial art is ok to repost even though it's been explained to you (and frankly you are making bad faith arguments, imo), but it's still been said over and over so clearly it's something people feel is important. I think you ought to consider why instead of acting like a martyr when no one has told you to kys.

(I don't necessarily think the arguments made abt sharing some types of art were all that eloquent but I don't really think you'll listen so I'm not going to try to clarify)

sorry some people were rude to you but you came out the gate very rude and entitled in the original message when they were being polite. being called buddy is neutral, it's not some sort of hatecrime. maybe you had a shitty day or something and were in a bad mood, and this only made that worse, but the way you lashed out was inappropriate. being NT is not an excuse. we are not stupid. we can learn when we fuck up and how to react appropriately despite how ugly our initial reactions to criticism can be. just cause your brain tells you "everyone hates you cause you fucked up" does not make that true. I've learned this the hard way and you probably will too.

i think at this point you are really just being willfully ignorant and standing your ground bc you don't want to admit wrongdoing. I get it but I think it's time to let it go.

and again, some people were rude and you lashed out, but others were polite and you just call them considering. there's no winning and no opportunity for growth or improvement with that attitude. learn to take criticism instead of trying to guilt anyone who has something negative to say about something you did by telling them you're going to kill yourself and that everyone wants you dead. (people are criticizing something you DID, not YOU as a person. there's a difference.)

you're the one suicide baiting. please do better cause I know from experience that behavior won't do you any good.

I hope you can put this behind you because it really was not a big deal until you lashed out. You'll move on and it'll be okay. Just learn what you can from this.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with being talked down to and gaslighting. I didn't fuck up. What I did wasn't art theft. I did a lot of googling about what is and isn't considered stealing art over the past day. I was talked to as if being sat down in time out, picked apart by the public and ridiculed over something that many people don't find egregious at all. My wife is an artist and encouraged me to share the art in the first place. I myself am a sex worker, I've had my work reposted before, sometimes with credit and sometimes without. This isn't to say this particular artist's wishes shouldn't be respected, I took down the post per the artist's request. It's just to say that the way I was treated like I was being taught a lesson over something for which there is no official guidebook or any clear consensus over was very mob-like. I was defensive in my original DMs because I was accused of theft. I don't think what I did was theft because there were credits. Then I was accused of "not trying hard enough to contact the artist". The artist's Tumblr is not connected to their twitter, and they don't even have the same handle. So even if I knew to contact them, to act like it would have been easy to find their Tumblr is simply disingenuous. The person who informed me about this artist's preferences likely just recognized the artist from here already.

No, I'm not arguing in bad faith. You and others in notes are insistent that I just need to listen to and accept what people are accusing me of without question. Don't I get to state my case? The way I was treated was inhuman. That's why I feel as though everyone hated me. I did not "fuck up" and you won't make me believe I fucked up. I am not an idiot. I am not going to just accept being scolded and belittled over something that frankly isn't even a real problem (posting art with credits). The whole distinction over being paid vs not being paid and the accusation that my credits weren't "proper" remain vague. These are not satisfactory explanations to me. No one has tried to clarify to me why it is considered etiquette to do something that so many artists dont even care about. One artist has a message about not sharing their art that I didn't see before sharing it and now I'm an art thief for crediting them? You can see why I am defensive? You can see why this doesn't register as a "fuck up" to me?

This whole thing could have been avoided if I had been linked to the artist's post in the opening message instead of being accused of stealing - which I must emphasize - I DID NOT STEAL. I poured over discussions about art reposting over the past day and have come to the conclusion that I was falsely accused and the intent was to smear me from the start. The way you see the original DM as reasonable honestly sickens me. They were only after some Internet clout and they got it. If you talk like this to your friends and family I feel sorry for them.

You need to step down and reflect on your priorities. Stop siding with manipulators. Stop policing small personal blogs who just want to be left alone. Stop lying about norms/etiquette/courtesies that are far from unanimously agreed upon. You will be remembered as a hateful bully if you continue on acting sanctimoniously and talking down to people instead of engaging with them honestly and thoughtfully, with compassion and a willingness to listen.

[causesciencethatswhy]

Hi! I have just see Jk tracklist and I wanted to share my op -

First: I don't understand why, only because I like Jk as an artist and person, I have to accept blindly every single thing he does. I have my ideas and morals and I apply them consistently. I like seven, I don't like 3D. I am not a prude, simply I find that 3D it's explicit in a dirty way. For example.

So:

• I don't have problems with not writing your lyrics but I'm a little disappointed that in his first album there isn't even 1 or 2 Jk credits. Yes he surely approved and choose carefully but it's not the same thing to really write them, we can't read the lyrics and be like "that's what he think" because we can't be sure that he specifically approved that phrase that we are "analyzing". Meybe that was the only phrase that he doesn't like lol.

• I know he is working hard and I respect him for that, I'm just sorry he is working at something that is not what in my op a lot of fan were expecting (not that I wanted something specific, just listen to the songs and think "oh this is something he think for real)

• I think that all those songs will be more the 'no deep meaning' songs, again, nothing wrong with it. But when you are the frontman of a band famous for the deep meaning of their songs people have expectations. So for me the problem is that I and other fans wish to have from bts members the meanings, the ideas, the relatable lyrics, the personal style not songs given by random people. So I personally understand who is disappointed and find it valid.

Still I respect his work.

• note: tae doesn't wrote his lyrics too, but in his case Idk if he received the songs or if the songs were made for him, that is a little big difference.

Let me know if you know and what you think! Ty

Hi anon,

Like I said earlier, you're allowed to want different music from him, of course you are. You're totally free in deciding what music of jungkook's you want to listen to and if you prefer seven over 3d, I'm not going to judge you or think you're a prude. It's about preference at the end of the day and I'm not at all advocating people to blindly support the artist you stans music even if you don't like it. Because it's all about preference at the end of the day, and if the disappointment posts I saw were simply just commenting on "Oh this type of music isnt my preference " then I wouldn't mind it.

The problem gets when people are making so many assumptions on the type of artist jungkook is, and judging his decisions in bad faith that are bothering me. It's the constant, "he's korean so I don't know why he feels like he needs to sing in English " that's bothering me.

For your first point, I get it. There's not a lot of theorizing you can do on the lyrics when he's not written them himself. It's actually what stumped me a little with layover because when I had read the four leaf clover lyric in Rainy Days , I got excited thinking it was a reference to Vmin and their four leaf clover story before realising that tae didn't have any writing credits. But then as I thought about it more, there's no way to know whether tae discussed what he wanted to convey what wanted each song to be about and he might have even relayed the four leaf clover story to the writer. Or maybe it's a complete coincidence ! So yes, on that front I get that it takes away from a fun part of fan culture because you don't exactly know what they're singing from real experience and what is just a fantasy. It's always nice to learn new nuggets about your favorite artists and the way they think, buts it not that definitive to me personally, but it may be to you so I get that.

Second point, I mean sure you can be disappointed your expectations of his album don't match up with his own vision, but there really is not much we can do beyond that is it? At the end of the day, he will release the music which he feels is right for him and as long as it's not something terribly offensive or something, we can't really hold it against them for having a different creative vision to what fans had for them. Of course you're allowed to feel disappointed, but people acting like he's done some personal offense against him through his creative decisions is what bothers me.

I honestly think it's not fair to already dismiss all the tracks to have no meaning before they're even out . We literally have zero clue as to what the songs are going to sound like. As to the deep lyrics thing, honestly I think people hold bts to too high a pedestal with how deep their music is. They've talked about silly crushes, wanting to get a girls attention, sex and a lot of other topics which army's now claim they're 'above'. It didn’t sound like that because they were singing in korean and had credits from a member. If it's solely about deep lyrics, then while bts have some incredibly deep and moving lyrics but They've also had incredibly silly ones. If it's about the cool wordplay they do in korean which you're not getting in english releases, then I would say let's wait and see what golden has. English has a lot of avenues for equally fun wordplay/metaphors and we simply don't know enough about golden to have an opinion on this.

So in conclusion, you're allowed to have expectations from their music but I simply don't think it's fair to suddenly turn on jungkook, his artistry and his performances because his work doesn't match what you had in mind.

[loquaciousfool]

okay these are great posts that are reflective of countless people's experiences...

But can we start confronting people on this "gender mutilation" BULLSHIT??

This is a misconception and outright LIE that is brought up time and time again, and is usually ignored in debates due to it being a bad faith argument from the very root of it.

I remember being 14, having known what being trans was, knowing I was trans for 2 years by that point, and having my brother ask if I want to have my genitals mutilated??

When? Where? Who??? Besides maybe a few medical emergencies from bottom surgery throughout history, why do people assume every trans person immediately gets their genitals "mutilated" to transition???

Many people get bottom surgery and LOVE IT. It's not mutilation when you get a knee replacement. It's not mutilation when you have your heart worked on. It's not mutilation when cis people get a penis extension or breast enhancement! Why is gender affirming care immediately assumed to be genital mutilation???

Gender affirming medical care looks like doctors assessing your bodily health and giving you options for transition. Hormone replacement therapy is often one of the first steps. In children, this usually means puberty blockers (already used for cis children in many cases) which are harmless and merely allow the child to go through puberty on their own terms. BY CHOICE. This is the most ""extreme"" thing to happen to a child in transition until they choose to go through puberty in the manner they prefer. This is not child mutilation. This is not permanent damage by any means. It does not affect their ability to reproduce later in life. Neither does hormone replacement therapy. YES, even after fully transitioning. This is the business of the trans individual and their doctor, NO ONE ELSE.

Many trans people, I'd wager to say a majority, don't even get bottom surgery in their transition. It's simply not required, especially because hormonal therapy tends to ease many of the dysphoric feelings trans people can have about their genitals. This does not apply to all trans people, and so top and bottom surgeries are the next step for them, if they can even afford them!!!

I'm begging cis people to actually read the wealth of information that is widely available on this subject. Ignoring information does not make it false, and it certainly isnt going to make it go away.

[gryficowa]

I just want to warn Islamists about the culture shock in Polish mosques, many Tatars do not wear headgear, which may shock many Islamists (Because they are not prepared, it's understandable)

I am not a Muslim, but I know that this cultural difference often causes tensions and that is why I would like to warn many Islamists who are immigrants or visiting the country to be prepared for this

But don't worry, you still take your shoes off, so that's the only cultural difference

I also advise you to expect nationalists and fans (Football), so I advise you to be careful, they are able to attack anyone who is different (LGBT+ people are often their victims, and in the case of hooligans, it is enough to have something in the colors of the opposing team, so you can guess that they are able to attack anyone)

Simply put, this country is unpredictable and I prefer to mention it, especially in cities like Warsaw or Łódź (Although similar threats may also occur in other cities, these two cities are quite risky, and there are many other cities similar to these, Unfortunately, over the years Islamophobia has grown to such an extent that that even Muslims who have lived for generations have no guarantee of safety)

Simply put, big cities are known for being full of people who would attack anything that moves (Even a bad look can piss someone off, yes, people with visual impairments, you have to be careful)

There is a chance that you will meet wonderful people, often they may be LGBT+ people or people with disabilities, because although this country has many rotten people, there are also many who would give their lives to save someone and that is appreciated (Many of them may be atheists or agnostics, because Christian fanatics are another threat, more listening to words about God or how Islam is false, so sometimes it's better to be run over than to listen to them… Yes, I'm an agnostic and I know how annoying Christians can be with their talk about God and Jesus, so how will they seem to you "Jehovah's Witnesses", I have to disappoint you, they are Christians from Poland, they really are very similar in behavior)

So yes, you have to be prepared for everything (And even Poles themselves are not prepared for everything, because in this country you will lose faith in humanity a million times over)

I also advise you to avoid walking at night (Because although Europe says that Poland is safe, if you are a woman or a person from a discriminated group, you pose an additional threat, damn, when I walk at night with my mother, because we are coming home, I get nervous I'm constantly looking around) and many places without people, because although it seems tempting (If you have social anxiety…) it also poses a threat (Because nationalists attack everyone)

I know, you may have heard this advice all the time, but I simply advise you not to rely on EU statistics

This will simply help you avoid unpleasant situations and culture shock

[letterstomydaughter]

On good and bad, and moral philosophy Dear Daughter(s), The date is 25 Oct 2023, Wednesday. I had a long conversation with the older of you two, about whether we can "blame" people for doing things that we think are bad. This ended up to be a two-hour-long discussion on very elaborate examples, and I think it's something worth summarizing here. The first point is that what we think is "bad" or "evil" or "wrong" is very often a perception influenced by our social environment and community. What this implies is that one community (or even one family) may think some things are "wrong" and "bad", while others don't feel that way about the same behaviour. Cultural differences happen on a larger scale, but even between people, beliefs and preferences differ, which can change these perceptions. Consequently, as a general rule, "right" and "wrong" are unfortunately not universal, especially if we look primarily at outcomes and processes (i.e.the consequentialists' and utilitarians' perspective) The second is that simply looking at the outcome and processes are insufficient to determine morality - people's behaviour are influenced, if not motivated, by circumstances (or existential/historical conditions and experiences - see Durkheim for more of this when you are older). We ended up with various cases of why people do things that are supposedly "bad" - sometimes they are ignorant, sometimes they choose the lesser of evils among the options, sometimes there is a higher intention/agenda/purpose, sometimes they have no other option, sometimes they don't think that what they are doing is bad, and sometimes (of course) they are just evil. There are multiple permutations of knowledge, intention, deliberateness, and many more that come into question. The last thing that I wanted to leave you at the end of the conversation - when you were already drained and sleepy - was that sometimes, we see things from our perspective, and simply stop there. We don't see beyond that, and it should come as no surprise that maybe we can't; we don't live in their skin, their lives, their background. It is therefore sometimes simpler to be compassionate and assume the best, rather than be bitter about the persons' state of being and morality, because we can never hope to understand where the person's perspective is coming from...which might be a good thing if the person is really evil. (Trust me on the last part, I spent many years of my life doing the latter, and at the time of writing, I still am bitter about quite a few who have made me bear the brunt of their insecurity - but that is a post for another time.) By the end of that conversation, and of this post, I hope you realise that being "good" or "bad", "right" and "wrong", is not as clear cut as you think it might be as a child; and that sometimes we must commit "wrongs" in order to persist on what is "right" (and that is admittedly consequentialistic in thinking). The world is a complicated place. It's not going to get any easier as you grow up. I don't have the answers and I struggle with these complications too; but maybe that's what makes us human, makes us strong. You can do this, daughters. I have faith in you. Love, Dad

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: ALMS AND CHARITY: VIRTUES OF ZAKAT: Part 2

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF ZAKAT ON SOCIETY? (Part 2)

Looking from a transactional perspective, it becomes evident that those who knowingly indulge in usury face the threat being doomed to a fate similar to that of Satan’s, vis-a-vis, expulsion from the mercy of God. Insisting on dealing with interest is to come into conflict with the Creator. The result of such an action is evident: Those who are adamant in delusively claiming right over others’ wealth or money will live as if struck by Satan, the very same state in which they will resurrect.

The reason for this punishment is that they iniquitously equate usury with trade, claiming its permissibility; this is a case of an incorrect perspective yielding conclusions that are immensely wide off the mark. By paying close attention to the Qur’anic instruction instead, we can gain a better insight into the very psychology that affords them this misunderstanding. In other words, by asserting that, “Trading is just like usury”, usurers actually dare to suggest that trading and usury are ethical equals. Yet the clear Qur’anic directive, “God has permitted trade and forbidden usury,” unambiguously puts an end to all possible debates. Usury and interest are an assault on property and wealth, whose protection is just as essential as the protection of life and chastity. In fact, all religions highlight, in one way or another, a person’s duty to protect the five essentials of faith, mind, property, life, and progeny. The hadith,  “A believer’s property, blood, and chastity are forbidden to another believer,” amplifies this outlook. In this context, usury is an attack on the property from which we are compelled to protect ourselves, and a sinister means of exploiting the sweat of others. From another perspective, allowing usury to operate means the ultimate blow to production as men will preponderantly prefer to adopt methods that provide them easy earnings in their quest for satiating their natural inclination for wealth. With usury,  this  inclination  is  wastefully  exploited,  instead  of  cultivating  the  world,  and  many promising talents are laid waste on by the embracement of the motto “Invest in interest, and lay back!”

Usury, a practice that destroys qard al-hasan, (i.e lending money to those in need just for the sake of God, a pivotal part of the Islamic spirit) concurrently terminates the social bond, leaving each person to solve financial problems individually rather than seeking a communal help. As a result, nobody is left with a problem-free opportunity to borrow money. Qard al-hasan, a vehemently emphasized facet of Islam, is given eighteen times more reward than sadaqa. This precious practice reinforces the belief that whatever the expected surplus is, it should strictly be expected from God. Together with forbidding participation in sin and enmity, the Qur’an strongly encourages virtue and goodness46 as the principal causes of action, whether it is good or bad, necessarily attracts the same degree of responsibility.

Simply put, the acceptance of usury in public life means siding with the rich and immorally leaving the poor to fight their own desperate battle. This, indeed, represents complete deviation from Divine Mercy and Compassion. Although God grants wealth to the rich, He also provides a sanctuary for the poor through decreeing alms and charity.

And yet, the vices of usury are not limited to what has already been mentioned. Perhaps the ultimate motive should be sought in a more profound domain.  What is important is that the Creator has sternly forbidden usury and has given permission for trading. In reality, the key factor that paves our direction is the simple commands or prohibitions of God, not the entailing beneficial results that surface upon their application. Therefore, the benefits are subordinate to our efforts and striving to achieve the blessing of the Almighty, through abhorring what has been decreed as being abhorrent, and embracing what has been decreed as being worthy of embrace.

Sadaqa, an initiator of blessings and prosperity with all its types, is also the golden key to the copious treasures of Divine Compassion. By virtue of a miraculous style of articulation, the Qur’an illustrates charity as an act that brings the provider closer to God, so to speak; incorporates him or her into Paradise; reinforces the spiritual bond between believers and humankind in general; and takes the provider far away from Satan and hellfire, as opposed to amplifying the numerous harms inherent in interest. Such harms, whenever and wherever they are incurred, become a motive or means for distancing one’s self from the Compassion of the Creator and from the entrance into Paradise; for coming closer to Satan and the hellfire; and for erecting insidious walls between people.

The Qur’anic declaration “God blights usury and makes almsgiving fruitful,” at once destroys the possibility of exploiting others’ earnings through usury, a practice which aims to demolish the very foundation of social justice; one could say that it provides a cure for a disease before it takes hold of the whole body. The realization of this cure is through an uncompromising establishment of the institutions for alms and charity and forever shutting the door on inequitable practices whose menacing effects are extensively renowned. The number of investors whose dreams of riches and luxury have become horrendous nightmares through the manipulations of interest is by no means few. Opposed to these, there are countless souls whose wealth has multiplied in great magnitudes thanks to sadaqa, not to mention the love they have earned from the masses. By now, it should be blatantly evident that usury is a destroyer of social balance and a spoiler of the mutual harmony which is the unbending backbone of human life.

Not coincidentally, this verse relating to usury is among the final revelations of the Qur’an; its prohibition was declared during the concluding days of the Prophet’s (upon whom be peace) life. The Messenger of God, during the Farewell Pilgrimage, put the prohibition of usury into effect,  first by abolishing his uncle Abbas’s interest, thereby setting a perfect example.

Throughout those sermons, addressed somewhat as farewells to his Companions, he abolished blood feuds and then pronounced, “Beware! All previous usury is now under my feet, and the first interest I abolish is that of Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib.” Absolutely nobody hesitated, including Abbas,  in abandoning their anticipated hoards of interest; moreover, they started agonizing over possible divine penalties for their prior indulgence in usury. A soothing edict, however, was revealed soon after, dispersing the noble Companions’ anxiety:

There is no sin on those who believe and do good, righteous deeds for what they might have partaken (in the past), provided (henceforth) they fear (the end of their previous creeds and misdeeds) and come to faith and do good, righteous deeds, then keep from disobedience to God in reverence for Him and piety and believe (more profoundly), then be more meticulous in obeying God in greater reverence for Him and piety and be devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing them. (Maida 5:93)

Belief and sincerity have been reiterated three times in the above verse. This reinforces the importance of abstaining from the forbidden for protection from the hellfire, and in turn, the value of refraining from doubtful cases in order to avoid falling into the domain of the forbidden, thereby causing the inner self to decay. The Noble Prophet declared, “Leave what gives you doubt, stick to what is certain.” In another hadith that follows a similar trait, the Messenger has evidently stated that the halal (i.e. permissible) and the haram (i.e. non-permissible) have unequivocally become clear; thus the doubtful must be evaded, a recommended course of action that places emphasis on one’s spiritual life.

An implicit illustration is also to be found through a brilliant depiction of the perennial indolence of usurers and the consequential anxieties of their parasitical lives. Those who lead such a life suffer a similar ending, facing a fitting penalty for their unjust insistence that usury constitutes normal trade. According to the interpretations of Ibn Abbas, an illustrious Companion, usurers will be resurrected in a state of strangulation. The words articulated by the Messenger of God illustrate a symbolic scene he witnessed during the Miraj, or Ascension, and offers us enlightenment: “Then I saw a group whose bellies were like houses and who happened to be on the path which the Pharaoh and his folk were taken to hellfire day and night. Each time they saw Pharaoh and his folk, they would leap forward from repulsion, only to fall down face-first from the weight caused by their stomach, after which the Pharaoh and his folk would start trampling on them. I asked ‘O Jibril? Who are they?’ and he replied ‘They are usurers.’”

In another similar hadith, the Prophet mentions having seen a group comprised of people who would fall down face first every time they attempted to get up; thus he was again informed they were usurers.

This destiny is the final result of obstinately insisting on a satanic path. The Messenger of God clearly pronounced that the curse of God will indiscriminately afflict the indulgers of usury, including the provider, the acceptor, the witness, the proxy, the secretary and whoever takes an active part in such dealing, the doomed outcome of impudently declaring war on God and His Messenger. In fact, the fate of the entire group—the instigators and his or her various supports—is captured perfectly in a very short and powerful chapter near the conclusion of the Qur ’an: “Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he! No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood – As fuel! A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!” (Tabbat 111:1-5) May God protect us all from such a destiny.

Addressing the giant mass gathered around him eighty days prior to his eternal migration from Earth, the Messenger of God pronounced that God had now perfected the religion and finalized His blessings on the Muslims, stressing that the only way to procure the blessing of God is through Islam, the submission to the will of God.

Thus, the Prophet encapsulated the basic tenets of the Qur’an, the miraculous guide for those in possession of a magnanimous spirit, as magnanimousness is perhaps the most ideal word to describe the precious state of mind of the believers who successfully eschewed usury and adopted zakat. In fact, the Companions who had, at that time, gained utmost maturity after a 23-year period of stringent development unconditionally surrendered to those exquisite tenets. This, in turn, underlines the significance of corrective maturity before the embracement of the principles required to annul immorality. Even though societies may achieve a head-spinning development in technology, for example, or an apparent increase in welfare through solutions to minor economic problems, no matter how happy they seem on the surface, their life-spans will never realize their full potential and they will be utterly helpless, in an imminent shake of social upheaval, as long as they carry on the practice of usury that is so fundamentally contrary to human nature. In effect, systems that move us against the tide of righteousness are no more than “sparks in the pan” and cannot provide long-lasting illumination.

The Qur’an eloquently states, “God invites to the Abode of Peace, and guides whom He wills to a straight path” (Yunus 10:25). As certified by the Qur’an, the prohibition of usury was personally elaborated by the Prophet (upon whom be peace) and then additionally, he commissioned Abu Bakr and Ali to explain the prohibition accordingly to hinder possible misunderstandings. If humanity carries the serious intention of curing itself of the leech-like effects of usury, it inevitably must wake up in the illuminative realm of iman, belief in God, and lend an ear to the commands and prohibitions of the Almighty Creator. Observing morality in financial transactions is a virtue of believers. Thus, in a society of believers, it becomes necessary to establish alternative systems where all exploitable loopholes are firmly covered, and whereby charity-oriented institutions become established, rescuing the poor from the throes of despair.

In a nutshell, zakat and interest are two opposite and dichotomous poles. While zakat is aimed towards acknowledging the rights of the poor and eliminating obstacles that impede these rights, the essential crux of interest entails the rich ignominiously becoming richer, leaving the poor stranded in destitution. Contrary to such a devastating outcome, by preventing the exploitation of the poor, Islam also shows the rich alternative ways to make use of their wealth, free of fear and anxiety. The application of zakat ultimately means the extirpation of usury, endowing the society with genuine, long-lasting bliss.

THE OTHER SOCIAL BENEFITS OF ZAKAT

Indubitably, the benefits of zakat do not end there. Among the other benefits of zakat are that it is social insurance on public life, an aura maintaining tolerance between social groups, a catalyst that puts fire in the economic life and a balancing factor that emphasizes both the importance of worldly earnings and the eternal importance of life in the eternal abode.

Each aspect which has been delineated above, as one may guess, is also a positive step towards building an unshakeable social structure. Moreover, the totality constitutes a prelude to other innumerable benefits that will arise through the utilization of zakat—benefits both seen and unseen, in this world and the next. God, the Exalted, is remote from indulging in any activity void of meaning and distant from negated attributes: “Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between!” (Anbiya 21:16) 

Therefore if zakat has been decreed by Him, then it unquestionably must contain a copious load of purposes, all of which will unravel in time.

[gremlingirlsmell]

nuh uh.

i dont appreciate your condescending word-twisting tone. i never attacked people identifying as femboys. but let's break it down

One could argue the semantics of what makes a slur, but in the end, does it even really matter?

i didnt say that only semantically it is a slur. i said it is effectively used as a slur, meaning it fills exactly the same niche that trap has filled before. we're all on the same page that trap is a dehumanizing slur, right? it is a specifically transmisogynistic stereotype imposed on transfems to third-gender/degender us. but, it's also an identity many people (re)claim for themselves. i just noted it's also semantically similarly constructed like other transmisogynistic slurs like shemale (and ladyboy too and theres more that elude me rn, btw)

One could even argue that calling someone an egg is transphobic.

no :) good job sprinkling this nonsense in completely unprompted. (suggesting/joking someone might be trans is not inherently transphobic. if you get offended at the notion you might be trans, thats transphobia or internalized transphobia. the "egg prime directive" is inherently transphobic, by asserting calling someone "trans" is bad. just because some people have no tact or are parasocial with it towards strangers online, doesn't mean that egg-jokes are inherently bad or even "transphobic")

"Transmisogynist" and "trans person in denial" are not the only two options here

no i don't think so, and in a reblog addition i went a bit more into this. notice how i said "there's overlap"? that was of course a simplification. i think there is nuance to this. imo transmisogyny-affectedness absolutely can act on a scale: for example i think self-identifying femboys who were camab are actually tma! But! they don't get as much brunt of transmisogyny as say a transfem who loudly demands being seen as a woman. another important point is that tma people themselves can be transmisogynistic too, even really vile in some cases. I'm not saying everyone identifying as a femboy is necessarily acting transmisogynistic, but many are. I'm not saying everyone identifying as a femboy is necessarily tma, but many are.

(and if you're a tme person who was cafab and identify with the femboy label, you're not better than someone who's tme who was cafab who identifies as a trap or shemale, etc. you're misappropriating and reclaiming slurs that are just straight up not yours to claim. or to approximate the aesthetics of transfeminized people. you're definitely not using it in a good-faith way, you're using it in the fetishizing third-gendering way in that case, to be clear)

GNC people and crossdressers exist

yeah, and i have absolutely no problem if you call yourself GNC or a crossdresser. it's even preferred. it's just simply not the same as self-identifying with a transmisogynistic slur, right? we can agree on that?

their existence isn't inherently wrong or detrimental to trans people

i agree. no, their existence is not inherently wrong. but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the language used to construct the term, the way it is culturally used, and the behaviour of people using it is transmisogynistic. nowhere did i claim people are inherently wrong for being GNC, that's a whole new sentence.

So what you call "third gendering terms" are always going to exist. Nonbinary, in of itself, is treated as a third gender by even non-binary people.

not what im referring here to at all. i mean third-gendering as in involuntarily third-gendering (and so in turn degendering/misgendering) transfems, denying their femininity, and forcefully placing them as an "other" third gender or sex (like trap, shemale, femboy etc) in society

also, nonbinary is not just a "third" gender: hi i'm a nonbinary transfem who is NOT identifying with that at all. for many it's definitely more complex, and many nonbinary identities dont lie inside of the gender binary or this constructed trinary, at all

And there are always going to be people who use terms for GNC people to describe trans people lmao.

literally if you use femboy for others who dont explicitly identify that way (or for fictional characters; or you hinge your sexuality as bisexual/pansexual/whatever because youre into "femboys"), you're 100% using it in a transfem-fetishizing, third-gendering, degrading way. you are being transmisogynistic, by asserting this identity upon transfems.

it's all about actions, and these are specifically transmisogynistic. i don't actually think the question "are femboys transmisogynstic?" is constructive. you gotta look at the actions of people, the question should be "is femboy a transmisogynistic term?". and yes, it definitely is in my honest opinion. but it also of course depends on how you use it.

i thinkt the core issue is that femboy is effectively a transmisogynistic slur, it absolved trap as a more socially acdepted alternative, and it is similarly constructed to other transmisogynistic slurs like shemale. it's a degrading third-gendering term

that means most people using it, will use it as such. most people claiming to be attracted to "femboys" or calling people femboys, who don't self-identify as such, are fetishizing transfeminized bodies.

and the people using it as a self-identifier, can use it in a fetishizing way, or in a reclaiming it as a tma person way. and there's a lot of the first that are just transmisogynists, and a lot that are just eggs, and of course some overlap

[utilitycaster]

I will say the current discourse becomes a lot funnier when you remember that Imogen suggested to and in front of Laudna (she did it more than once!) potentially siding the Vanguard AFTER one of them murdered her in cold blood just to get a rise out of Imogen -

- and *somehow* that hasn’t had the lasting impact on fandom that Orym fucking nodding at Laudna as she kills someone who just tried to murder them has?

Truly, bowlgate could *never*.

Hey anon,

Honestly while this is all very speculative and based on the relatively small cross-section of the fandom I see, as a person who will not touch Reddit and barely checks Twitter, the Orym and Laudna stuff feels cut from the same cloth as Bowlgate.

For reasons I cannot accurately pinpoint, though I have my theories, since I started watching and joined the fandom with the start of C2 there seem to have been people - maybe the same people, maybe there's been turnover - who have decided any interaction Marisha and Liam's characters have that isn't clearly entirely amicable (and some that are) is in fact an act of hostility. This has always baffled me, given that in Campaigns 1 and 2 they played characters who are particularly close, and that in Campaign 3 Liam's character is very much in homage to Keyleth. Insofarasmuch as I know the lives of the cast (ie, I don't), they seem to be extremely good friends, and from what I see at the table they have remarkably similar styles, a shared love of character conflict, and excellent chemistry (platonic or romantic). It has never made sense to me how intensely some people pit them against each other, either as Beau and Caleb or as Laudna and Orym, particularly when Marisha and Liam have never seemed to have even an ounce of rancor towards each other.

It feels very much born out of the "the only way to be a good character (or fan) is to be entirely deferential to my personal favorite character" mentality, and I've always found that mentality to be...deeply sad, honestly. I've said before that it baffles me that people watch a show with an ensemble cast of 7 players and act repulsed and offended when it's not a solo act. And for a fandom for a show where we just, demonstrably, treated a 3.5 hour episode as "unexpectedly short?" That is a huge amount of time to sink into something where you are miserable every minute that Laudna, or Marisha (or whoever your favorite character or actor is) isn't in the spotlight and leading the charge and given the royal treatment - let alone to watch CR with what appears to be an assumption that nearly everyone else at the table is actively out to undermine your favorite actor. That sounds exhausting and painful, and once I started thinking about that it made much more sense how vile and bitter these comments about an extremely mild choice from Liam and Orym is; because it's not really about Orym. It's about the nature of the show itself, which has always been the case and is unlikely to change. It might be other long-untended resentments as well. I'm reminded, tangentially, of how when I was frustrated with FCG as a character early on, I'd occasionally get people piling on in my inbox for utterly unrelated criticisms not of FCG but of Sam as a player that I found really offputting and which often made me pretty uncomfortable.

I do wonder if these people are not just upset that Orym (and Liam) are simply present; but if they are also frustrated with other things - perhaps with the campaign generally, or perhaps with Laudna herself - that they are afraid to admit they feel given how much they have staked their identity on their fandom preferences. Which again, sounds terribly lonely and draining and something to be pitied, irritating as it is for the rest of us.

Anyway, I think the best thing for everyone in the fandom not trapped in that particular mire of bad faith, cognitive dissonance, and curdled resentment to do is move on. I actually found it really heartening how many people on my post about Laudna's anger at Orym being entirely about the power from the siphon and nothing personal to Orym were like "until I saw this post it did not even occur to me that there was another interpretation of this scene." I certainly haven't been as good about this as I'd like to be, but I've really been trying as of late to approach the above paranoid reading mentality by depriving it of oxygen. In addition to the interesting conflicts brewing, there's been some great lore drops as of late. How about that portal?

[tenthgrove]

500 Followers Celebration!!!: Part 1 (La Squadra Backstories)

Hey! Thank you so much for 500 amazing followers! Every single one of you mean so much to me!

Part 1 of this celebration is, as the title suggests, my headcanon backstory for each of La Squadra. As some of you know I was at some point in the process of writing a full multi-chapter fic on this, but since that unfortunately never came to fruition beyond the first couple chapters, here is a shortened version of the stories that were originally planned.

Part 2 is going to be a little something I wrote a while back but never felt brave enough to send to more than a few people. That will be seeing the light of day soon. ;)

Risotto

Risotto Dante Nero was born in a small, poor farming village in Sicily, somewhere in the vicinity of Catania. His parents were a young, dysfunctional couple who weren't ready for a kid in the first place. Seeing their newborn son had 'evil' eyes was the last nail in the coffin for them, and they gave the baby up to his paternal grandmother when he was only days old.

Despite being shunned by his family over the aesthetic defect, Risotto was able to form a close bond with his older cousin, Domenico, who would eventually move in with him and his grandmother after being disowned by the family himself. Domenico helped Risotto find friends, and was the main reason why the next few years were the happiest in the young boys life.

Unfortunately, Domenico was struck and killed at age just 19 by a drunk driver, a millionaire from Milan who on top of his intoxication, was driving incredibly fast. Risotto never recovered from the grief; his personality was altered drastically and he eventually dropped out of school. His grandmother indulged him in his revenge fantasies, believing that he would never seriously carry them out. This proved the biggest mistake of her life.

At age 18 Risotto left home to hunt down Domenico's killer. Despite the years of preparation he was in way over his head and was eventually forced to make a deal with Passione for the resources he would need to break into the mansion and not get caught. But the newly initiated mafioso found that revenge did nothing for his grief. Now, he simply had nothing to work for.

Risotto fell into a deep depression for the next two years, doing his duties as a low-ranking soldato for Passione but feeling utterly empty inside. It became so dire that after becoming injured in a fight with a stand user, he welcomed what looked to be his impending death.

But Risotto did not die that day, being saved by an associate of the gang and rushed to hospital. After hearing word that Risotto had defeated a stand user, Prosciutto became interested and approached Risotto for help with a hit he had been assigned to. Risotto agreed and Prosciutto developed a liking for the young man. A few months later, when Prosciutto was tasked with forming a specialised squad for assassination, he remembered Risotto and requested he become the team’s captain. Risotto was put through at once for receiving a stand, and was seated at the head of the brand new La Squadra di Esecuzione.

Prosciutto

Maiale Crepuscolo was born the daughter of a powerful Don in Naples, and his much neglected wife. Raised in luxury, he came to resent his callous father, especially when the man continued to behave adulterously despite his wife’s failing health. The death of Mrs Crepuscolo was a huge blow to her 16 year old son. It was around this time that Maiale discovered his male identity and chose a new name for himself: Prosciutto.

Mere months after the death of his wife, Don Crepuscolo married his pregnant mistress, a young woman by the name of Loreta. Despite the circumstances, Prosciutto and Loreta got on very well together, and the young man confided in her about his transgender identity, to be met with her full support. Any faith that Prosciutto may have had in his father before was immediately lost when Loreta was thrown out onto the streets by her new husband, along with their infant son Pesci. His sole reason for doing this was that he had become tired of her, and the baby's crying.

Without his father’s knowing, Prosciutto continued to wire Loreta and Pesci money through his hefty allowance, and counted down the days until he could graduate highschool and become eligible for his mother’s inheritance. The very day he gained access to it, he cut his father off for good.

The next few years of Prosciutto’s life were the best. He went to a prestigious university to study politics and afterwards found work as a journalist. With his father no longer an issue, he medically transitioned and upped the money he was giving to his half-brother and former step-mother. Everything was going perfectly.

At age 24, Prosciutto received a visit by members of Passione, who informed him they had annexed his father’s gang and killed him. As much as Prosciutto insisted they had been estranged for years, the men maintained that Prosciutto was still considered a threat, and could only be allowed to live if he joined the gang. Worse, they threatened him with Pesci’s life. Prosciutto knew he had no choice.

Over the next few years, Prosciutto worked his way up. By age 27 he was granted the privilege to develop a stand, and was quickly pushed into the assassination business as a result of its deadly power. At that time, Passione had no designated assassination team, and individuals ordered to carry out hits had to go running around for volunteers if they needed help on a mission. This is why Prosciutto had sought out Risotto.

When the order to form a hitman squad was given, Prosciutto was initially primed to become the captain. However, he was strongly against taking this role, as Loreta was starting to show signs of chronic illness and Prosciutto wanted to make sure he could still take care of Pesci if it became necessary. Tasked with finding an alternative, Prosciutto initially approached his old friends Sorbet and Gelato, who had been part of the squad sent to confront him after the death of his father and had kept in touch out of pity. The pair were cleared to join the team, but were not trusted by the team’s superiors to become captain. And so, Prosciutto turned once more to Risotto.

Sorbet and Gelato

Sorbet and Gelato could not have been born in more different circumstances, the former in absolute poverty, and the latter in comparative privilege.

Sorbet’s mother was by no means a bad woman. It was just the case that through her crippling addictions and mental illnesses, she was in no means equipped to care for her 6 children, forcing Sorbet, the eldest, to pick up the slack. Though he loved his siblings the young Sorbet resented this role and was easily tempted by a street gang at age 12, who offered him escape from his miserable life through drug peddling. Sorbet began to drift from his family more and more. He soon disappeared from school, and became completely estranged from his mother and siblings.

By age 17 Sorbet had developed a reputation in the gang for ruthlessness, and was approached by its leader to carry out a number of assassinations. He soon became the group’s designated hitman, and was paid generously for the role. He was still however, functionally homeless.

Gelato was born to an upper-middle class family in Minsk, Russia. The youngest of four boys, his parents had been hoping for a girl, and their resentment only grew when it became clear the young Gelato was both autistic and ADHD. He suffered from extreme emotional neglect.

When Gelato was 13, the family moved back to Italy where his mother was from. Though he preferred it here, the problems with his family continued and Gelato was eventually kicked out at just 17 years old.

Following the word of a friend, Gelato made his way to Naples and found work running an illegal bar for a street gang in exchange for a room to sleep in. The same gang, incidentally, that Sorbet was working for. The two first exchanged words when Gelato found Sorbet beating up a patron who had been abusive to him, and decided to join in. Within weeks, they were lovers.

One night, while Sorbet and Gelato were asleep upstairs, the police raided the bar. In a panic, Gelato shot two, and Sorbet took out a third. The fourth got away. Knowing they would be hunted, the pair begged refuge from their gang but were denied. They were not a powerful enough syndicate to deal with something of this size. And so, with only each other, Sorbet and Gelato fled Italy.

They were on the run for two years, passing through just about every country in Europe at least once. As a means of surviving, they took on assassination contracts from local gangs and became very skilled, but of course this only turned up the heat to catch them. Eventually, it got too much, and in a final desperate bid to avoid capture, the pair went back to Italy to plead their gang to reconsider.

What they found now in charge of Naples was not their gang, but Passione. A capo by the name of Pericolo listened to their story, and agreed eagerly to dissuade the police from pursuing them in exchange for their loyalty to the new gang. Sorbet and Gelato agreed at once, and developed stands soon after.

Formaggio

A Naples Boy through and through, Formaggio was born in the central city to a large, loving family. Owing to their poverty, all the aunts, grandparents and cousins lived in one house. Although many were part of the mafia, it was always stressed to the children they were under no obligation to choose such a life. Nonetheless, many of them still did.

One night, Formaggio’s eldest brother Miguel sneaked off from the house, telling nobody but Formaggio. His goal was to seek initiation into Passione. The young Formaggio pleaded to come as well, but was told he was not ready yet. Miguel returned a couple of hours later, carrying a metal arrowhead. He told his brother that something unexpected had happened, and he needed to go now, but it was vital Formaggio told nobody of this meeting. He promised it would all be worth it in the end.

Years passed, and Miguel did not return. Then one day- a hastily-written letter, addressed solely to Formaggio. In his final message, Miguel apologised for the absence and announced that he did not expect to survive the next few hours. However, if Formaggio wanted the answers to all that had transpired, all he needed to do was recover the arrowhead that he had last seen Miguel with all those years ago. Most likely, it would have been returned to where he found it, address enclosed. Saddened and eager to understand what had happened to his brother, Formaggio followed the instructions and broke into a heavily guarded warehouse. He found the arrow, just as Miguel had said, but failed to understand how this could solve his problems.

Formaggio looked for a way out of the warehouse, and was suddenly set upon by the guards. He ran for the exit and tripped, impaling himself on the arrow. Little Feet came forth at once, stunning the guards. Not wanting to deal with whatever that was, they called in Risotto and his newly built execution squad, based nearby, to deal with it.

Fortunately, the assassins’ skills were not needed. In spite of the circumstances Formaggio met the assassins with charm and cooperation. Risotto phoned his superiors to see if killing the man was really necessary, and they agreed it wasn’t, provided Formaggio became Risotto’s business. An agreement was reached, and Formaggio was inducted into the hitman squad. It would take two more members for Formaggio to piece together what had happened to his brother.

Ghiaccio

Ghiaccio was dealt an awful hand in life. Poor, and with parents that hated him, he had little respite as a child. He was autistic, but never diagnosed, and had visual impairments that were never addressed. His fondest memory was of a bizarre couple he met as a child, a dark-haired, dour man and his blond lover, who kept him company after his mother walked away from him in anger at a shopping mall. She came back, unfortunately.

When Ghiaccio was 15, a frantic knock sounded at his door while his parents were out. Answering it nervously, an equally frantic man stood on the other side brandishing an arrow-head. He introduced himself exhaustedly as Miguel and begged for shelter- he was being chased.

Before Ghiaccio could answer a squad of men burst onto the porch and attacked Miguel, dragging him out of view. Ghiaccio was thrown to the ground and told in no uncertain terms to speak of none of this to anyone. It wasn’t until later he realised the arrow had accidentally slashed him.

At that time, Ghiaccio’s soul was not fit to manifest a stand, but it was close. And so, Ghiaccio began to suffer the slow, agonising fate that some in his position fall victim to, his half-manifested stand slowly sucking the life from him. His parents didn’t even have the heart to call a doctor.

Two months into this agony, Ghiaccio heard something outside his room. His parents. They were talking about what to do if he died. He’d had enough. He snapped.

And so, Ghiaccio’s soul reached the point where it was strong enough to bare a stand fully, after having already partially manifested one. This unheard of situation created a stand with no physical form, but unspeakable power. A surge of ice broke out around the house without Ghiaccio even meaning it to, killing his parents at once. His sickness gone, Ghiaccio got up from the bed. What the hell had just happened?

Convinced he had lost his mind, Ghiaccio fled, but left a trail of unexplainable events behind him. Realising they were dealing with an unaccounted stand user, Passione had Ghiaccio hunted down and propositioned to join them. Terrified and with no other idea of what to do, he agreed. With a stand like this, there were only 2 options: La Squadra and La Unita. La Unita had no interest in an impulsive teenager, so Ghiaccio was sent at once to La Squadra.

The group was reluctant to house a teenage boy as an assassin, but took him in nonetheless. Formaggio was grateful for the crumbs of information Ghiaccio could give about the fate of his brother. Sorbet and Gelato couldn’t shake the feeling they’d seen the boy before somewhere.

Illuso

He was an only child. There was nothing particularly wrong with his relationship with his parents, but nothing particularly right either. There just… wasn’t a connection. They were a middle class family, well to do but nothing special. An arrogant boy, Illuso struggled to make friends, though he did become somewhat close with a boy in the year below him named Formaggio, for a short time.

When Illuso was 15, his parents came to him with a proposition. A distant relative of theirs was in possession of a large castle, but could not pay for its upkeep any more. The man had asked if Illuso would be interested in becoming a live-in caretaker, to be paid less than industry standards but still a lot by the standards of a 15 year old boy. Illuso agreed at once, and moved out of his parents home in a matter of days.

At the castle, his loneliness only grew. The place was closed to visitors and had no inhabitants apart from his new employer, who even then only lived in the castle 4 days a week. Illuso thought he was okay with this life, but the effect on his psyche was indisputable.

Then one day, the castle had a break-in. Illuso was accosted by a young man named Miguel, who had been squatting in the cellar for days and believed the castle was abandoned. The pair came to an understanding, and Miguel proposed that in exchange for his silence, he would give Illuso something amazing. He pricked him with the arrow.

Thrilled with his new power, Illuso agreed to keep Miguel’s existence a secret and the pair co-existed for many years. Illuso learned that Miguel had stolen the arrow from a gang named Passione, after discovering its power and making the decision to take it on impulse. Passione is still hunting him, hence the need to hide.

But eventually, they found him nonetheless. Illuso and Miguel tried their best to fight but it was an uneven battle. Miguel fled with the arrow, chased by one half of the attacking squad, leaving Illuso to deal with the other half.

But against all odds, Illuso survived, using his stand to eliminate the attackers one by one. Eventually the last attackers gave in and fled, The next people sent to confront Illuso came with a deal: join Passione, and all will be forgiven.

Despite his stand’s power, Illuso’s superiors disliked his attitude. After a few months of being thrown between teams, he was saddled with La Squadra.

Melone

The middle of three children, Melone was born to an upper-working class family in Florence. His parents were eccentric-academic sorts, who encouraged Melone and his sisters to act without regard for social convention. Though intelligent, Melone was never quite top of the class due to his inability to stay on task. Still, he got into a decent university and had plans to become a gynaecologist.

In his second year, Melone was approached by a poor couple seeking antenatal care for their pregnancy. As they explained, they were in a gang and could not go into public care for fear of their identities as criminals being discovered. They pleaded Melone for whatever rudimentary checks he could provide, just so they could have some assurance their baby was okay. Melone agreed, and met with the couple several times.

Over the course of the next year, Melone gave similar services to a couple more women who were recommended to go to him by the first patient. It was only a matter of time before the university discovered what he was doing, especially once he started stealing equipment to improve the quality of his examinations. Melone was expelled and referred to the police, but one of his patients got Passione to bribe away his charges. Unfortunately, this put him in their debt. Melone told his family he was simply going away for a while.

Melone languished around in Passione for a while. Though he did receive a stand, its lethal capabilities weren’t immediately clear, and so he remained in the lower ranks. His main respite was the bar scene, in which he got to mingle with many of Passione’s members from different squads. It was through here that he met Illuso, Formaggio and Ghiaccio of the execution team, and formed a friendship. Through them he even formed links with the group’s leader, Risotto.

The team were eager to help Melone advance to a better position, and aided him in exploring his stand. Eventually, he discovered how lethal baby face could truly be, outshining everyone’s expectations. Risotto was pleased to welcome him into the team.

Pesci

By the time Pesci was 13, it was clear his mother’s illness was terminal. Initially reluctant to involve him around the team, Prosciutto increasingly allowed Pesci to stay with them while his mother was at the hospital, since there was nowhere else for the young boy to go. As much as everyone tried to comfort him, he was terrified.

Two years later, it was clear Loreta was in her final weeks. Pesci dedicated as much time as he could to being with her, sleeping at her bedside more often than not. It was here that he first felt the strange occurrences begin. It would be subtle at first, the peculiar feeling of his mother’s heartbeat in his hands as he drifted off to sleep. It was comforting, then. It assured him his mother was still alive. Then, it got weirder, a long string extending from his fingers and into his mother’s chest. He thought he was just sleep deprived.

When the fateful day came and Loreta’s heart monitor stopped, Pesci felt a surge of panic. Desperate to find some proof this wasn’t really happening, his stand burst forth from his body and shot its hook into Loreta’s chest. Unfortunately, it was all for nothing. Loreta was dead.

As Pesci held the rod in his hands he realised this was far too real to be a hallucination. He could sense everything, the fading metabolism of his mother’s body and the vibrations in the floor. As the nurses confirmed the death, they could not see it. Why couldn’t they see it?

Prosciutto came into the room. With one look, Pesci knew that his brother could see the rod as well. He panicked and ran.

Prosciutto tried desperately over the next couple days to get in touch with Pesci. He knew exactly what had happened- clearly the boy had summoned a stand from the anguish of his mother’s death and had freaked out in confusion. That’s all completely understandable, but if Pesci isn’t informed of what his new power means soon, he could get himself into serious trouble. Especially if Passione found out.

And so, Prosciutto set off with Risotto to hunt Pesci down, eventually finding him at a run down park near his childhood home. Prosciutto comforted him and explained he knew what was happening, but if everything was going to be okay, he had to go with them.

[tracybirds]

Sorry, this got too long for a reply.

@myladykayo @sethizah To be very clear, if we're referring to the mess that happened a couple of years ago, the "shaming and shunning" was one person wanted things tagged and a bunch of people (quite frankly, yourself included MLK) overreacted and took that request in incredibly bad faith. While I don't believe they 100% expressed themselves well and they also reacted badly, the truth of the matter is they were a teenager, you are an adult, and the escalation that occurred was unnecessary.

Yes, there are people who prefer gen fic and that is not an expression of disdain on those who like reading and writing romance. There are so many people in our fandom who enjoy reading and writing romance, although yes it is a rarer thing simply by the nature of five of the main characters being brothers.

Although I don't write much romance, I do enjoy it, and I'm glad there's space for both in our fandom. Tagging things (or in my case writing short author's notes and summaries because I'm a disaster at tagging) will always make things easier to find or avoid. And focusing on making and interacting content you enjoy, and surrounding yourself with people who get what you're about takes time but will always be a more positive experience.

I can't read romances (there are very few exceptions) I don't really know why since it seems like everyone likes them but it doesn't interest me... I love reading stories about friendships and family, but romance I can't read it, I don't know why. So this fandom has been one of the very few left that still writes stories just about friendships and family. Almost all other fandons are about shops (betrayal, deceit etc..). One of the reasons I love this fandom.

(Not that romances are bad, for God's sake, that's not it. It's just my damn hyperfocus that doesn't let me enjoy anything outside of it...)

[blacksunscorpio]

What does it mean when I have a Capricorn signature?

Signature Sign In Astrology

You might have heard the term signature sign thrown around if you’ve been studying astrology for a while. Others of you might not have heard if this concept at all. It isn’t as well-known, however, it can reveal significant information about you.

What it Means

To put it plainly, the astrological signature sign is the zodiac sign that’s the most specific to you and your character.

How to find it

It involves noting which element and quality/modality appear the most or has the most signs and then combining them into a zodiac sign which is taken to be the signature sign of the chart. It will be easy to do because certain characteristics of signs will repeat themselves. It’s the most frequent modality and element in your natal chart.

Ex. 1 A person has more fire signs than any other element, and more fixed signs than any other quality, then that person's signature is Leo. In some cases, there is no clear majority in either element or quality to give a clear signature. When this occurs, an individual has an Ambiguous Signature.

Ex. 2  Let’s say you are a Taurus Sun, a fixed earth sign. But many planets in mutable signs take up residence in your chart. In addition, you have a multitude of planets in water. This makes you feel like a Neptunian/Pisces, which is a mutable water sign. You might not have many or any for that matter significant placements in Pisces but somehow still identify with the qualities of the sign to a great extent.

How To Find It Cont.

You weigh the elements and modalities of the sign where a planet is located in your chart. Begin with the Sun, next Moon and repeat this process for all the planets in your natal chart: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. The ascendant and the Midheaven also have to be considered.

Signature Signs Through The Zodiac

Aries signature

If Aries is your signature sign, you are ambitious and have a strong will. Boss-like. Warrior. Killer instinct. Can sometimes be hot-headed and impulsive, it happens that you act before you think instead of the other way around which can get you into serious trouble. Don’t be Oberyn from GoT and get cocky now. However, you’re a born leader and like to initiate things. Taking action is your second nature. No one will ever pull the Hermit card or 4 of cups for you in a Tarot reading. Way too active. A straightforward sign, which sometimes blends into bluntness, bossiness, or take-no-prisoners attitude. Being independent is very important to you. You hate being told what to do. You like to work alone if you can. Competitive and brave, someone who loves new challenges. You love to win. Will always be after new opportunities to conquer.

Taurus signature 

If Taurus is your astrological signature sign, you prefer to think before you act. Need a lot of time to make a decision, but once it’s done, nothing can make you change your mind. You are incredibly stubborn and persistent. Taurus is the sign of hedonism. If this is your signature sign in astrology, you know how to enjoy life. You appreciate good food, beautiful clothes, and everything luxurious. Taurus craves stability, both financially and emotionally. You are dependable and passionate. Love to cook and or shop for expensive and good quality things. Can be jealous in love or possessive as well. Bullheaded to the point of no return but just as ambitious when it comes to cultivating stability and wealth.

Gemini signature

If Gemini is your signature sign, you are curious, witty, and chatty. You are a great observant, someone who notices every detail, and then make a pun about it. Gemini is incredibly smart. They love to read and write, and they are usually talented when it comes to expressing themselves. However, Gemini because of their mercurial flighty nature can lack focus if they don’t reign it in somehow. This flightiness can give others the impression that they are sometimes superficial. You get bored veryyy quickly. Because of this, you need a lot of mental stimulation. Geminis are life-long learners, they are simply in love with knowledge. Need to be sure to keep that devil and angel [your twins] aligned so as to not make enemies or be seen as two-faced.

Cancer signature 

If Cancer is your signature sign in astrology, you are a gentle soul. However, you become easily overwhelmed with others. Cancer is a crab and will retreat into its shell if it’s not in the mood to deal. Can be moody and or need a lot of time on your own, in the safety of your home. They like to be surrounded by family members. You are soft and caring. HIGHKEY intuitive and can sense the emotions of others easily [especially when developed.] They are extremely protective of their loved ones. Will pinch you with their claws if you mess with them or someone they care about.

Leo signature

If your signature sign is Leo, you have a big heart. Quite warm and sincere. Famous for its generosity. They, like Jupiterians like to give- especially in terms of love and affection. Leos need luxury around them. They are the royalty of the zodiac, right? They enjoy being around others, making people laugh and cheering them up. Have lots of energy but a big ego to go with it. They love attention and might court it often or simply get it naturally since the Sun is in the mix here. Too much of the negative manifestation of Leo can make one prone to arrogance, bossiness, and boastfulness. It’s important to realize that this wounds people around you. If you show others your soft side, they will give you all the love you crave.

Virgo signature 

If Virgo is your signature sign, you are modest, effective, and helpful. Deeply analytical and process information at the drop of a hat. Productivity is very important to you. Virgos have a high attention to detail, and they solve problems by analyzing them. Rational and cerebral thinking is one of your greatest strengths. Quite reliable and have a strong sense of duty. Can be hyper-critical and a bit too compulsive in their tendencies. Prone to nervousness and anxious habits. However, this sign has a very powerful brain. They prefer thinking over feeling, which can be sometimes challenging for them. 

Libra signature 

If your signature sign is Libra, you’ll be quite elegant. Venusian, baby. No matter what they do, they’ll make sure to do it with their face on and in their best attire. Libras are graceful and charming. They have great social skills, and they get along with everyone. However, sometimes they don’t stand up for themselves even when they should or because they wish to avoid conflict at all costs. They can also be a bit superficial which might be perceived as “fake” by some. There’s a deep need to be liked. Quite good taste though. Keen artistic talents. Great diplomats and would do well as an ambassador or even in HR [actually, please think about getting into Human Resources, there are way too many pieces of shit in this particular department]. This sign strives to create harmony, both visually and in interpersonal relationships.

Scorpio signature 

If your signature sign is Scorpio, you possess the qualities of Pluto. You have a deep mind, are intense and probing with perhaps a bit of a mysterious aura. You make a perfect detective. Nothing stays hidden. Quite loyal and passionate with intense emotions. Intuition is superb, but you are very sensitive at the same time. Scorpio can become obsessed with the object of their love. May be prone to jealousy in love or be quite ruthless and vengeful if slighted. It’s important NOT to get on this person’s bad side because Scorpios rarely [if ever] forgive. Is probably very sexual or unmatched in bed. Might end up rich [Pluto=wealth]. Might become a Mafia-boss. Might become a dictator. Might run a funeral home. Depends, lol.

Sagittarius signature

Expansion. Jupiter rules this sign and as a result one with this signature loves new experiences that aid them in understanding the world better. Optimistic and with a great sense of humor, people love being around them. They have high energy levels and they are always on the go. If your signature sign is Sagittarius, you have an unshakable faith in the universe. Philosophical prowess and an open mind with a streak of jolliness The sign of philosophy, and always looking towards the bright side. Might be blunt, unattached, and a bit dramatic or louder than most, however, lucky breaks might come often or in the nick of time. Makes sense since Jupiter rules luck.

Capricorn signature 

If Capricorn is your signature sign, there are significant earthy vibes to you, no matter your actual sign. Said native is reliable, efficient, and incredibly meticulous, and high-key ambitious. There’s a great need for success that borderlines on obsession. They are empowered by executive achievements and accomplishments. Order, structure, and discipline are paramount. Capricorns are famous in astrology for being known as hard workers who put a lot of effort into achieving their goals. They do not give up. They will climb the ladder, do or die. Typically will be quite successful in life. Often accused of being cold or cruel. Hell, they might be. Still, they are in need and are deserving of love and commitment. Reliable in a relationship once they decide to stop restricting themselves of affection and give in.

Aquarius signature 

Unique and eccentric, you always notice it when you meet an Aquarian. If Aquarius is your signature sign, you prefer to live life on your own terms. Freedom is your most important value in life. You enjoy being around like-minded people, even though your relationships are usually not of an emotional nature. Aquarius is the sign of brilliance in astrology. I always say that Aquarians have the highest levels of analytical intelligence but sometimes get written off because they can be weirdos lol. Mad scientist vibes. Wonderful ideas, fascinated by everything new and modern. Tech geeks. Aquarius is also the sign of humanitarian ideals. If you have this sign strong in your chart, you have a strong sense of justice.

Pisces signature

If Pisces is your signature sign, you have a very strong intuition. Quite sensitive to the point that all that white noise can easily overwhelm them. Hard to make out reality sometimes. Hence, Pisces needs to spend a lot of time alone in suspension thinking about things. Compassionate and have a strong sympathy for those suffering. Great healing abilities and an even greater imagination and creative streak. Probably feels quite good around water and can have a psychic knack with animals. Can be very musical and often have strong artistic talents. Be sure to tether yourself to this world so as to not float off. Escapism is okay but don’t escape reality too much. You may have come from another realm but in this incarnation, you were placed here for a reason. You belong here on earth with us ;).  

[itsclydebitches]

PFFFF The newest Witcher trailes LITERALLY throws shade! They have the 'Geralt, but you've been such lone wofl so long, what change' and deadass show JASKIER before later shoving Geralt saying 'Yennefer' like a cheap 'no homo!' excuse. I can't. xD Whoever edited it knows what's on. xD

I feel so conflicted about the Jaskier-Geralt relationship in the show because on the one hand, yeah, they're definitely leaning into this non-romance in a way that can get uncomfortable for some, how shall I put this... jaded viewers lol. We know they'll never be canon. No matter what else we might say about Netflix's inability to accurately adapt the books, Geralt/Yennefer has always and will always be endgame, so getting intimacy between Geralt and Jaskier in these particular ways (flirty jokes, bath scene, argument staged like a breakup), while not explicitly queerbaiting, can make viewers feel... icky about it all. Especially for any show-only fans who might not know that Geralt/Yennefer is endgame. Many viewers, particularly American viewers, approach shows as malleable forms of entertainment that can provide them with the representation they crave, provided the fanbase is vocal enough about wanting it. And the more talk that surfaces about major, crucial changes to the plot that reinterpret huge swaths of the books' purpose and intent, the more it can feel like they might just change Geralt's love life too! Even though they (obviously) won't. And frankly shouldn't given that this is supposed to be a faithful adaptation.

Yet on the flipside, the Netflix versions of Jaskier and Geralt don't feel intimate to me at all. Their hostile introduction, Geralt outright punching him, the continued performance of 'I'm a big strong manly man who can't admit that he cares about others,' reducing decades of their bonding to a surprising, throwaway line, that argument when Geralt blames Jaskier for all his problems... it's terrible and I've never liked this dynamic for them (even as I, somewhat hypocritically, play with it in fic). So I'm like, you're intimate enough that fans are starting to side-eye the creators' intentions and yet simultaneously not intimate in any of the ways you should be if you were actually faithful adaptations of the book. And these problems, I believe, go hand-in-hand. By ignoring the actual friendship of the books, Netflix has been forced to "prove" that they care for one another by falling back on tired buddy tropes that, historically, fans have used as evidence for a potential romantic relationship. By not writing Geralt and Jaskier as having the open, witty, philosophical, caring-but-also-taking-no-shit relationship they had in the books, Netflix has fallen back on a dynamic that isn't doing their show any favors. Fans either hate it, or love it to the point where they expect something of the show that the show can never deliver.

So it's a mess! And that mess hasn't done Yennefer any favors either. I'm really not in a position to be defending that pairing - I've never hid that I'm not a Geralt/Yen fan - but whatever the books did that made others love their relationship... I don't think Netflix is capitalizing on that either. In that other ask I brought up how in the games their relationship seems to revolve entirely around Ciri and sex. If they're not talking about their daughter (or if Yen isn't being cruel) their relationship is just about how horny they are for each other, which... isn't really a relationship to me. Or at least, not the deep, "We belong together forever, we're basically soulmates" relationship that the franchise is going for. Same with Netflix. I never liked the foundation of their relationship being an ambiguous wish that tethered them irrevocably and a quickie in the rubble as a replacement for actually getting to know one another... but Netflix takes those aspects and emphasizes them to a disappointing degree.

"You spent a lifetime alone. What changed?"

"Yennefer of Vengerberg."

Yet when it comes time for the trailer to show us what this deep, insightful relationship is that changed a man after an entire lifetime of wandering alone... it's just sex. That's literally all Netflix is able to show us because that's the only meaningful interactions Geralt and Yen have had together. Here's a clip of them falling into bed together and Geralt, without any of that emotional work shown to the viewer, professes that he loves Yennefer the way she's always wanted to be loved.

Here's a clip of the joke we got where Jaskier is gaping over them having sex on the floor post-Yen nearly killing the lot of them.

I'm like... what out of any of this is meant to be appealing to me? Besides the fact that they're both hot as hell? (The casting does make my little bi heart happy lol.) For me, Geralt and Yen are a classic case of a story insisting they're meant for each other because That's Just How Stories Work, without doing any of the actual, you know, work to show us why they like each other, or how they got there, or why these superficial things (the sex is great!) trump the huge hurdles they should be working through. The games might have their flaws, but god bless 'em for letting the characters point out, "Hey... how do we even know this love is real and not just a byproduct of the djinn's wish?"

Geralt and Jaskier, as established, absolutely have their problems in the show, but I can understand why so many fans ship them over Geralt/Yen. And no, though bigotry can play a part, we also can't demonize the entirety of its popularity with, "You just hate women/are racist/creepily obsessed with queer men/whatever the latest accusation is." Rather, the popularity exists because, whatever their faults, it feels like they actually have a relationship in the show. We see them developing together in a way we simply don't get with Yennefer/Geralt and because that development isn't largely reduced to sex scenes—the narrative trying to pass every bonding moment off as True Love, with True Love equaling physical attraction—it comes across (at least to me) as more realistic and believable, especially given Geralt's character, someone who is emotionally closed off. If Vesemir (I think it's Vesemir) asked what changed and we deliberately cut to that moment of Jaskier leaving after Geralt drove him away... I'd more easily believe that yeah, this relationship is causing Geralt to rethink things in a way he hasn't for an entire lifetime. We've seen them travel together, become (begrudging) comrades, defend one another, do favors for each other, tease each other, have a major fight that they'll inevitably make up from, Jaskier is presented as Geralt's first friend, and none of this is tied to a questionable wish, or passed off as the totality of Geralt's development.

The fact that Netflix would include those lines, cut to a legitimately heart-wrenching moment between Geralt and Jaskier, but when it comes times to show his relationship with Yennefer, the most powerful moments are her without him (smashing the mirror, undergoing her transformation, stepping out in her new body for the first time, etc.) and their moments together are just sex—one of which is used partially for comedy—well... that just illustrates the problem for me. What relationship? The one that supposedly exists simply because the story says it's there? I don't think I'll ever be a Geralt/Yen shipper, but I'm perfectly capable of separating my personal preferences from subpar writing choices. Netflix is far into the latter. The way that they're adapting the story is, imo, hurting both fans of the book material and fans who are on the fence about book material. Because so few of these changes are working well, we've lost all the good the books contained and are now stuck with so much new bad. Basically, "No one liked that."

Except, of course, for the Geralt/Jaskier shippers riding the coattails of those tropes... though many will likely be disappointed and hurt by the series' end when they're not made canonical, with others growing frustrated with how the fandom has turned on them simply for liking what they were given. It's really turning into a lose-lose for everyone involved.

[cryptovalid]

Racebending is a good way to promote racial equity in representation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fitzrove]

I don't think you quite caught my point about nationalism and nationalist historiography (w the way you bring up former minority peoples of the empire and draw a link between current and 19th century people from those nations haha).

Also, what about the "united states of Europe" stuff? The antimilitarism (well, anti-German militarism lol)? I think it's reductive to declare all of his politics bad just because they prioritised the imperial centre. I truly get that it's frustrating to see imperialism swept under the rug, but like...

I don't believe nationalism is inherently good, and I come from a country which suffered heavily under the Russian empire. It's reductive to say that only people from the imperial centre would see criticism of nationalism as a positive thing. I actually believe many of the ills of modern society come from nationalism, and that the Austro-German critical research tradition (which they were forced to adopt post-ww2: you can't have a positive relationship to nationalism after the worst excesses of WW2) is an important example that more countries could stand to draw inspiration from. Yes, even countries where nationalism has at times had a positive effect on the course of history. I know this is a contentious topic especially in post-communist countries where nationalism has been a central tool in resisting/becoming liberated from a dictatorship, but an unfortunate reality is that a blind belief in the "independence = nationalism = good and uncriticiseable" pipeline is what has led to the rise of current reactionary movements (just look at Finland, Poland, Hungary...). Nationalism also excludes and oppresses smaller minorities within these newly formed nation-states (one of my main gripes with Finnish nationalism is the atrocious treatment of the Sámi and the way that's still swept under the rug, and I would wager that this dynamic exists in other societies where an imperial minority has gained power and subsequently become a national majority).

Of course, it's not GOOD that Rudolf was standing against national self-determination for minority peoples within his empire. I'm not saying that nation-states shouldn't exist lol, that would be nonsense. But we have to understand that being an imperial official (where he would realistically never advocate for policies that would chip away at the empire, that would be nonsense and destroy his own mandate/bid on power) has nuances. The question of what kind of imperial official he was is vastly more interesting to me than "omg guys did you know that empires are bad??". We know empires are bad for the subaltern especially if/when they strive for independence or self-determination lol, it's a pretty consistent historical theme. I mean, we could stand to look more at power structures within the Habsburg empire, but in Rudolf's case I simply believe that there is more to it than that. Namely, the way he conceptualised international relations between empires, the kind of society and political system he wanted to advance domestically, the personal preferences that were quite different from other nobility at the time.

Anyway, yeah, idk. It's nuanced, maybe there was good faith criticism that wasn't at all tinged by the more radical and reactionary forms of exclusionary nationalism. And I definitely think it's flawed of Hamann to bring up posthumous criticism while arguing about contemporary reactions. However, in my research I uncovered a very strong, significant relationship between [1889!] conservative nationalist criticism of Rudolf (in the imperial borderlands, albeit not in A-H) and domestic antisemitism & antiliberalism & opposition to civil rights. One was an instrument of advancing the other, they were all mixed up together.

All this is not quite Hamann's original argument that all criticism was just antisemitism and reactionaryism, and that Rudolf was liberal and pro-democracy by modern standards (which is something that people who poorly understand him do sometimes characterise him as) but it would seem to fit in with her overall sketch. I think you're going too far in the opposite direction. After all: even if Rudolf's politics were demonstrably bad, criticism of them could still be motivated by antisemitism and reactionary nationalism - or undertones of them. Maybe I will change my mind if you show me liberal nationalist criticism of him.

"yall do realize just because something has been a target of misogynistic criticism, that doesn't make stanning it completely uncritically in response some kind of revolutionary feminist praxis"

This, but with antisemitism instead of misogyny is my biggest problem with Brigitte Hamann's biography of Rudolf. If that makes sense.

I don't really understand what you mean 😅 I think Hamann only calls out antisemitism when antisemitism is occurring, and her commentary regarding the rise of violent nationalism at the end of the 19th century (and Rudolf's hopeless position in resisting it) is super apt and also, like, the #1 reason I care about Rudolf at all....... in general I consider Hamann's Rudolf bio one of the key texts of Rudolf scholarship, and am a pretty uncritical stan of it. If anything, the only flaw in her work is that she's too mean about Elisabeth :'D

[letterstomydaughter]

On good and bad, and moral philosophy Dear Daughter(s), The date is 25 Oct 2023, Wednesday. I had a long conversation with the older of you two, about whether we can "blame" people for doing things that we think are bad. This ended up to be a two-hour-long discussion on very elaborate examples, and I think it's something worth summarizing here. The first point is that what we think is "bad" or "evil" or "wrong" is very often a perception influenced by our social environment and community. What this implies is that one community (or even one family) may think some things are "wrong" and "bad", while others don't feel that way about the same behaviour. Cultural differences happen on a larger scale, but even between people, beliefs and preferences differ, which can change these perceptions. Consequently, as a general rule, "right" and "wrong" are unfortunately not universal, especially if we look primarily at outcomes and processes (i.e.the consequentialists' and utilitarians' perspective) The second is that simply looking at the outcome and processes are insufficient to determine morality - people's behaviour are influenced, if not motivated, by circumstances (or existential/historical conditions and experiences - see Durkheim for more of this when you are older). We ended up with various cases of why people do things that are supposedly "bad" - sometimes they are ignorant, sometimes they choose the lesser of evils among the options, sometimes there is a higher intention/agenda/purpose, sometimes they have no other option, sometimes they don't think that what they are doing is bad, and sometimes (of course) they are just evil. There are multiple permutations of knowledge, intention, deliberateness, and many more that come into question. The last thing that I wanted to leave you at the end of the conversation - when you were already drained and sleepy - was that sometimes, we see things from our perspective, and simply stop there. We don't see beyond that, and it should come as no surprise that maybe we can't; we don't live in their skin, their lives, their background. It is therefore sometimes simpler to be compassionate and assume the best, rather than be bitter about the persons' state of being and morality, because we can never hope to understand where the person's perspective is coming from...which might be a good thing if the person is really evil. (Trust me on the last part, I spent many years of my life doing the latter, and at the time of writing, I still am bitter about quite a few who have made me bear the brunt of their insecurity - but that is a post for another time.) By the end of that conversation, and of this post, I hope you realise that being "good" or "bad", "right" and "wrong", is not as clear cut as you think it might be as a child; and that sometimes we must commit "wrongs" in order to persist on what is "right" (and that is admittedly consequentialistic in thinking). The world is a complicated place. It's not going to get any easier as you grow up. I don't have the answers and I struggle with these complications too; but maybe that's what makes us human, makes us strong. You can do this, daughters. I have faith in you. Love, Dad