#but people are applying morals to a LEGITIMATE strategy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mbti-notes · 4 years ago

Note

So, I'm an INTJ who often (especially in the past) have tried to be open and supportive to friends and an ex of mine when it comes to certain problems. I noticed that I often jump to trying to solve their problem for them or offering suggestions and end up neglecting their emotional needs in the end—there's maybe a 50% chance that I was helpful at all. The other alternative is accidentally being taken advantage of and used as a crutch, which I'm luckily done with. Is there any better way to help out when I can hardly understand how a friend feels outside of just being frustrated or anxious?

Practical information and advice about handling emotional needs is already covered in the Emotional Well-Being section, please read. I will use your question as an opportunity to elaborate on the concept of helping, since people often ask about it.

Being able to help effectively is not just one particular skill but a set of skills. I use the word “skills” because they can be learned as long as one has the motivation to study, practice, and improve. Most people know that helping skills are invaluable in a variety of professional and personal contexts. I would also argue that helping skills are essential for personal growth because they play an important role in overcoming the self-inflicted limitations of egocentrism in the process of ego development.

1. Empathy Skills

To be an effective helper, the first thing you need is a decent level of emotional intelligence. This involves having good emotional awareness, knowing how to identify and label feelings and emotions correctly, and knowing how to express feelings and emotions constructively. It is very difficult to understand the emotional life of others when you aren’t even able to understand your own or, worse, when your own emotional life is stunted, repressed, unstable, or dysfunctional. Work on improving your emotional intelligence and, if necessary, learn through healing your own emotional issues and wounds. If you suffer from all sorts of unaddressed or unresolved emotional issues swirling around in your unconscious mind, you are very likely to project them onto people, which will handicap or undermine your attempts to help them.

From having a healthy emotional life, you are able to practice the emotional empathy that is necessary for having a caring and helpful attitude. In human beings, empathy is a very natural emotional response to suffering, due to our evolutionary history of being a cooperative species. Unless you have neurological damage/deficits, you should be capable of feeling bad when you see someone else feeling bad, if only because you know how shitty it is to experience badness. That is the basis of empathy in a nutshell.

I use the phrase “practice empathy” because, when life is busy or too self-involved, it is all too easy to brush others off. Worse, some people are very averse to negativity and actively suppress their empathy so that they never have to feel guilty. Suppression of feeling, taken to extremes, may lead to callousness or aggression. Practicing empathy means that you actually stop and take the time to get in touch with your empathy, to really feel it, whenever you witness suffering. By actively deepening your empathy, you have a natural source of motivation to lend a helping hand.

Emotional empathy is how you nurture your moral character and moral virtues, i.e., to become an ethical, kind, caring, and compassionate person. By contrast, cognitive empathy is about having the ability to construct an accurate theory of mind and using it to assess human problems carefully, so that your solutions take into consideration how each vested party will be impacted. Another term that people use fairly synonymously with cognitive empathy is perspective taking. It involves putting yourself into another person’s shoes in an effort to understand: how they think, what they feel and why, what motivates them, what they need and desire, and the behavioral strategies that they are using to achieve their goals. The assumption is that, when you understand someone’s perspective more fully, you are better positioned to respond appropriately and effectively.

One of the reasons that people are drawn to type theory is because it offers insight into important and legitimate differences between people. Different people have different priorities, needs, and goals based on their cognitive functional stack and their life circumstances. This should always be taken into consideration when you’re trying to help. One of the most common pitfalls in helping people is operating on the assumption that they are similar to you, which leads you to overlook differences and apply the wrong kind of help. When you’re trying to construct a theory of mind, type theory gives you a leg up by opening up your mind to different possibilities and pointing you in useful directions for investigation. For example, if you are N and the other person is S, then you start off by understanding that your way of perceiving situations is very different from theirs, perhaps completely opposite, which should give you pause and force you to learn more about their cognitive process.

Emotional empathy and cognitive perspective taking must go together, otherwise, one or the other may lead you very astray. Emotional empathy, on its own, isn’t enough for being a good helper. In fact, some people have very strong emotional empathy and make situations even worse because they just act immediately on their feelings without any consideration for the consequences. For example, some people reflexively jump to defend perpetrators of violence because they empathize with them more than the victims. Cognitive perspective taking, on its own, isn’t enough for being a good helper. In fact, many people use their perspective taking ability to cheat, swindle, or manipulate for selfish gain. For example, con artists and snake oil salesmen often prey on people’s fears and insecurities to turn a profit. Thus, treat emotional empathy and cognitive perspective taking as equally important but separate abilities.

2. Relationship Building Skills

While empathy is useful for building moral character and perspective taking is useful for constructing an accurate theory of mind, the key to helping is learning how to apply these concepts within the context of relationships. You may feel deep empathy but fail to help. For example, you just freeze up like a deer in headlights once you see someone crying and sobbing in front of you. You may have an accurate theory of mind but still approach the situation the wrong way. For example, you correctly pinpointed your toddler’s fear of large crowds, but your paternalistic approach is to throw them into the middle of a huge crowd and force them to deal alone.

To avoid these kinds of problems, you should always approach helping as a collaboration. Collaboration means that two people put their minds together for a shared purpose. To collaborate well with someone requires two things:

i) Trust: Trusting someone means that you believe they have your best interests at heart. To trust is to have an open heart, which means that you give people the benefit of the doubt. Trust is very important when you’re trying to give advice. If someone trusts you and gives you the benefit of the doubt, they are better able to understand your intention even if you say the wrong thing or offer unhelpful advice. Trust helps to quickly smooth over misunderstandings or miscommunications by reminding us that people are good and mean well.

ii) Rapport: Positive rapport means that two people are able to communicate comfortably because they care about each other as well as speak freely because they do not have undue fear of judgment or punishment. Good rapport puts everyone at ease, which helps to maintain an open mind. Rapport is very important when you’re trying to give advice. If you have positive rapport with someone, they will be more open to entertaining new ideas and solutions. Positive rapport makes problem solving a more easygoing and even enjoyable process.

Needless to say, if you don’t have someone’s best interests at heart, then you should stay out of their business until you do. Helping someone should ultimately come from a place of care. Different people have different trust thresholds (often due to past trauma), so you may have to work harder to earn some people’s trust than others. To earn trust means to prove to someone that you care about them and can be relied upon. This generally involves being attentive to their needs, offering support when needed, honoring your relationship duties and responsibilities, and keeping your promises.

Needless to say, if someone doesn’t feel comfortable talking to you, then you shouldn’t try to force them. Make an honest judgment about whether you’re the best person to help them or not. If you’re not the one, you can still offer help, but don’t get offended if they don’t take you up on it. Different people have different conditions to be met before they feel comfortable enough to share their private business, so you may have to work harder to develop rapport with some people than others. Positive rapport is basically good communication, so work on your communication skills as needed.

Learn the sorts of words and behaviors that help put people at ease. Learn to listen intently, patiently, and empathetically. Learn to pause and ask the right questions when you don’t understand. Learn to offer feedback in a kind and constructive way. Learn to be less judgmental, impatient, or critical, i.e., the kinds of traits that cause conflict, distance, and fear in relationships. Learn to avoid prejudice and mindreading, i.e., the kinds of behaviors that cause harmful and gross misunderstandings between people.

3. The Helping Process

Once you’ve used your empathy and perspective taking skills to establish a good foundation of trust and positive rapport with someone, then you are well-positioned to help them. Always remember that human affairs are an art - not a science. Humans are complex and each one of us unique. There’s no “methodology” that you can follow perfectly to handle every relationship perfectly. A big part of being successful at relationships is simply to be adaptable. Observe and listen more carefully so that you know when it’s time to change your approach.

That said, there are some general guidelines that will help steer you in the right direction whenever you feel lost. Professional counselors are specifically trained to help people with their problems, so there’s a lot we can learn from their training process. I will summarize and adapt a commonly used three stage model of helping that anyone can apply to their relationships:

Stage 1: Gather the Facts

The person experiencing the problem is the one who knows it best. Therefore, the first step isn’t to panic about “what should I do”, rather, always start by getting them to elaborate, in as much detail as possible, so that you understand the situation fully from their point of view. Ask several open-ended questions to give them the opportunity to freely describe the situation, what happened, what may be causing the problem, how they feel about it, what they have or haven’t done about it, etc. After hearing them out, summarize the situation in your own words and ask them to confirm whether you’ve understood everything. The key skills needed in this stage are curiosity, listening, and verifying.

Stage 2: Encourage Awareness and Insight

Oftentimes, people aren’t able to tackle a problem on their own because they don’t know exactly what the problem is - look into their mind and you will see a giant mess. Giving them a chance to express their thoughts and feelings out loud is sometimes enough for them to understand the problem and come up with their own solutions. You should always encourage people to think for themselves whenever they show the tendency, because ideas always stick better when they come from oneself. This also addresses the problem of people becoming too dependent on you. Ideally, the goal of any good helper is to eventually make themselves obsolete, by teaching people to stand on their own.

If after elaboration, you’re still not clear about what they need, then be more direct in getting that information, usually through making more direct inquiries. What you do at this point really depends on the situation and the kind of problem you’re dealing with. It may be enough to ask them whether there’s anything you can do to help and, if so, what would be the best way to help. They might say that they’re not looking for a “fix” but simply want someone to listen, then step back and listen with empathy. You may ask them point blank what exactly it is they need or want. You may ask them what they hope or wish for. You may ask them about what objectives or goals they’re aiming for. You may ask them about the obstacles and challenges they’re experiencing. You may ask them whether they would like your help in analyzing the problem.

Don’t make assumptions about what they need when they haven’t even expressed their needs, which means that you should NOT be stepping forward with a “solution” until you’re absolutely sure that it’s what they want. The key skills needed in this stage are providing emotional safety, encouraging people to reflect more deeply, and inquiring into psychological motivations.

Stage 3: Implement Action

This step is only relevant if they are committed to solving the problem and want your help with it. Collaborate with them to analyze the problem by determining its cause(s), entertain various ideas and solutions, and make a list of all the choices available to them. Help them evaluate their list of choices by illuminating the possible effects/outcomes, pros/cons, or cost/benefits. This will allow them to make a more informed and intelligent choice.

Remember that they are ultimately responsible for choosing what to do - not you. Even the best advice will fall flat if the person doesn’t feel like they can carry it out. THEY have to feel comfortable enough with the choice to put it into action. This means that you must always have an eye on their comfort level. When someone expresses any kind of uncertainty about whether they can implement a solution, it is often a subtle request for more/better support. If that’s the case, go back to stages 1 and 2 to dig deeper into what’s holding them back. It may be an internal or external obstacle, and once you’ve identified it, you can help them remove it.

To implement an idea usually requires coming up with a practical plan, strategy, or method of attack, so help them draw a feasible roadmap. Set up concrete measurements or benchmarks to measure progress or success. Sometimes, they may need your help to break a big plan down into smaller steps in order to avoid feeling anxious or overwhelmed. Sometimes, they may need you to educate, guide, or mentor them to learn new knowledge for overcoming a particular challenge or obstacle. Remember that what seems easy to you may be very difficult to them, so don’t make assumptions about their capabilities. Monitor their progress and offer the appropriate support whenever you observe that they are faltering. The key skills needed in this stage are brainstorming, critical analysis, planning and organizing, quantifying progress, encouraging people to improve, knowledge building, and providing emotional support as necessary.

4. Boundaries, Boundaries, Boundaries

It’s very important that you maintain proper boundaries when helping people. You are not a professional counselor and, even if you are, there should always be a sense of equality and reciprocity in personal relationships. A healthy relationship cannot be one-sided, unequal, or exploitative.

Respect Your Boundaries: You must have your boundaries to protect yourself from exploitation. There are many people out there who have no qualms about taking advantage of kindness, so don’t allow such people to worm their way into your life. Only get involved when someone genuinely needs your help and you are quite confident that they will benefit from it. Remember that helping should ultimately set people up to be independent. If you keep people dependent on you, then there’s some ego problem that needs to be addressed on your part.

Respect Their Boundaries: Remember that everyone has their own life to live. Honor and appreciate individual differences. You may enjoy helping people and that’s fine, but there must be an element of selflessness in your help, so that you don’t get too invested in what other people do/don’t do. Once you start to place unreasonable expectations on people, you get yourself all mixed up into their problem, and then you start to show visible frustration, impatience, or disappointment. Then they might start to fear disappointing you and hide from you, they might start resisting your advice, or your help might even backfire spectacularly. In other words, your “help” just complicates and even worsens situations when you can’t properly respect people’s right to make their own choices in life.

To set proper boundaries circles back to the first point of having good emotional intelligence. You have to be aware of your part in the situation, the effects that you’re feeling, the effects that you’re producing, and monitor for negative feelings and emotions that would lead you to do something regrettable or harmful. Having good emotional intelligence is very important for good decision making in relationships and even life in general. I’ve already provided articles and book suggestions for learning in depth.

#helping #emotional needs #needs #emotional intelligence #empathy #compassion #boundaries #trust #rapport #communication #perspective taking #ask

47 notes · View notes

innuendostudios · 5 years ago

Video

youtube

The newest installment of The Alt-Right Playbook - Endnote 4: How the Alt-Right is Like an Abusive Relationship - is a little different. This installment was presented live at Solidarity Lowell, and includes a bonus Q&A section. This video expands on the ideas put forth in How to Radicalize a Normie.

If you would like more videos like this to come out, please back me on Patreon.

Transcript below the cut.

He is intriguing, yet unpredictable. He demands unconditional loyalty. He seems to have an intuitive understanding of what people want to hear but no actual empathy; he treats others as simply bodies or objects. And he’s surrounded by a network of subordinates but the personnel is always changing.

Does it sound like I’m describing The President? Because these are, according to Alexandra Stein, qualities of a cult leader.

Hi. My name is Ian Danskin. I’m a video essayist and media artist. I run the YouTube channel Innuendo Studios, the flagship endeavor of which is currently The Alt-Right Playbook, a series on the political and rhetorical strategies the Alt-Right uses to legitimize itself and gain power. And, if that sounds interesting to you, and you haven’t already, please like share and subscribe.

The most recent episode of The Alt-Right Playbook is about how people get recruited into these largely online reactionary communities like the Alt-Right, a subject which, as it turns out, is real fuckin’ hard to research.

What I want to talk about with you today is how I go about studying a population that is incredibly hostile towards being studied. It involves finding the bits and pieces of the Alt-Right that we do have data on - the pockets of good research, the outsider observations, the stories of lived experience - as well as looking at older movements the Alt-Right grew out of, that have been extensively researched, and spotting the ways the Alt-Right is continuous with them, and trying to extrapolate how those structures might recreate themselves in the social media age.

So it’s… a lot. And, in the process of researching, I found a wealth of interesting perspectives that, by focusing the video on recruitment specifically, I barely dipped a toe in. All that stuff is what I’d like to get into with you today. But I’m trying to thread a needle here: you don’t need to have seen my video, How to Radicalize a Normie, to follow this talk, but, if you have seen it already, I will try not to be redundant. This talk is one part making my case for why I think the conclusions in that video are correct, one part repository for all the stuff I couldn’t get into, and one part how I’ve come to look at the Alt-Right as a result of this research, including some pet theories I wouldn’t feel right claiming as truth without further research, but I do think are on the right track.

This talk is called Isolation, Engulfment, and Pain: How the Alt-Right is Like an Abusive Relationship. We’re going to cover a lot of ground, from information processing to emotional development, but we’re necessarily also going to cover racism and violence and abuse dynamics. So this is an introduction and a content warning: if some of these subjects are particularly charged for you, no offense will be taken if you at any point leave the room. I have to research this stuff for a living, and it is rough, and sometimes I have to step away. We don’t judge here.

Now. Requisite dash of self-deprecation: don’t give me too much credit for all this. I am proud of the work I do and I think I’m genuinely good at it, but much of this video was compiling the work of others. Besides research I had already done and my own observations, the video had 27 sources: three books, five research papers, six articles, one leaked document, three testimonials, four videos, four pages of statistics, and one Twitter joke. I also spoke to four professional researchers who study right-wing extremism and one former Alt-Righter.

Without all their hard work, I would have nothing to compile.

OK? Let’s begin.

We’re gonna center on those three main texts: Alt-America by David Neiwert, a history of the Alt-Right’s origins; Healing from Hate by Michael Kimmel, about how young men get into (and out of) extremist groups, be they neo-Nazi or jihadist; and Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein, about how people are courted by and kept inside cults and totalitarian regimes.

I began with Kimmel. The premise of Healing from Hate is that extremist groups tend to be between 75 and 90% male, and that you cannot understand radical conservatism without looking at it through the lens of toxic masculinity. Which makes it all the more disappointing that Kimmel has been accused by multiple women of bullying and harassment. I found the book incredibly useful, and we’re still going to talk about it, I just need to caveat here that retweets are not endorsements. Also, if I spoil the book for you then you don’t need to buy it, give your money to someone who isn’t a creep.

Kimmel’s argument is that extremism begins with a pain peculiar to young men. He calls it “aggrieved entitlement.” I call it Durden Syndrome. You know that scene in Fight Club where Tyler Durden says, “We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires and movie gods and rockstars, but we won’t, we’re slowly learning that fact, and we are very, very pissed off”? Yeah, that. As men, the world promised us something, and the promise wasn’t kept.

Some men skew towards social progressivism when they realize this promise was never made to women, or men of color, or queer or trans or nonbinary people, and recognize the injustice of that. Some men skew towards economic leftism when they realize that every cishet white man being a millionaire rockstar movie god is mathematically impossible. But they skew towards reactionary conservatism when they feel the promise should have been kept. That’s the life they were supposed to have, and someone took it from them.

Hate groups appeal to that sense of emasculation. “You wanna feel like a Real Man? Shave off your hair, dance to hatecore, and let’s beat the crap out of someone.” Kimmel notes that the greatest indicator someone will join a hate group is a broken home: divorce, foster care, parents with addictions, physical or sexual abuse. The greater the distance between the life they were promised and the life they are living, the more enticing Real Masculinity becomes. Their fellow extremists are brothers, the leaders father figures.

The group does give them someone to blame for their lot in life - immigrants, feminists, the Jewish conspiracy - but that’s not why they join. They’re after empowerment. According to Kimmel, “Their embrace of neo-Nazi ideology is a consequence of their recruitment and indoctrination process, not its cause."

But once an Other has been identified as the locus of a hate group’s hate, new recruits are brought along when the group terrorizes that Other. Events like cross burnings and street fights are dangerous and morally fraught, and are often traumatic for a new recruit. And experiencing an emotional or physical trauma can create an intense bond with the people experiencing it with him, even though they’re the ones who brought him to the traumatic event in the first place. The creation of this bond is one of the reasons some hate groups usher new recruits out into the field as early as possible: the sooner they are emotionally invested in the community, the faster they will embrace the community’s politics.

This Othering also estranges recruits from the people they are supposed to hate, which makes it hard to stop hating them.

So there’s this concept that comes up a lot in my research called Contact Hypothesis. Contact Hypothesis argues that, the more contact you have with a different walk of life, the easier it is to tolerate it. It’s like exposure therapy. We talk about how big cities and college campuses tend to be liberal strongholds; the Right likes to claim this is because of professors and politicians poisoning your mind, but it’s really just because they’re diverse. When you share space with a lot of different kinds of people, a degree of liberalism becomes necessary just to get by. And we see that belief systems which rely on a strict orthodoxy get really cagey about members having contact with outsiders. We see this in all the groups we’re discussing today - extremists, cultists, totalitarians - but also religious fundamentalists; Mormons only wanna send their kids to Brigham Young. They are belief systems that can only be reliably maintained so long as no one gets exposed to other people with other beliefs.

So that’s some of what I took from Kimmel. Next I read Stein talking, primarily, about cults.

Stein’s window into all of this is applying the theory of Attachment Styles to what researchers calls totalism, which is any structure that subsumes a person’s entire life the way cults and totalitarian governments do. Attachment is a concept you may be familiar with if have, or have ever dated, a therapist. (I’ve done both.)

So, for a quick primer:

Imagine you’re walking in the park with a three-year-old. And the three-year-old sees a dog, and ask, “Can I pet the dog?” And you say yes, and the kid steps away from your side and reaches out. And the dog gets excited, and jumps up, and the kid gets scared and runs back to you. So you hold the kid and go, ��Oh, no no no, don’t worry! They’re not gonna hurt you! They were just happy to see you!” And you take a few moments to calm the kid down, and then you ask, “Do you still want to pet the dog?” And the kid says “yes,” so they step away from you again and reach out. The dog jumps up again, but this time the kid doesn’t run away, and they pet the dog, and you, the kid, and the dog are all happy. Hooray!

This is a fundamental piece of a child’s emotional development. They take a risk, have a negative experience, and retreat to a point of comfort. Then, having received that comfort, feel bolstered enough to take a slightly greater risk. A healthy childhood is steadily venturing further and further from that point of comfort, and taking on greater risks, secure in the knowledge that safety is there when they need it. And, as an adult, they will form many interdependent points of comfort rather than relying on only one or two.

If all goes according to plan, that is Secure Attachment. But: sometimes things go wrong when the kid seeks comfort and doesn’t get enough. This may be because the adult is withholding or the kid doesn’t know how to express their needs or they’re just particularly fearful. But the kid may start seeking comfort more than seems reasonable, and be particularly averse to risk, and over-focus on the people who give them comfort, because they’re operating at a deficit. We call that Anxious Attachment. Alternately, the kid may give up on receiving comfort altogether, even though they still need it, and just go it alone, developing a distrust of other people and a fear of being vulnerable. We call that Avoidant Attachment.

Now, these styles are all formed in early childhood, but Stein focuses on a fourth kind of Attachment, one that can be formed at any age regardless of the Attachment Style you came in with. It’s what happens when the negative experience and the comfort come from the same place. We see it in children and adults who are mistreated by the people they trust. It’s called Disorganized Attachment.

According to Stein, cults foster Disorganized Attachment by being intensely unpredictable. In a cult, you may be praised for your commitment on Monday and have your commitment questioned on Tuesday, with no change in behavior. You may be assigned a romantic partner, who may, at any point, be taken away, assigned to someone else. Your children may be taken from you to be raised by a different family. You may be told the cult leader wants to sleep with you, which may make you incredibly happy or be terrifying, but you won’t be given a choice. And the rules you are expected to follow will be rewritten without warning.

This creates a kind of emotional chaos, where you can’t predict when you will be given good feelings and when you will be given bad ones. But you’re so enmeshed in the community you have noplace else to go for good feelings; hurting you just draws you in deeper, because they are also where you seek comfort. And your pain is always your fault: you wouldn’t feel so shitty if you were more committed. Trying to make sense of this causes so much confusion and anguish that you eventually just stop thinking for yourself. These are the rules now? OK. He’s not my brother anymore? OK. This is my life now? OK.

Hardly anyone would seek out such a dynamic, which is why cults present as religions, political activists, and therapy groups; things people in questioning phases of their lives are liable to seek out, and then they fall down the rabbit hole before they know what’s happening. The cult slowly consumes more and more of a recruit’s life, and tightly controls access to relationships outside the cult, because the biggest threat to a Disorganized Attachment relationship is having separate, Securely Attached points of comfort.

And at this point I said, “Hold up. You’re telling me cults recruit by offering people community and purpose in times of need, become the focal point of their entire lives, estrange them from all outside perspectives, and then cause emotional distress that paradoxically makes them more committed because they have nowhere else to go for support?”

Isn’t that exactly how Kimmel described joining a hate group?

Now, these are commonalities, not a one-to-one comparison. A cult is far more organized and rigidly controlled than a hate group. But Stein points out that this dynamic of isolation, engulfment, and pain is the same dynamic as an abusive relationship. The difference is just scale. A cult is functionally a single person having a very complex domestic abuse situation with a whole lot of people, #badpolyamory.

So if we posit a spectrum with domestic abuse on one end and cults and totalitarianism on the other, I started wondering, could we put extremist groups, like ISIS and Aryan Nations, around… here?

And, if so, where would we put the Alt-Right?

Now, I have to tread carefully here. There are reasons this talk is called “How the Alt-Right is Like an Abusive Relationship” and not “How the Alt-Right is Like a Cult,” because the moment you say the second thing, a lot of people stop listening to you. Our conception of cults and totalitarianism is way more controlled and structured than a pack of loud, racist assholes on the internet. But we’re not talking about organizational structure, we’re talking about a relationship, an emotional dynamic Stein calls “anxious dependency,” which fosters an irrational loyalty to people who are bad for you and gets you to adopt an ideology you would have previously rejected. (I would also love to go on a rant puncturing the idea that cultists and fascists are organized, pointing out this notion is propaganda and their systems are notoriously corrupt and mismanaged, but we don’t have time; ask me about it in the Q&A if you want me to go off.)

So I started looking through what I knew, and what I could find, about the Alt-Right to see if I could spot this same pattern of isolation, engulfment, and pain online funneling people towards the Alt-Right. And I did not come up short.

Isolation? Well, the Alt-Right traffics in all the same dehumanizing narratives about their enemies as Kimmel’s hate groups - like, the worst things you can imagine a human being saying about a group of people are said every day in these forums. They often berate and harass each other for any perceived sympathy towards The Other Side. They also regularly harass people from The Other Side off of platforms, and falsely report their tweets, posts, and videos as terrorism to get them taken down. (This has happened to me, incidentally.) I found figureheads adored by the Alt-Right who expressly tell people to cut ties with liberal family members.

We talked before about Contact Hypothesis? There’s also this idea called Parasocial Contact Hypothesis. A parasocial relationship is a strong emotional connection that only goes one way, like if you really love my videos and have started thinking of me almost as a friend even though I don’t know you exist? Yeah. Parasocial relationship. They’ve been in The Discourse lately, largely thanks to my friend Shannon Strucci making a really great video about them (check it out, I make a cameo, but… clear your schedule). Parasocial Contact Hypothesis is this phenomenon where, if people form parasocial feelings for public figures or even fictional characters, and those people happen to be Black, white audience members become less racist similar to how they would if they had Black friends. Your logical brain knows that these are strangers, but your lizard brain doesn’t know the difference between empathy for a queer friend and empathy for a queer character in a video game. So of course the Alt-Right makes a big stink about queer characters in video games, and leads boycotts against “forced diversity,” because diverse media is bad for recruitment.

Engulfment? Well, I learned way too much about how the Alt-Right will overtake your entire internet life. There was a paper made the rounds last year by Rebecca Lewis charting the interconnectedness of conservative YouTube. (Reactionaries really hated this paper because it said things they didn’t like.) Lewis argues that, once you enter what she calls the Alternative Influence Network, it tends to keep you inside it. Start with some YouTuber conservatives like but who’s branded as a moderate, or even a “classic liberal.” Take someone like Dave Rubin; call Dave Rubin Alt-Right, people yell at you, I speak from experience. Well, Dave Rubin’s had Jordan Peterson on his show, so, if you watch Rubin, Peterson ends up in your recommendations. Peterson has been on the Joe Rogan show, so, you watch Peterson, Rogan ends up in your recommendations. And Rogan has interviewed Gavin McInnes, so you watch Rogan and McInnes ends up in your recommendations.

Gavin McInnes is the head of the Proud Boys, a self-described “western chauvinist” organization that’s mostly known for beating up liberals and leftists. They have ties to neo-fascist groups like Identity Evropa and neo-fascist militias like the Oath Keepers, they run security for white nationalists, and their lawyer just went on record that he identifies as a fascist. And, if you’re one of these kids who has YouTube in the background with autoplay on, and you’re watching Dave Rubin? You might be as few as 3 videos away from watching Gavin McInnes.

There’s a lot of talk these days about algorithms funneling people towards the Right, and that’s not wrong, but it’s an oversimplification. The real problem is that the Right knows how to hijack an algorithm.

I also learned about the Curation/Search Radicalization Spiral from a piece by Mike Caulfield. Caulfiend uses the horrific example of Dylann Roof. You remember him? He shot up a church in a Black neighborhood a few years ago. Roof says he was radicalized when he googled “Black on white crime” and saw the results. Now, if you search the phrase “crime statistics by demographic,” you will find fairly nonpartisan results that show most crimes are committed against members of the perpetrator’s own race, and Black people commit crimes against white people at about the same rate as any other two demographics. But that specific phrase, “Black on white crime,” is used almost exclusively by white racists, and so Roof’s first hit wasn’t a database of crime statistics, it was the Council of Conservative Citizens. Now, the CCC is an outgrowth of the White Citizens Councils of the 50’s and 60’s which rebranded in ‘85. They publish bogus statistics that paint Black people as uniquely violent. And they introduce a number of other politically-loaded phrases - like, say, “Muslim fertility rates” - that nonpartisan sites don’t use, and so, if Roof googles them as well, he gets similarly weighted results.

I have tons more examples of this stuff. I literally don’t have time to show it all. Like, have you heard of Google bombing? That’s a thing I didn’t know existed. The point is, the same way search engines tailor your results to what they think you want, once you scratch the surface of the Alt-Right they are highly adept at making it so, whenever you go online, their version of reality is all you know and all you see.

Finally, pain. This was the difficult one. Can you create a Disorganized Attachment relationship over the internet with a largely faceless and decentralized movement? I pitched the idea to one the researchers I spoke to, and he said, “That sounds very plausible, and nearly impossible to research.” See, cults and hate groups? They don’t wanna talk to researchers anymore than the Alt-Right wants to talk to me. Stein and Kimmel get their data by speaking to formers, people who’ve exited these movements and are all too happy to share how horrible they were. But the Alt-Right is still very young, and there just aren’t that many formers yet.

I found some testimonials, and they mostly back up my hypothesis, but there’s not enough that I could call them statistically significant. So I had to look where the data was.

My fellow YouTuber ContraPoints made a video last year - in my opinion, her best one - about incels (that’s “involuntary celibate,” men who can’t get laid). Incel forums tend to be deeply misogynistic and antifeminist, and have a high overlap with the Alt-Right. If you remember Elliot Rodger, he was an incel. Contra’s observation was that these forums were incredibly fatalistic: you are too ugly and women too shallow for you to ever have sex, so you should give up. She described a certain catharsis, like picking a really painful scab, in hearing other people voice your worst fears. But there was no uplift; these communities seemed to have a zero-tolerance policy for optimism. She likened it so some deeply unhealthy trans forums she used to visit, where people wallowed in their own dysphoria.

And I remembered the forums I researched five years ago in preparation for my video on GamerGate. (If you don’t know what GamerGate was, I will not rob you of your precious innocence. But, in a lot of ways, GamerGate was the trial run for what the Alt-Right has become.) These forums were full of angry guys surrounding themselves with people saying, “You’re right to be angry.” And, yeah, if everywhere else you go treats your anger as invalid, that scratches an itch. But I never saw any of them calm down. They came in angry and they came out angrier. And most didn’t have anywhere else to vent, so they all came back.

I found a paper on Alt-Right forums that described a similar type of nihilism, and another on 8chan. What humor was on these sites was always shocking, furiously punching down, and deeply self-referential, but it didn’t seem like anyone was expected to laugh anymore, just, you know, catch the reference. I found one testimonial saying that having healthy relationships in these spaces is functionally impossible, and the one former I talked to said, yeah, when the Alt-Right isn’t winning everyone’s miserable.

So I think it might fit. The place they go for relief also makes them unhappy, so they come back to get relief again, and it just repeats. Same reason people stay with abusers. I wanna look into this further, so, I’ll just say this part to the camera: if there are any researchers watching who wanna study this, get at me.

Finally, I read Alt-America by David Neiwert, a supremely useful book that I highly recommend if you wanna know how the Alt-Right is the natural outgrowth of the militia and Patriot movements of the 90’s and early 2000’s, not to mention the Tea Party. Neiwert also does an excellent job illustrating how conspiracism serves to fill in the gap between the complexity of the modern world and the simplistic, might-makes-right worldview of fascism.

Neiwert also provides an interesting piece of the puzzle, suggesting what people are actually looking for when they get recruited. He references work done by John Bargh and Katelyn McKenna on Identity Demarginalization. Bargh and McKenna looked at the internet habits of people whose identities are both devalued in our society and invisible. By invisible, what I mean is, ok, if you’re a person of color, our society devalues your identity, but you can look around a room and, within a certain margin of error, see who else is POC, and form community with them if you wish. But, if you’re queer, you can’t see who else in a room is queer unless one of you runs up a flag. And revealing yourself always means taking on a certain amount of risk that you’ve misread the signals, that the person you reveal yourself to is not only not queer, but a homophobe.

According to Bargh and McKenna, people in this situation are much more likely to seek online spaces that self-select for that identity. A fan forum for RuPaul’s Drag Race is maybe a safer place to come out and find community. And people tend to get very emotionally tied to these online spaces where they can be themselves.

Neiwert points out that the same phenomenon happens among privileged people who have identities that are devalued even as they’re not actually oppressed. Say, nerds, or conservatives in liberal towns, or men who don’t fit traditional notions of masculinity. They are also likely to deeply invest themselves in online spaces made for them. And if the Far Right can build such a community, or get a foothold in one that already exists, it is very easy to channel that sense of marginalization into Durden Syndrome. I connected this with Rebecca Lewis’ observation that the Alternative Influence Network tends to present itself as nerd-focused life advice first and politics second, and the long history of reactionaries recruiting from fandoms.

So I can see all the pieces of the abuse dynamic being recreated here: offer you something you need, estrange you from other perspectives and healthy relationships, overtake your life, and provoke emotional distress that makes you seek comfort only your abuser is offering. And I found a lot more parallels than what I’m sharing right now, I only have half an hour! But the thing that’s missing that’s usually central to such a system is, an abusive relationship orbits around the abuser, a cult around the cult leader, a totalitarian government around a dictator. They are built to serve the whims of an individual. But I look at the ad hoc nature of the Alt-Right and I have to ask: who is the architect?

I can see a lot of people profiting off of this structure; our current President rode it to great success, but he didn’t build it. It predates him. It’s more like Kimmel’s hate groups, which don’t promote an individual so much as a class of individuals, but, even then, their structure is much more deliberate, designed, where the Alt-Right seems almost improvised.

Well… one observation I took from Stein is that cult recruiters often rely on two different kinds of propaganda: the winding diatribe and the thought-terminating cliche. The diatribe is when someone talks at length, sounds smart, and seems to know what they’re talking about but isn’t actually making sense, and the thought-terminating cliche comes from Robert Jay Lifton’s studies into brainwashing. So, I went vegetarian in middle school, and, when I would tell other kids I was vegetarian, some would get kind of defensive and say things like, “humans aren’t meant to be vegetarian, it’s the food chain.” Now, saying “it’s the food chain” isn’t meant to be a good argument, it’s meant to communicate “I have said something so axiomatically true that the argument need not continue.” That’s a thought-terminating cliche; something that may not be true, but feels true and gives you permission to think about something else.

Both these techniques rely on what’s called Peripheral-Route Processing. So, I’m up here talking about politics, and, Solidarity Lowell, you are a group of politically-engaged people, so you probably have enough context to know whether I’m talking out of my ass. That’s Direct-Route Processing, where you judge the contents of my argument. But if I were up here talking about string theory, you might not know whether I was talking out of my ass because there’s only so many people on Earth who understand string theory. So then you might look at secondary characteristics of my argument: the fact that I’ve been invited to speak on string theory implies I know what I’m talking about; maybe I put up a lot of equations and drop the names of mathematicians and say they agree with me; maybe I just sound really authoritative. All that’s Peripheral-Route Processing: judging the quality of my argument by how it’s delivered.

Every act of communication involves both, but if you’re trying to sell people on something that’s fundamentally irrational, you’re going to rely heavily on Peripheral-Route tactics, which is what the winding diatribe and the thought-terminating cliche are.

I noted that these two methods mapped pretty cleanly onto the rhetorical stylings of Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. But here’s the question: cults use these techniques to recruit people. But can I say with any confidence that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are trying to recruit people into the Alt-Right?

The thing is, “Alt-Right” isn’t a term like “klansman.” It’s more akin to a term like “modernism.” It’s a label applied to a trend. In the same way we debate the line between modernism and postmodernism, we debate the line between Right and Alt-Right. People don’t sign up to be in the Alt-Right, you are Alt-Right if you say you’re Alt-Right. But the nature of the Alt-Right is that 90% of them would never admit to it.

So are Peterson and Shapiro intentionally recruiting for the Alt-Right? Are they grifters merely profiting off of the Alt-Right? Are they even aware they’re recruiting for the Alt-Right? Part of my work has been accepting that you can’t know for sure. It would be naive to say they’re unaware; when they give speeches they get Nazis in their Q&A sections, and they know that. But how aware are they? I suspect Shapiro moreso than Peterson, but that’s just my gut talking and I can’t prove it. Like 90% of the Alt-Right, it’s debatable.

I don’t know if they’re trying to be part of this system, I just know they’re not trying not to be.

A final academic term before we say goodnight that’s been making the rounds among lefty YouTubers is “Stochastic Terrorism.” There’s a really great video about this by the channel NonCompete called The PewDiePipeline. Stochastic Terrorism is the myriad ways you can increase the likelihood that someone will commit violence without actually telling them to. You simply create an environment in which lone wolf violence becomes more acceptable and appealing. It mirrors the structure of terrorism without the control or culpability.

And I hear about this, and I look at this recruitment structure I see approximated in the Alt-Right, and I remember something I learned much earlier in my research, from Bob Altemeyer in his book The Authoritarians. Altemeyer has been studying authoritarianism for decades, he has a wealth of data, and one thing he observes is that authoritarianism is the few exerting power over the many, which means there are two types of authoritarians: the ones who lead and the ones who follow. Turns out those are completely different personality profiles. Followers don’t want to be in charge, they want someone to tell them what to do, to say “you’re the good guys,” and put them in charge of punishing the bad guys. They don’t even care who the bad guys are; part of the appeal is that someone else makes that judgment for them.

So if you can encourage a degree of authoritarian sentiment in people, get them wanting nothing more than to be ensconced in a totalist system that will take their agency away from them, putting them in the orbit of an authoritarian leader, but no leader presents themself… can you just kind of… appoint one?

Like, if you don’t have a leader, can you just find yourself an authoritarian and treat him like one? And, if he doesn’t give you enough directives, can you just make some up? And, if you don’t have recruiters, can you find a conservative who speaks in thought-terminating cliches just because he thinks they win arguments; find a conservative who speaks in meaningless diatribes because he thinks he’s making sense; and then maneuver those speeches and videos in front of people you want to recruit? If you’re sick of waiting for Moses to come down the mountain with the Word of God, can you just build your own god from whatever’s handy?

Every piece of this structure, you can find people, algorithms, and arguments that, put in sequence, can generate Disorganized Attachment whether they’re trying to or not, which makes every part plausibly deniable. Debatable. You just need to make it profitable enough for the ones involved that they don’t fix it. This is a system created collaboratively, on the fly, with the help of a lot of people from hate movements past, mostly by throwing a ton of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. The Alt-Right is a rapidly-mutating virus and the web is the perfect incubator; it very quickly finds a structure that works, and it’s a structure we’ve seen before, just a little weirder this time.

I’ve started calling this Stochastic Totalism.

Now, again, I’m not a professional researcher; I do my homework but I don’t have the background. I have an art degree. This isn’t something I can prove so much as a way I’ve come to look at the Alt-Right that makes sense to me and helps me understand them. And I got a lot of comments on my last video from people who used to be Alt-Right that echoed my assumptions. But don’t take it as gospel.

Mostly I wanted to share this because, if it can help you make sense of what we’re dealing with, I think it’s worth putting out there.

Thank you.

#video essay

484 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 4 years ago

Link

Social reality might not be a video game, but there’s no point trying to imagine that. Crass realism obscures the rules. Besides, society converges upon a video game – or immersive ludic simulation – even if it isn’t one already. Such gamification is a trend to note. It has multiple drivers.

As games get more convincing, they increasingly set the default perceptual frame. In technologically-advanced societies, game-like systems are becoming the obvious model for self-understanding. The reception for stories with this slant continuously improves. Even scientific theorizing is drawn to them. The topic might seem less than serious, even definitively so, but ultimately it isn’t. Alternatively, it might be said that there is a non-seriousness more serious than seriousness itself. Everything will be gamified.

In the epoch of WMD deterrence, unlimited warfare is not allowed to happen. Instead, it is perpetually simulated. Every serious military establishment becomes a set of war-games in process. From the peak of virtual thermonuclear spasm, war-gaming cascades down through the apparatus of conventional war-fighting capability, and then spreads outwards – like a blast-wave – through every civilian forum of institutional planning. Eventually (but already) to have been ‘war-gamed’ just means to have been thought through. A war-game is less serious than a war, but it’s the most serious way to process things when war is off the table. It’s also – from its inception – the way to keep war off the table. Si vis pacem, para bellum, which means playing it out.

…

Anything that trains an AI has to function as a game. This is because playing games is the only thing AI can ever do. For synthetic intelligence to be applied to a problem, of any kind, it has to be gamified. Then strategies can be pursued, in strict compliance with rules, to maximize success. Optimization games are the only kind that exist, and inversely.

While games are made, or adopted, for AI to play in, games incorporate AIs into themselves, as components. Simply making games that work requires computer game companies to nurture a semi-independent machine intelligence lineage of their own. Playing against AIs, and also alongside them, is ever increasingly what gamers do. This is what the ‘single player’ option abbreviates, most obviously. The antisocial path stimulates nonlinearity on the side of the machine. Machine intelligence escalation twists into an ever tighter loop, continually intensifying, as it plays games against itself, and against anyone else who wanders in to challenge it.

The games that are relentlessly improving – the kind ‘gamers’ play – are competition for society. They provide an alternative to traditional modes of social involvement. Japanese ‘otaku’ pioneered these paths of departure. Wherever technology crests, the world follows them. Advance tends to exit.

‘Incel’ – or ‘involuntary celibate’ – is in some ways a misleading term for what is happening here. The condition of fundamental social alienation described is no more ‘involuntary’ than any other opt-out. The ‘incel gamer’ no longer finds the most basic of all traditional social relations worth it. There are better games. The revealed preference is evident regardless of what might be said. They grasp games as a way to leave.

At the same time, the PUAs – or ‘pick-up artists’ – have been pulling everything apart from the opposite direction. If they have a bible it is Neil Strauss’s The Game. Rather than abandoning mating for games, the PUAs gamify mating.

…

Good or well-constructed games have a number of characteristic features.

Firstly, they can only be played by the rules. Cheating is forbidden less than it is made impossible. Physics is like this. It proscribes nothing that can be done (as Crowley notoriously noticed). Rules that can be broken are a failure of game design. The more impractical it is to cheat, the better the game.

Secondly, they have an implicit meta-rule that strictly prohibits changing the rules. To change the rules is to invent a new game, which cannot be done during play. Different games, with different rules, coexist simultaneously, rather than replacing each other successively.

Thirdly, rule sets permit outcomes, without ever dictating them. Rules and strategies are mutually independent. Strategies compete within the rules, rather than over them. Strategic modification of rules, or the adaptation of rules to strategy, is essentially corrupt.

Fourthly, each is fully enveloped by some consistent incentive structure. This renders success and failure unambiguous, grading performance. The players always know how it went.

The ‘games’ favored by game theorists, such as variants of the prisoner’s dilemma, compose a small subset of such well-constructed games. They cannot be transcended by cheating. Game modification is never a permitted move. They permit no legislative power. Each has a single reward dimension.

The breadth of application suggests these constraints are not difficult to meet. It might even seem that any alternative to a well-constructed game is anomalous in its degeneracy.

To be a progressive is to be in favor of changing the rules. There is one ‘arc of history’ and it is made of reforms. Old rules and structures of oppression are considered broadly identical.

A conservative is against changing the rules. If they are changed, they stay changed, because changing them back would still count as change. Thus the much derided function of conservatism as anchor for the progressive ratchet.

A reactionary holds that the rules should never have been changed. Reaction would delight in restoring old rules, were it ever in a position to do so. It never is, and will never be.

A neoreactionary accepts experimental variation in rules only when rule sets are multiplied. New rules are to be tolerated only alongside, in addition to, and as a concurrent alternative to old rules. They are legitimated only by hard forks. Anything else is progress, which is in all cases misfortune.

Progress is reform without schism. While wrapping itself in the mantle of science, it incarnates a drastic violation of scientific method. Positive or negative characterizations of ‘progressive experiments’ are equally misleading. Progressive change is not experimental, but rather something closer to the opposite. It substitutes for testing, and disdains controls. Synchronic comparison is deliberately suppressed, and the more thorough the suppression the more progressive it is. Multiplication without difference is bad, but difference without multiplication is worse.

In a corrupt society, or bad social game, the ruling class makes rules. There is nothing natural about this, regardless of what we are told. It is only in the wake of a radical socio-cultural calamity that it happens.

…

Capitalism, as a game, works well when businesses follow economic rules they have no role in formulating. Even in the political sphere, comparatively stable constitutional principles and norms are expected to conserve themselves resiliently through vicissitudes of party conflict. This point might confidently be strengthened. Invulnerability of political rules-of-the-game to party fortune is regime stability. The contrary condition, in which party dominance overwhelms political rules and permits the dictation of new ones, defines revolution. Competition within rules is politics, but competition to set rules is war. When politics seems more like war than it used to, this is why.

The common law tradition permits no legislation. Laws are discovered, never made. The notion of law-making is abominable, and inconsistent with the existence of a free people. According to the only truly English position, legislation is always and essentially tyranny.

…

America is a game so badly broken the world is positively awe-struck by it. Its hegemony ensures that everyone has to care. Most of the planet finds itself sucked into a game whose formal rule set is a chaotic cancerous mess.

When America had a frontier, it was a land of real experiments. New games of all kinds were explored, in parallel. The national heritage of schismatic religion meant different rules applied in different places. From the mid- to late-Nineteenth Century, hardening of the Union and the closing of the frontier brought religious, moral, and political consolidation. American experiments entered their twilight, and The American Experiment was celebrated, integrally, which was no experiment at all, but only progress.

‘Never change the rules’ is an example of a good meta-rule. What, then, exemplifies a bad one? ‘We should all be playing the same game’ is probably the very worst. At least, nothing more sinister can easily be conceived.

We don’t like the same games. More particularly, we don’t all like the kind of domination game that requires everyone to play the same game, even if some like it a lot. The ‘game industry’ has an abundance of practical evidence on ludic preference diversity, far exceeding what is required to make the basic point. We want to play different games is the basic point. Despite its overwhelming obviousness, getting it installed as a default is surprisingly difficult. In part, this is Social Domination game-play at work.

…

Social Domination is a contender for the worst-constructed game in history. “Let’s keep changing the rules until everybody likes it,” it suggests tacitly. It simultaneously makes other suggestions which directly contradict this, but never to the point of ensuring its retraction. As if this were not already bad enough, it also mandates universal cheating. Its rules are so numerous, unstable, and poorly-formulated that they are both theoretically and practically unintelligible. The latitude with which rule-violations are to be avoided or penalized has become a strategic consideration. Players in weak positions have to scrupulously avoid gross rule-violations and are increasingly terrorized by trivial, absurd, and informal norms. Players in strong positions get to ignore any rules they don’t like.

The best Social Domination players get to decide whether to permit opt outs from Social Domination. The incentive effects here are entirely predictable. However much you hate the game, you have to win it to escape. Those who like it are far more likely to do well at it. On the rare occasions when those who don’t like it do well, they suddenly find they like it more than they had thought, or have invested too much in it to quit. To escape it means fighting it, which means playing it, which means investing in it. Getting out involves putting people into a position from which they can get you out, and that position turns out to be a lot more comfortable than either getting out, or letting anyone else out. These dynamics are clear to everyone.

As it all becomes ever more obvious, cynicism explodes. No one is any longer really fooled by the thinly-stretched, saccharine, hysterical idealism. It’s all power and who-whom, as the practitioners of Cultural Revolution are the first to admit. “We’re fucking you, and we get to call it good, because we’re winning, and you’re not.” That’s the whole of it. For anyone who thinks Social Domination is a great game to play, it makes more sense than it ever has. There are many such people. They’re not going away.

…

Any exit ramp that looks serious is fake. Social Domination manages serious threats easily, making them actually non-serious. Such ‘challenges’ fall under its rules, dialectically, and merely make it bigger. There’s no way to seriously oppose it without playing into it.

Any real exit has to be seriously non-serious. Game it out. Play another, different game on the side, shifting everything steadily to the side. Migrate intelligence-capital onto a million ludic frontiers, where exit hatches. No one will take it seriously until it’s too late.

It’s getting ever easier to try things out inside games. Any kind of plotting that doesn’t take this route will soon seem obsolete.

The means of simulation do not need to be seized, but they do need to be proliferated. Other frontiers will open, but none so soon.

#nick land #substack #games

1 note · View note

you-can-write-this · 5 years ago

Text

Character Creation Tip: Archetypes of Interest

If you’re having trouble formulating your cast of personalities, or your characters are feeling nebulous, then try this: begin with an archetype, and then complicate it or subvert it.

Arguably, the most efficient strategy is to begin with your character’s interests, and/or their chosen subculture. (This list is not exhaustive, and it spans a variety of styles and genres. Ignore the concepts which are too exaggerated or too bland for your reality.)

These are just a few ideas to get you inspired! Have fun, and be sure to absolutely ruin the archetypes you select-- don’t play them straight! In other words, these are all stereotypes, and it’s up to you to shift away from these stereotypes!

Rock - A passionate musician who feels more than they think. They list band names just to show off, and they hold extremely strong opinions on obscure controversies (e.g. slap-bass is best thumb-down). They can be talented or terrible. Stereotypically, they are slackers in almost every subject: they refuse to try in school and prefer unemployment to hard work. However, when they are passionate, they don’t recognize that they’re working. With their instrument, they are persistent, and may even become skilled. If they like the idea of pulling up in a flashy car, they’ll learn how to drive, and they’ll do it well enough. But if driving is a chore, they’ll be homebound or hitching rides.

Related interests: Even if they are characterized by their interest in rock, they are likely to have similar feelings about other, lesser interests. Common examples are comic books, D&D, and other nerdy media. They’re likely fond of tv & movies from the 80s and 90s. They may have an appreciation for some other genres, such as hip-hop, but will select genres to hate in order to establish an out-group (commonly classical, country, or radio pop). Stereotypically, they have an aversion to mainstream media and intellectualism; both make them feel inferior.

Dark counterculture - Goth, emo, and all those unlabelled. They are angry about something, but don’t know what to do with those feelings, so they choose society or authority figures as the target of their anger; they might seem very justified, or they might seem completely silly. Some brandish weapons, such as aesthetically pleasing knives, as a symbol of rebellion, but (usually) not as a tool for malice. Similarly, they gravitate towards dark iconography, which to them reads as “truth”-- satanic and violent imagery seem to call attention to the actual darkness they perceive in the world, a darkness often hidden away (although they do not believe in the devil, and do not necessarily advocate violence; if they do, it’s probably all hypotheticals, and never actions). Despite all this, most have personable, friendly, and often cheerfully childlike mannerisms by default, at least when socializing within the in-group.

Related interests: They probably have personal idols who they latch onto. Musicians are most common, but any celebrity is fine, as long as they can classify as a personal symbol of rebellion. A superstitious attitude has taught them to trust tarot, to believe in ghosts, and maybe even to practice casual witchcraft. They cope with internal pain through their vices, primarily drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. Particularly among girls/women (according to stereotype), they also may have a strong liking for childlike or “pretty” media-- Disney movies and children’s shows, for example, although older/nostalgic media for teens & adults may also make the cut. They are averse to mainstream media by virtue of it being mainstream, but older mainstream media, particularly from the 80s and 90s, can appear left behind and forgotten, and regardless of gender, the character may seek to protect this forgotten & broken toy, thereby developing a great fondness.

The idea of America - This trope only applies to Americans, as it describes American nationalists. They love symbols of America, including the flag, the eagle, the army, the police, and sometimes the fire department. In appearance, they have a high level of self-confidence, showing off their toughness and their perceived moral integrity. They are probably politically conservative, if not libertarian or independent. This type is proud to be loyal-- they are proud of how they stand by their family, or their clique, or even how they stand by their own self-- as a result, they resist changing social groups on principle (breakups are especially hard), and they may be willing to make great sacrifices in order to prove their loyalty (e.g. putting themself in danger). Personal sacrifice, to them, demonstrates their heroic nature. They are similarly loyal to America. Country music probably appeals to them, and so does mainstream media, such as pop music and action/superhero movies. In some areas towards the south, these characters are popular jocks, and may have brains as well as brawn; their futures may be promising, and they are well-liked. If younger, they may party, and if older, they are a parent, beloved by other parents in the area, possibly coaching a little league or joined to a PTA. In some areas towards the north, these characters are rebellious and countercultural. In this case, expect spiteful & defensive behaviors, paired with a distrust in authority; they will still have mainstream tastes, but they might be wary of the charming and well-liked. They may find themself stuck, on a loop, talking about leaving town or starting a business, but they mistake their own dreams for goals; it will never happen. In contexts that frame them as rebellious, others may describe them as annoying, childish, or aggressive.

Regarding gender: Not all of them are men. Within this archetype, many pride themselves as “tough ladies,” but be wary that they are not feminists. The men will be loyal to their families, and the women will be loyal to their husbands. Both men and women will place great importance on their gender role as a symbol of tradition, a loyalty to their upbringing and to each other. Women of this type may be proud gun owners, or may be athletic in the realm of “feminine” sports, such as tennis or softball; almost never football or basketball. If these women/girls are countercultural & rebellious in their context, expect them to spite well-liked women for being vapid, superficial, or boring.

Regarding moving: Someone who has grown up in the south well-liked for these qualities will still be confident & sociable in other cultural contexts. In the case of a countercultural rebel, it may depend.

Broader queer community - Not all queer people integrate their queer identity into their lifestyle-- but some do. Without an enormous subversion, this trope is better off written by queer writers. (This admin is queer in many respects.) Social politics engage them, invigorate them, and infuriate them. They’re a leftist if not center-left, and they have probably gained a lot of their knowledge & wisdom from social media, to varying degrees of accuracy; they’ve spent long hours scrolling through socio-political facts and opinions, lighting a fire in their stomach. According to stereotype, legitimate distress has left them spiteful at a young age, and they are quick to anger, quick to correct others. Friendships within the queer community bring them a sense of comfort. When comfortable, they are energetic and indulge in childlike behaviors; speaking too loudly, bursting into song, offering inappropriate emotional responses, etc. They are openly affectionate and may even enjoy cuddling with friends or openly cuddling with a partner(s). After previously feeling limited at a younger age, they are now desperate to express themself through any medium, and therefore gravitate towards wacky/colorful clothing, talk constantly about their queerness, and may decorate their houses/rooms with bizarre, sometimes queer, paraphernalia.

Related interests: If they’re invested in a tv show, podcast, movie series, book series, or other piece of media, they are probably very deeply and passionately invested. This media will usually be current, and will usually be just outside of the social norm-- for example, serious-toned animated shows, but not quite children’s television; if it’s live-action, then it’s science fiction or fantasy with a distinctive lore. Their chosen media falls into three categories: A. media with canonical lesbian relationships, B. media in which two or more men have a warm, positive relationship (which doesn’t always have to be interpreted as romantic by fans), C. it’s a YA story in which a vibrant cast of characters come together as a team or clique. They spend significant time talking about, thinking about, or writing about their favorite media.

Female celebrities - They have a vast knowledge of their favorite female celebrities, and keep closely up to date through social media. They are fiercely loyal to these celebrities, and take any spite towards these celebrities as an ethical offense. Unconsciously, they’ve developed a very strong sense of importance towards the gender binary, and for their own reasons, believe in supporting (certain) women, and distrusting men. Unconsciously, they imitate their favorite celebrities, and learn how to behave from them-- because of this, their world has a high bar for fashion and presentability. Their clothes are a perfect fit, style, and shape, and if they’re a woman/girl, their makeup is a wonder; in this way, they, too feel a little bit more like the women they admire. Stereotypically, if they’re a gay man, they probably imitate their favorite female celebrities consciously more than unconsciously, dancing along to the choreographed dances and attributing these imitations of femininity to their own homosexuality. In any form of imitation, their obsession with celebrities informs their norms, and informs their sense of self. Because they learn to view themself externally, comparing their own behaviors and presentation to that of celebrities, they will become experts in their own presentation, and as a result, become very well-liked, with many friends. Their lingo is very much up-to-date. They’re a fan of male celebrities as well, but they do not make it a hobby; it holds much lesser importance.

Related interests: In general, their tastes sway mainstream. They like watching celebrities because they like people, and so socializing and partying are their primary pastimes. With their heightened empathetic skills, they could relate to those in the out-group, but have trained themself not to, in order to feel most comfortable in their in-group. So they spend time with people similar to themself, and avoid or even act cruelly towards those they don’t immediately understand.

Classical music (for characters below 30 or so) - Their classical tastes span infinite times and locations. However, they take separate interest in European (or Ancient Grecian/Roman) history, and in this regard, they are probably fixated on a particular country during a specific period: for example, the Italian Renaissance, Soviet Russia, or Classical Greece. They’ve read a lot of classic literature from and outside of this setting. They feel disconnected from contemporary society and mainstream media, although their complaints may be diverse. They do extremely well in school, and heel to all authority figures. They relish in their ability to follow the instructions of teachers, bosses, and elders, and when they lack ability to fulfill commands, they become anxious and panicked.

Related interests: When they connect to contemporary culture in their own way, however, their hearts swell with pride-- maybe they make memes about classical art, and tote this as a character trait. Humor is a common way to show off that they don’t take their obsessions “too seriously,” and it often becomes central to their self-expression. Otherwise, they may have any number of interests, but it’s common for contemporary media to be handled with humor and irony.

School - Bookish, quiet, and unhappy. Stereotypically, this archetype is guided first and foremost by authority figures. They feel pressured to do better than anyone, and have either limited or failed to incite their social life. Since success in social relationships remains unquantifiable, friendship always ends up on the back-burner, even long after they’ve realized their mistake, and long after it’s too late. They get straight As most of the time, and feel proud of their ability to do better than anyone else. But they can’t write essays because they struggle to form their own opinions; if they get better at writing through shear hard work and perseverance, they will still struggle when an upper-level English teacher tells them to “cultivate your own unique voice,” because as far as they can see, they don’t have any voice of their own. They don’t know themself and are not sure how to learn about themself. Their actions follow the instructions of others. If they’re a college student, they’re having trouble picking a major, or have picked a major for pragmatic (not emotional) reasons.

Related interests: Poetry is a likely interest, whether it’s Instagram poetry, printed poetry, or the act of writing poetry. Even if they never seem to know who they are, if they write poetry, those poems seem to write themselves. They may also have nerdy interests, such as kpop, children’s tv shows, or anime. They aren’t explicitly averse to mainstream culture, either. Because they study so often, they’ve probably tried, at one point or another, studying with music on, so they have developed music tastes. They probably know their musical niche very well, whatever it may be (and no genre is necessarily off limits).

Academia - Perhaps a professor, or just as likely, a wannabe. They have some knowledge in many fields, and specialized knowledge in one field or a few. However, they will proudly bare their broad, shallow knowledge on the subjects they’re less familiar with. They form strong opinions on hardly familiar subject matter, and become domineering in conversation. They probably think that psychology is a nonsense field made up of unprovable, and therefore irrelevant, theories. Others will constantly be Googling the obscure words they speak. Lateness and disorganization illustrate the disconnect between their deep thought and a pragmatic reality. However, in their private life, they may exhibit extraordinarily silly or childlike mannerisms, in their own adult way. Such mannerisms appear to be a disclaimer to their personalities-- that they are not serious all the time, which makes them feel a little cooler, or at least, a little less cold, insociable, or nerdy. But in fact, they are indignant about any silliness which contaminates art or academia, and thus, they section off maturity (thoughtful, logical, serious, rigorous) and childishness (pointless, for entertainment value only, not strictly beautiful or strictly grotesquely beautiful). They are serious about serious matters and silly among silly matters. Contrast to the young fan of classical music, who approaches the mature, academic, or artistic as a form of entertainment worth joking about. According to stereotype, both the young classical listener and the academia enthusiast use humor to disarm their perilously serious interests, but the academic is much more cautious to distract from beauty or knowledge.

Related interests: They have a strong appreciation for the arts & culture. Classical music is the highest form of music to them, and hip hop is “not real music.” They are deeply moved by literature, sculpture, and painting; the older it is, the more they like it.

Skateboarding - Relaxed and sociable, this character can be seen skating from class to class on an outdoor college campus, or trying tricks with other skaters in back of the public library. They are fascinated by appearances, and are very careful about their presentation in regards to fashion (probably includes a beanie), their language, and the tastes they share with other people (in movies, television, etc.). Therefore, they may slip into superficial behaviors, judging others by first impressions or even just their appearances or their social status. They are aware of how others perceive them, and are both conscientious and self-conscious. The skateboard itself is an aesthetic flare taken very far, reflecting their strong sense of nostalgia. Their nostalgia shows up in their other interests as well: they watch television & movies from the 80s and 90s, they started playing D&D after “Stranger Things” came out, and they genuinely enjoyed reading The Catcher in the Rye. Their tastes and tendencies may be nerdy and subversive, but because they are conscientious about how others perceive them, they are great at forming good relationships with others. They are sociable and know how to be likable. Sometimes they try to simplify themself for the easier consumption of others, and they definitely hide some of their stranger interests & ideas.

Related interests: Music is important to them, but that could take the form of hip hop, rock (likely punk), radio pop, or the generally alternative & obscure. Whether they’re smart or they’re stupid, they probably have at least one significant academic interest, such as literature or history, and they don’t care if other people know.

Musicals - Loud, eccentric, melodramatic. The theater kid is so boisterous that even they can’t deny it, and with full self-awareness, they break from social norms. They usually have trouble taking things seriously. They don’t take rules or laws seriously, and will stand on tables while authority figures demand that they get down. They first and foremost chase their bliss, against odds, threats, and authority. If a loved one passes away, they will become somber and cannot contain their pain, sobbing every waking moment, and they will cry suddenly at birthday parties, (understandably) calling attention to their latest thoughts and feelings for all to hear. However, if an unimportant or disliked acquaintance passes away, they may be stealing away with a friend to the corner of the funeral home, whispering jokes about something else and laughing inappropriately. They will speak sexually explicitly in church and laugh as they catch the glares of a passerby. They are not themself without friends, because they need someone to be in on the fun, on the joke. However, unlike most of the archetypes on this list, they primarily target people within the in-group. Like their friends, they are feeling, and highly sensitive. But like their friends, they are not conscientious of other people’s boundaries, and they don’t like to be told what to do. They make enemies of other theater kids, and can be genuinely aggressive, scheming, and villainous. They feel no shame when they talk behind people’s backs, which is one of their pastimes. But most importantly, you can always expect them to burst into song at the absolutely wrong time. Expect very intensive knowledge about their favorite musicals, but probably not their inner workings-- they can recite scenes from memory, and they know the names of all the original performers, but they are less likely to know names of writers, and they tend to care less for trivia. They may know some music theory and how to play piano, but otherwise, they will remain in their lane, focusing on performance aspects.

Related interests: If they are of high school age or younger, they can party without any drink or drugs; otherwise, they modestly drink alcohol and then trick themself into thinking they’re completely hammered. Assume they first tried alcohol at a young age. Despite how loudly they talk about sex & drugs, they may be inexperienced & naive about drugs. If they do drugs frequently, though, they do party drugs at parties, or try out drugs at other social gatherings to feel hip & cool.

Furries - No, they don’t want to fuck real animals. They want to fuck cartoon animals, but more importantly, they want to be cartoon animals. Like the theater kid archetype, they are bombastic, emotional, and sociable, but unlike the theater kid archetype, they lack any social awareness at all, and they are strictly countercultural. Theater kids read the room and don’t care what they see; furries can’t read the room at all. Amongst the in-group, they are childlike: loud, offering inappropriate emotional reactions, and constantly crossing other people’s boundaries. They can be very inappropriate (sexually & otherwise), regardless of the setting, and regardless of other people’s reactions. But more importantly, they are fiercely affectionate. They hug strangers of the in-group, and otherwise actively pursue physical contact. When a loved one gets attention, they are quick to become jealous, and they pursue their loved one’s attention overtly or covertly; they become angry and demand attention, or they show off their sadness and hope their loved one will notice. Amongst the out-group, they expect others to limit their true self. They are either quiet, or they become overtly rebellious, treating the out-group as the enemy who will stifle them. When rebellious, they try their best to be obscene: they curse & insult haphazardly, they feel proud when authority figures come down on them, and they gravitate towards obscene gestures and lewd implications. They are either proud of their sexual experiences, or shame others for their sexual experiences. Self-expression is extremely important to them, so they wear edgy, suggestive, or brightly colored clothing. However, they only care about bringing the inside to the outside, and they’re not very aware of the gaze of others, so they may not take care of their hair very much, and they don’t wear makeup; these are superficial matters, not matters of the heart. They are attracted to the cute and to the dark, sometimes simultaneously, so it’s common for them to flirt while using childlike language (and perhaps to use childlike language in general). Stereotypically, they have an aversion to "basic” types and to intellectualism; both make them feel inferior. But from the “basic” types-- in other words, people who are well-liked with socially acceptable interests-- they are mostly averse reflexively. They may insult others for being vapid, prudish, and mean (even without cause), but they expect such people to look down on them, and become defensive in preparation for cruelty.

Related interests: They party. They lost their virginity at a young age, have tried every drug, and may cope with their problems through drinking and smoking. They talk a lot about the demons they’ve struggled with (usually mental illness, trauma, or feeling like an outsider), and they blame their bad behavior and these demons. Whether these demons are lesser or greater, they feel unequipped to deal with these problems; their demons haunt them incessantly and, usually with full awareness, run away from their problems through drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. They are also deeply involved with rave culture. Although they get high while they rave, they do not rave in order to cope, but in order to express themself. Being a furry is not the only thing they want to express about themself, though, and they probably have many, many labels they very closely identify with. These labels may include any of the following: leftist, nazi, communist, emo, e-girl/e-boy/e-they, gay, bisexual, pansexual, nonbinary, trans, punk, clinically depressed, clinically anxious, etc. The more controversial the personal attribute they have, the more closely they identify with it, and the more they seek to express it within and outside of furry culture.

Eastern philosophy - Woke, but not really, this archetype is attracted to obscurity. This trope applies to outsiders of the relevant cultures; they are unlikely to be East Asian in ethnicity or nationality. In casual conversation, they make quick and awkward connections, hopping spontaneously from topic to topic. Somehow your political opinions on big business have lead them to go on about chakras. But that lasts only a moment-- now they’re talking about Nietzsche and Kant, and now they’re connecting it back to chakras. You don’t see the connection. They’re well-read and they very much know it; otherwise, they skim books and talk constantly about the couple pages they’ve read. They’re always looking for something deep and meaningful that can bring them realizations about the world around them, but the packaging of information can make or break wisdom. The more distant from their world this wisdom comes, the more likely they are to trust it-- new superstitions from within their country are deceptive, ignorant, and nonsensical playtoys. However, methods of divination from Africa, China, Japan, India, and Indigenous America pique their interest. They find these methods fascinating, beautiful, and artistic. They are either convinced that foreign superstitions are accurate, or they perceive it aesthetically first and foremost, maintaining a respectable distance, and taking pictures for social media. Ancientness, acclaim, and foreignness may all be factors in whether or not they respect a source or a piece of media. They frequently throw out names in European philosophy, but in Eastern philosophy, they have formed a blind trust, and they live their life assuming truth of the third eye, of chi, of chakras, etc. Whatever their preferences and beliefs were in youth, they have moved on. They’re on a constant hunt for novelty, and the familiar is too comfortable, too convenient, to be true. They probably have good ideals-- love, community, globalism-- but they exhibit some egocentric behaviors. To them, the modern is inauthentic (it is plastic, monetary, commodified), and the ancient or foreign is authentic by virtue of it being obscure. In their constant hunt for authenticity, they speak honestly to a fault. They cannot filter their thoughts, and others will become frustrated or disturbed by some of their harsh criticisms. They may also become socially isolated due to their tangents, their rants, their overconfidence, and their delusions of grandeur. For this reason, they socialize with others of their kind, and those with other shared interests.

Related interests: They are guaranteed to have some typical nerdy or mainstream tastes, despite dwelling on extremely unaccessible media. They’ve experimented with various drugs, but they are not the partying type. They listen to experimental music which to most other people sounds only like sound.

Drag - This stereotype primarily refers to drag queens, who dress up in flamboyant exaggerations of women’s clothing. This archetype is very conscious of their appearance-- their sense of self is deeply connected to their physical traits, and as a result, they discuss and amplify the physical traits they closely identify with. This applies out of drag just as much as it applies in drag. If they are visibly non-white, they may very closely identify with their ethnicity, and engage in (probably harmless) self-stereotyping, or otherwise significantly engage with their heritage (e.g. cooking, dressing, speaking the language/wanting to learn the language and never getting around to it). If they are especially skinny, they will dress to emphasize it, and they will carry themself with the confidence of a skinny person who wants to be skinny. If they are especially overweight, they care deeply about body positivity, or in some cases, will purposefully make themself the butt of the joke, and tell fat jokes about themself all the time. A blond/blonde will take extra care to coif their hair, a curvy person will move to emphasize the shape of their body, etc. Other facets of their personality and background may also become the subject of some verbal self-stereotyping (usually of the purposeful, joking kind)-- they may talk about how southern they are, or how “poor” they are, or how communist they are, etc. They may have a (flexible, ever-changing) list of attributes they ascribe to themself, and go out of their way to express these traits, while holding a complex, passive-aggressive relationship with their undesired traits. If they are a drag queen who generally lives as a man, then he wears distinctly male clothing most of the time, but his look is distinctive-- not necessarily fashionable, and unlikely to be flashy, but most certainly distinctive. In this case, he might wear something which represents a surprising, subversive hint of femininity amidst a masculine look: for example, a pair of earrings, or carefully done eyebrows, or a quiet hint of lipstick, or beneath a men’s shirt, a corset. They may not necessarily be extroverted, but they certainly will be sociable and conscious of the feelings of others. If they are rude and obnoxious, then they may be consciously ignoring the needs of others. They have some slight, superficial social justice tendencies, but in being an ally to other groups, they end up with a foot in their mouth. They are not angry for the sake of any minority group; they are merely an advocate, and they are proud to advocate, and when they do put their foot in their mouth, they expose a hidden chink in their advanced social skills. Sooner or later, they will drastically misunderstand the needs of others, because they are quick to project their experiences and ways of thinking and feelings onto others, and in trying to make others happy, they may be seeking out the happiness of an imagined other self; it’s empathy, if a bit misguided.

Related interests: They love pop music, and have had their fair share of drinking and clubbing. Their tastes swing mainstream and they have had strange, adventurous experiences. They are more likely than most people to be superstitious, because they like it when things are simple, stereotypical, and easy to explain; they believe in predictions of the future, and they latch onto astrological stereotypes of other people.

Live laugh love - They have an addiction to inspirational quotes, and it’s beginning to effect their personal relationships. They post inspirational quotes on Facebook. They decorate kitchens with little signs and chalkboards and potholders, inspirational quotes adorning them each. And yes, above all, they worship those three words: live, laugh, love. They are probably a mother in their 40s or above. If not, they have a great and loving relationship with their mother; they openly share interests and hobbies with their mother, and treat their mother the same as a friend. Either way, they live a privileged life. They are financially safe, and they are guaranteed food, housing, and comfort every day, possibly for their entire life. They may live comfortably in suburbia, or they might be filthy rich. If they work, it is not too intensive, and they have a lot of time for their many hobbies and interests. They’re caring and giving with a lot of patience, and they’re quite extroverted, with a lot of friends they meet regularly. However, while they pretend to be adventurous, they are not adventurous; they are aspirational, while remaining comfortable. Their magnetism to inspirational quotes comes from a comfortability with self-love and self-care, which comes from a privilege to take time for oneself, and the privilege of a healthy upbringing.

Related interests: Pets. They’re a cat-lover or a dog-lover. Caring for another creature is an important hobby for them. They love aesthetics, particularly simple interior design, conventional makeup, and plain yet expensive clothing. They probably have an interest in a specific country or region, and cultural inspiration may or may not be respectful. They may be on social media. If they’re young, they’re on Instagram. If they’re on the older side, they’re all about Facebook.

Some primary interests which fit less cleanly into archetypes, or which I otherwise will not be describing on this list: discovering the culture of parents or ancestors, a specific culture unrelated to oneself, being religious (should be specific to religion and sect), true crime/serial killers

Keep an eye out for a second post about secondary interests, and the difference between primary and secondary interests.

#prompts #writeblr #character concept #writing inspiration #inspo

4 notes · View notes

dabistits · 5 years ago

Note

thank you for your answer! i think my most pressing question is at what point am i trying to salvage a bigoted mess that isn't worth "promoting" by creating AUs for it. if a piece of media has potential but the author is too much of a centrist to ever fully realize it and ends up promoting a lot of things i really disagree with, is it fair for me to create different scenarios and tell other people "yeah, this piece of media is a bad take but it could have been like this instead"

I know tumblr makes a big deal out of no-platforming certain creations and creators, and this is a legitimate strategy and one that I agree should be applied at the very least, no exception, to TERFs and fascists and people who are legitimately bigoted. I think there’s a strong argument to be made for no-platforming certain exploitative creations, such as KS, and exploitative fanworks.

But.

1) for all the mess that BNHA is, I don’t think it’s equivalent to KS, and

2) what is “promotion,” even, really?

“Promotion,” when it comes to these discussions, I think usually refers to introducing a creator or creation to someone who didn’t know about them in the first place. This is actively dangerous when it comes to bigotry, and it’s part of TERF and fascist strategy to post ‘reasonable’ ideas (ex: about feminism) or innocent-sounding memes in hopes of drawing the ‘uninitiated’ back to their blogs or forums to ‘convert’ them (as an aside: I think pro-fetishizing fandom types do this as well, to be honest, and they do it by portraying their concerns as ones of free speech or misogyny so that people who aren’t aware of the root of the issue are easily led into agreeing with them). On this basis, people who have bigoted opinions should be no-platformed so their ideas can’t be spread.

I don’t think fandom participation is this insidious though. People make fanwork because they transparently enjoy a canon, not because they’re necessarily trying to insidiously “promote” it. Of course, there’s still a snowball effect where the more people are talking about a canon, the more buzz it gets, and the more people check it out, which makes buzz an important thing for small or new canons (but rarely is this contingent on one person only, and especially not if that person only has a small following). With BNHA specifically? It’s already huge. One person doing anything for it is a snowflake in a blizzard, and if anyone is checking out your fanart or fanfic, it’s incredibly likely that they’ve already heard about or are already into BNHA. Is it really fair to yourself to, uh, think about writing AU fanfic as you proselytizing to non-BNHA fans somehow, rather than you seeing better ways to do BNHA and sharing it with other fans? Rather than you writing something for the sake of your own catharsis?

As I said in my previous answer, there are still a lot of ways for you to decide how you participate. When I mentioned “AUs and dumb headcanons,” it was really just a group of my friends on a fairly insular forum and group chat, fairly self-contained. Even though we were fans of a ‘problematic’ canon, I wasn’t all that worried about “promoting” it, because it was a small group of people who I trusted could be respectful and critical, and other than that, we were just doing our own thing, having pretty much zero impact on anyone outside of us. You could say that liking this canon means we have questionable tastes (and that’s fair lol), but it’d be pretty hard to argue that we were promoting it, rather than just... adapting the canon into something we could semi-privately enjoy together.

Now, I’m running a BNHA blog with a few hundred followers. I guess that could count as "promoting” BNHA (though most of the people who found me were already BNHA fans in the first place), but I’m personally quite comfortable with that. I like to think, and I hope lol, that even though I’m giving BNHA a platform, I’m also giving platform to myself and my critiques. I’m unlikely to prevent people from reading BNHA by deleting this blog, but by continuing to run it I’m much more likely to engage people to think critically about the way the narrative treats issues like sexual assault, and abuse, and criminality. I hope I don’t reach the point where I’m hate-blogging about BNHA, but at this specific point in time, I’m happy with talking about the things I like and hope for, in addition to the places where I think it fucks up.

That’s all to say that you really do have options. If you can’t stand to think that you’re “promoting” it? Maybe just talk about it with a group of friends or a server, rather than posting about it. If you want to post about it, but don’t want to feel like you’re ‘justifying’ it? Maybe reblog more critical posts, or write your own.

While I agree with many of the posts on tumblr that say we should probably distance ourselves from some creators and creations—and the worse their issues are, the more all-consuming their issues are, the more relevant this position is—I also think there’s some leeway for people to say “this canon is bad, and I acknowledge its flaws, but there are parts of it I still really like.” Yes, while liking certain creators and creations will make you highly questionable and untrustworthy, we also have to resist the temptation to inextricably link our morals to our consumption (I mean this both about media consumption and the consumption of material goods), because “there’s no ethical consumption, etc.” and also because there’s no work without flaws. Being hypercritical toward ourselves for having imperfect tastes in an imperfect society will just make us obsessive with hypervigilance, tirelessly questioning ourselves and our motives like we’re waiting for ourselves to fuck up, and that’s not a healthy way to treat our own being.

(If you read the above and were like, “no, I’m capable of enjoying things without overinvesting in the perfection of its morals, there’s just something about BNHA that ticks me off,” then, good, it doesn’t apply to you. I thought I’d mention it in case this is a recurring issue.)

The final thing I have to reiterate is: if you’re grasping for reasons to stay, and ways to interact with BNHA that don’t impinge on your values, then this is my insight. If you’re grasping for reasons to go, then go! You don’t need my permission nor my insight to say “this canon makes me so uncomfortable that I don’t think I can interact with it happily anymore.” If you think leaving BNHA behind is for the better for yourself, if it will give you more peace of mind to do so, then you probably already know your decision.

#ask

7 notes · View notes

ebp-brain · 5 years ago

Text

thoughts on “gay panic”

Here’s my two cents on the notion that no one should use the term “gay panic” to mean “I’m gay and panicking” because of its violent history: I respectfully disagree.

I know the history of the term–the appallingly homophobic legal strategy of the “gay panic defense” that claims a perpetrator of a homophobic and/or transphobic hate crime lost control due to the victim’s sexual and/or gender identity. This legal strategy has been used to justify, and mitigate the sentence for, homophobic and transphobic hate crimes, and is still sometimes used today. It is unequivocally an appalling and violent practice.

This is actually why I am not disturbed—why I am in fact cautiously hopeful—to learn that the phrase “gay panic” is being used in a very different way: because the reclamation of a term used to describe a violently homophobic and transphobic practice can help undercut the belief system behind that practice. Specifically, this much more benign use of the term “gay panic” helps rewire the psychological link between queerness and terror. It does not end violence or deny trauma; rather, it works to diminish, even trivialize, the morally bankrupt but culturally powerful notion that someone’s sexuality and/or gender identity is panic-inducing. Let me say again: this does not mean pretending no queer people are subject to violence. It means refusing to treat a transparently homophobic and transphobic legal defense with the gravity that gives it its continuing psychological and cultural power.

I want to break this down into smaller parts.

1. I am, frankly, pleased and relieved that many young queer people don’t know about the “gay panic defense.” Is it important to know our history? Yes. Is it important to know when that history continues into the present? Yes. Does not knowing the history of a term signal a certain amount of privilege? Possibly, though it also signals a failure of various school systems to educate students on queer history. What it also means, though, is that there are a significant number of queer folks, many of them on the younger side, whose primary association with the phrase “gay panic” is “I’m a disaster gay and I’m freaking out because that queer person is so attractive!” They hear the words “gay” and “panic” together and they come up with the sweetly self-deprecating conclusion that they are the ones panicking. They didn’t grow up believing that the words “gay” and “panic” are inevitably linked by someone else’s homophobic and/or transphobic panic. Should they be aware that many people did and do grow up that way? Yes! But I don’t resent them for their feelings of safety and comfort in their identities. I want them to feel safe and comfortable.

2. I don’t think the term “gay panic” is actually, in and of itself, a slur. The legal strategy of the “gay panic defense” is an abhorrent practice. But we are talking about language here: is the term itself so contaminated by its violent history that it is scorched earth, never to be inhabited again? There’s something about slurs hurled in schools and on the streets that can make them conjure a visceral gut-punch reaction; they have been shouted during acts of intimidation and violence. I may not agree that slurs cannot be reclaimed, but I understand the logic. But I’ve never heard of anyone saying “I’m in a gay panic right now because of your sexual and/or gender identity” while beating someone up. The violence of the legal system is real and terrible—that is, again, not up for debate here—but the term “gay panic” (or “gay panic defense”) seems qualitatively different from a slur because it is, basically, a bullshit rhetorical attempt to make hate crimes seem psychologically justified. The term is meant to obscure violence, to distance the perpetrator from the crime, to deny guilt. It’s a trick of language.

3. It is therefore the ideal sort of term for queer people to play our own tricks on. We must not deny that many queer people live in terror. We must also remember that our goal is to reduce that terror. Language shapes cultural attitudes; the words we say affect what we believe. They are not an alternative to direct political action or learning about our past and present; rather, they are part of action and of learning. The way we use language matters. I’m not saying “whatever, ‘gay panic’ is just words; it doesn’t matter how we use the term.” It does matter. That’s the point.

4. You may disagree with my analysis of the phrase and argue that it is a slur, that it is itself a violent term with the capacity to evoke centuries of trauma and oppression. You may certainly feel discomfort or fear upon hearing it, sense the specters of trauma and terror creeping closer, remember that you are subject to the violence of strangers. I certainly have no business telling you that you don’t or shouldn’t feel this way. Nor do I have any right to, say, post the term on your blog to upset you or somehow shove it in your face despite your discomfort. However: queer people may feel differently from each other. We may not agree on what words are acceptable, or on how we want to use language. This does not necessarily correspond to some sort of sliding scale of privilege, in which all the people with more privilege think one thing and all the people with less think another. It may instead correspond to differences of opinion on the most effective form of political action. For me, seeing the term “gay panic” used to describe something silly that originates from queer people themselves, some enjoyable flustered response upon noticing someone else who is publicly, gloriously queer, saps some of the power of the “gay panic defense” by trivializing the alleged “panic” and by rerouting the associations between the words “gay” and “panic.” This works not because the “gay panic defense” is irrelevant history but because it is powerfully relevant in the present moment. It works not because the violence itself is being trivialized but because the pretense that there’s some legitimate psychological phenomenon justifying that violence is being scoffed at and given exactly the amount of respect it deserves. Furthermore, we don’t wait to reclaim negative terms only after they are no longer in use; we wrest them away from people who hate us and make language our tool to dismantle that hatred. We steal the weapons in the middle of the battle and break them in half.

To sum things up: I do not need you to agree with me. We can be queer people who don’t have the same political strategies. That’s fine. I do think it would be helpful to remember that if some queer people don’t know the history of a violent term, that represents not only a failure of education and/or initiative but also the hopeful possibility that that term, and the violence to which it is linked, looms less large in the consciousness of many queer people. I also think it would be helpful to consider that others may read a post like “don’t use x term” as an opening of the door to a discussion. It’s fine if you are too drained of energy and resources to do the work of educating people, but surely “don’t use x term” is itself an act of educating people that might suggest to readers that you are in fact knowledgeable and prepared to further educate them. Finally, I want to repeat: queer people may disagree amongst themselves about political strategies. In a place like Tumblr, which runs on reblogs, dialogue, and continued interaction between people and ideas, it seems to me that disagreement should generate thoughtful debate, not an immediate pile-on to shut down those who disagree, to literally stop them from saying what you don’t want them to. I do not mean you should put up with homophobia and transphobia. This argument does not apply when Tumblr users are being blatantly, purposely homophobic and transphobic. I mean that when queer folks disagree amongst ourselves on how we use language, the continued use of that language to hash things out is the most useful response.

#cw homophobia #cw transphobia #cw gay panic #gay panic #discourse #queer language #queer politics #thoughtful disagreement in good faith more than welcome

27 notes · View notes

daughter-of-water · 6 years ago

Text

long ask

In contrast to Dany’s character, you have the “cold, ruthless and logical” Tywin Lannister. He obliterated 2 entire noble Houses, soldiers, smallfolk, nobles, men, women and children, when he was barely our of his teens. Then he proceeded to betray a childhood friend, granted Aerys was insane, and have Elia Martell and her children murdered in the worst way, while at the same time his army was free to kill, rape and pillage a city of 500.000 innocent people. Fast forward almost 17 years and he sent his dog to do the same to the southern Riverlands. Then, he conspired to betray one of the most sacred tenets of that particular world/society. And he called it “strategy”.

So, to summarise, you have a young, idealistic woman who made tactical mistakes (talking about the show here), but went SIGNIFICANTLY out of her way to protect the innocent people of Westeros, being labeled crazy and power-hungry.

And you also have a man whose life story is comparable to Vlad the Impaler, being labeled logical, but ruthless.

At the moment, just by sitting here, I can tell you a few ways for Daenerys to destroy ANY advantage Cersei has AND minimize the loss of life, all on her own. And by her character arc, Daenerys should be able to think them as well. But, “Mad Queen” vs “Mad Queen” vs Queen Slaaaaay, is the only thing those 2 idiots can come up with.

What I despise is that even by modern standard, Dany burning the Red Keep would be considered viable military strategy.

Although the principle of proportionality underlying the concept of collateral damage continues to apply in such cases, the presence of civilians within or adjacent to a legitimate military objective does not preclude attack of it. Such military objectives may be lawfully targeted and destroyed as needed for mission accomplishment. In such cases, responsibility for the injury and/or death of such civilians, if any, falls on the belligerent so employing them.

From the US Naval Handbook (2007), as seen here.

Cersei is literally using terrorist tactics, and everybody is blaming Dany from refusing to fall for them, even though none of them have a better idea on how to win this thing.

At this point I want Dany to just burn the whole thing down. Screw this moral high ground everybody suddenly wants to put themselves on.

#daenerys targaryen #tywin lannister #Game of Thrones #What are you doing Benioff and Weiss #Cersei Lannister #submission

5 notes · View notes

joeys-piano · 6 years ago

Note

if you were to write and publish a book, what would it be about?

TL;DR - I would write a mafia/organized crime story about a man traveling to St. Petersburg to learn/uncover the truth behind an interesting Bratva that doesn’t kill.

Probably, the extent of publishing I’ll do is posting the story online for others to read. I’m not in the market for this story to be on a shelf or in a physical, bounded form. Nor, would I even qualify the story as a book. However, for the sake of this question, I do have a story in mind that has the potential to fit those qualifications.

If I were to write and publish a book, the story would revolve around mafias or in general, organized crime groups. Having grown up watching a lot of police procedural, detective noir, secret agents and spies, and international hitmen movies, this appeals to a niche-area of mine. I feel that for a first novel, it’s probably a good idea to write about something that interests you and it’s something that you’re comfortable working with.

For me, personally, I love watching international films where the characters are going to other countries and working on covert missions there. As one of the main “pillars” of the story, so to speak, incorporating traveling and cultural diversity is huge for me. I would love to explore language barriers and how characters can overcome, negotiate, or use those barriers to their advantage when they communicate with foreign partners/parties. In addition to that, I would love to explore the differences between how different organized crime groups operate, what is the “pecking order”, what skills – if any – do these groups specialize in, some of the coded terminology they use, and how the surrounding culture influences how the group behaves.

Typically when I watch the movies that I watch, there’s almost none or very little distinction between the crime groups. They all feel like they were cut from the mold with the same shape, and the only discernible differences are what the group looks like and where they’re from. Honestly, I feel that there could be more done than just that. I’d love to see how the political environment, the attitude towards authority and law, how ethics and morals are at play if they are at play, and how cultural and regional differences/variances contribute to the “make-up” of these organized crime groups. It would feel closer to real life, I think. It gives these groups a grounded foundation that they can build upon, and it’s easier to juggle with several groups where they’re all uniquely different from each other. That’s probably one of the most important things to consider, ‘cause it’s not fun reading about carbon clones of the same thing – over and over again.

Another reason why I would write a mafia/organized crime story is that I like the thrill, the action, the suspense, and sometimes the comedy that comes along with the entire package. Show me with a raise of hands of how many of us remember the daring feats, the sheer epicness, and the mesmerizing action sequences that come from stories like this. It plays with the adrenaline part of the body and it’s a very tactile experience. As someone who focuses a lot on introspective works but has a flair for dramatic action sequences, this would be a lot of fun for me and it would expand my knowledge/repertoire for writing these kinds of situations.

But while this is all fun and games in the end, it’s very fast-paced. Balancing these quick successions with slower, agonizingly cruel sequences of rich sensory detail in the form of torture or interrogation scenes would appeal a lot to my introspective-side of writing. I’m already comfortable with introspective writing but here, I’ll be able to apply it to a wider range of situations and explore the five-senses in ways that I’ve never been able to in other types of stories.

And lastly, I would write a mafia/organized crime story just because I want to do things differently. It’s as simple as that. Now, my only experience when it comes to reading topics or themes like this come from fanfic. I don’t know how published books go about this but I often notice that at least in fanfic, there’s a lot of attention focused on relationship-dynamics and violence. Arguably, those two are very intimately tied with stories like this. There’s nothing wrong with stories like this that focus on that, but it often feels like the first thing that people come up with. It’s like outside of violence that will scar you for life – figuratively and literally – and relationships (mostly romantic, from what I’ve read), there’s nothing else you can do in stories like this. This is where I want to change things.

I want to explore the story of people finding their purpose in life through the line of work that they do. I want to explore how they’re able to balance between the civilian and the crime life, how they’re able to overcome internal conflicts and personal issues that arise when those two worlds converge, and I want to explore how different people have found themselves working in a mafia/organized crime group and what events in their life led them to choose this life. I can see why not a lot of people explore those areas because they can be slow, they can even be boring, and they might feel out of place for a genre that seems gung-ho on thriller action and living out an epic fantasy at times. For me, I don’t want to approach the mafia or any organized crime group with an idealistic background on what they should be. Maybe it’s just me, but I want to write this as grounded to reality as I can.

There are real, legitimate reasons that people join these groups and why they reach out to seek aid from them. I want to explore that gray area.

Now, after all of that setup and building to the moment, you’re probably wondering what the plot is going to be about. I got you, fam. The story revolves around a Japanese man named Mr. Fukumori. Despite being a low-ranked mafioso, he receives word from his Bosses that he’ll be leaving the country in a few days. Instead of this being a reconnaissance mission or anything fancier than that, Mr. Fukumori learns that his mission is strictly negotiation-based.

He’s tasked to be a spokesman for the Syndicate, and his assignment is to forge a deal or an alliance with a very strange Bratva (Russian mafia group) in St. Petersburg. On paper, the alliance is to be mutually beneficial. However, what the Syndicate really wants is structural information. For the past three years now, this strange Bratva in St. Petersburg has grown in power and prestige – seemingly, overnight as soon as a new Pakhan stepped forward. From the edge of ruins, somehow the group pulled itself together and became one of the most dominant-figures in Russia’s league of organized crime.

Mr. Fukumori’s true mission, if he chooses to accept, is to uncover exactly how the new Pakhan had done it. And if he receives further orders from his Bosses after he attains the information, Mr. Fukumori is aware that there’s a high possibility that he may have to kill the Pakhan. Naturally, as an older individual and bordering on the end of leading an “exciting life” as a hitman, Mr. Fukumori is curious as to why his Bosses didn’t assign this mission to anyone else. Although he asks the question, Mr. Fukumori already has an idea of what the answer is. Despite currently being a low-ranked mafioso, Mr. Fukumori had quite a track record when he was younger. With 145 confirmed kills, 375 reconnaissances assignments, and numerous soft-skills he had perfected during his years traveling in and out of Japan for these sorts of things under his belt, Mr. Fukumori is the most qualified to take on this mission. More so, he’s the most qualified low-ranking mafioso to take on this mission.

Mr. Fukumori is aware that because of his rank in the Syndicate, he can be disposed of or viewed as an expendable pawn at any time. Though it’s never spoken out loud, it’s heavily implied that this is a suicide mission. The odds of Mr. Fukumori coming back alive from enemy territory is dependent on his own skills and how he’s able to navigate and negotiate through everything that he needs to do. With all of this stacked before him, Mr. Fukumori accepts the mission. In a way, he feels that the other reason why his Bosses reached out to him on this is because this will be the first, foreign assignment he’s received in years and will likely be his last. Ever since he failed his last foreign mission, over 12 years ago, Mr. Fukumori fell from his original rank in the Syndicate and has been confined to domestic affairs since then.

It almost feels like this is the Syndicate’s way of forgiving him for the failure he had done in the past, by giving him a suicidal mission that he’s comfortable with. There’s almost a childish glint of youth in Mr. Fukumori’s eyes, there’s a warmth that’s spreading from his chest because he’s finally coming back to the kind of mission that he loves. Safe to say, Mr. Fukumori loves to travel and he feels like a bird that’s finally free from its cage. He knows that if he dies on the mission, at least he’ll die doing what he loves. However, Mr. Fukumori has hopes that he’ll have more foreign missions if he comes back alive. With that as his motivation, Mr. Fukumori begins formulating his strategy plan before he boards a plane and lands in St. Petersburg.

#i've thought about this idea for a long time #and i do want to share it with y'all when the time comes

7 notes · View notes

nomadicism · 6 years ago

Text

Double Standard Setting

Regardless of antagonist or protagonist, villain or hero, and the tropes used to characterize them: it doesn't sit well with me for a story to present a character whose goals (which we are told are noble/good) are impossibly high given the setting and challenges that face them, and then for that character to be held to an incredibly high standard (relative to the setting) by other characters that the narrative has expressly given the easy path to by virtue of possessing the one thing that makes this impossible goal obtainable while those characters also benefit from the work of the one being held to the high standard (again relative to the setting) who is also paying the price.

Within the confines of VLD’s setting—a hellscape where there are no good options to change things for the better unless one has ultimate power—Lotor pays a heavy karmic price for a setting-imposed “no good options” decision; while also paying the price of a future lost with the one that we are being told outside of the story that he genuinely loved (while the show itself both tells us that he was using Allura and also implying love), in addition to failing to realize his impossible goal of peace.

Meanwhile, the protagonists (excluding Keith and Shiro to an extent) have been coasting through on easy mode while reaping the rewards of Lotor's work without paying the karmic price that he did in order to reach the point where his work could make the impact that it did. Additionally, Lotor’s work was centuries (thousands of years even) in the making, and Allura and Voltron slept right through it.

Examples of Lotor’s work: (1) put the Empire in a heavily weakened position by preventing the destruction of Naxcela which could have destroyed Voltron in the process; (2) killed Zarkon; (3) was right about Kral Zera, and beating Sendak kept Haggar away from the power of the Empire; (4) took Allura to Oriande (she would not have been able to save Lance or Shiro without her new powers). One could extend this list further, but these are the highlights.

Voltron and the Coalition would likely be at a stalemate (or potentially worse) if Lotor hadn’t taken action against Zarkon. Lotor didn’t have to do any of that. He didn’t have to return from exile. He could have set up some additional defense for his Altean Harvesting Utopia and remain hidden there, never leaving, and been worshipped until the end of the time (pretty sure that Zarkon would have given no fucks about that). It actually cost Lotor more (and in the end, everything) to pursue the impossible goal of bringing peace to the universe.

Easy Mode:

Voltron shows up, 10k years after the fact, with game-changing power in hand, and their victory really isn’t all that unassured. Their victory was a matter of when (and how many more lives are lost in the process) and not if. Strategy, diplomacy, and team-work are necessary to use Voltron’s power wisely. So yes, it’s not just a matter of Voltron itself, but who is in command of it. But they are still moving through the setting on easy mode because having Voltron means that they do not have to make terrible choices by having enough power to nearly always avoid being placed in a no-win/no-good options situation.

The few hard challenges (nearly no-win situations) that the protagonists have faced where death (for themselves) was imminent, were either avoided by another character’s in-the-nick-of-time action or sacrifice (Thace, Ulaz, Lotor, etc), or were remedied by Allura’s magic (healing the Balmera, trapped on Naxcela, healing Lance, healing Shiro). Thus, “easy mode” still applies.

Keith and Shiro are the only ones who have had to make some hard choices imposed by the setting and circumstances, but even then, neither were put into a situation where the only choices where “sacrifice these hundreds to save these millions—and no—self-sacrifice is not an option”. The closest we get is during Keith's work with the BoM, we see him (thanks plot armor) skirt a version of this kind of choice when he runs back for Regress and manages to save both Regress and the data they were after. While the fight between Keith and Kuron amidst the all the clones definitely counts as “welcome to the hellscape!”, Keith’s options were to either leave or try to save Kuron at risk to his own life. That’s a hard choice, but still not on the level that I’m talking about here.

Choices Have Consequences For Thee But Not For Me:

By destroying the gate, and then attacking Lotor, and then leaving him in the Quintessence Field; Voltron has lost the chance for peace, plunged the universe into even deeper uncertainty, and without the Castleship they cannot protect those who depended upon them (e.g. the Coalition).

Surely some aspect of this is going to come up?

Can't have it both ways and be convincing.

Now that Lotor is gone…what is going to prevent Sendak and/or Honerva (now that she is no longer Haggar) from taking control of the Empire and putting things nearly right back where everyone started before Lotor showed up?

No Castleship equals no zipping around the universe to aid the Coalition or prevent the Empire from rebuilding itself under the rule of someone just as bad (or worse) as Zarkon.

Destroying the Castleship was a choice: close the reality tears, or maintain possession of a vital weapon and mobility resource.

In a setting that applies logic evenly (e.g. realistic outcomes/consequences and challenges for BOTH antagonists and protagonists), the destruction of the Castleship should have serious consequences for Voltron, as—logically—the war or other events regarding the Empire and the Coalition should continue without them being available. Hypothetically, Voltron's return trip to Earth is going to take a lot of time.

The following questions are raised:

How is the Coalition supposed to defend against Sendak or Honerva without Voltron?

Who from the Empire is going to take that Coalition intel that was synced by Kuron at Galra HQ and make use of it?

Is Sendak going to wait around to make good on his threat (in S1) to go after Earth?

Will the protagonists finally have to make a hard decision to protect one planet that is under attack versus another?

And when they make that choice, surely, the other planet will be a smoldering wasteland when they arrive too late?

Will it be Earth or Olkarion?

Without the Castleship, Voltron can’t arrive at the last minute to save more than one planet. The fact that this hasn’t even come up yet (b/c even with the Castleship Voltron still can’t be in more than one place at one time) has bothered me, but it’s going to be an even bigger problem if this kind of challenge (one that is logically demanded of the setting) isn’t set before the protagonists while they do not have access to wormhole transport (Castleship-generated or otherwise).

And while the protagonists do not have access to wormhole transport, Honerva does.

Is she really going to wait around till Voltron catches back up to challenge her?

10k Years of Consequences:

Assuming that Honerva doesn’t get there first…what happens when the protagonists go to The Colony?

Will Allura and Voltron be welcomed and celebrated?

Will the Alteans care (or even know) that Voltron attacked their god-king-savior and left him for dead in the Quintessence Field?

In a setting that applies logic evenly, those Alteans should be angry when the protagonists arrive. From their sheltered/socially-engineered perspective, it seems highly incongruous that the protagonists would be seen as heroes or saviors as they are seen when liberating planets from the Galra. The Alteans should be angry either from the death/disappearance of Lotor (their god-king-savior), or just the simple fact that Allura (and thus Voltron) slept for 10k years while the Alteans were hunted and had to be hidden away while the rest of the universe was conquered by Zarkon.

In a setting that applies logic evenly, are the Alteans really going to be ready to throw a parade for the daughter of the king who may as well have abandoned them?

Within this context, Alfor’s decision to divide and hide Voltron (and his daughter) doesn’t reflect well on him. Presumably he must have ordered some evacuation of Altea, but he still made the decision to prioritize his daughter, friend, and Voltron by dividing and sending them far away and put them in stasis indefinitely. If the right people hadn’t chanced upon the Blue Lion then how much longer would Allura and Coran have been asleep? The Galra found the Red Lion and nearly got the Blue Lion, great plan Alfor.

Alfor had the power—the ultimate power that allows the protagonists to coast through the Hellscape of No Good Choices—to do something and he didn’t use it. He made a choice that left his people defenseless, and still ended up creating a risk that the power would fall into the hands of Zarkon (or even someone worse). There is also the ethics of binding Allura’s quintessence to Voltron to consider.

If anything, that sets up Alfor's decision to be similar to Lotor’s decision, in that sacrifices had to be made for what either perceived as the greater good.

To recap: why is there this dark and terrible setting that left Lotor with no good options for bringing peace but somehow that setting never forces the protagonists into a corner where they have to make a legitimately terrible choice with no better options?

Especially with antagonists like Sendak and Honerva who—by any reasonable logic—would be in a position and mindset to create situations in which there are no options other than terrible ones that carry a karmic/moral price.

We’ve already gotten a hint of this with what Honerva did with Kuron and Keith, and with what Sendak did with the Arusians.

Clearly, the reason that this setting is inherently more punishing for the antagonists (and anyone who isn’t the protagonists) comes down to who has Voltron in their possession (regardless of strategy and team work). And that’s believable to a point.

In a setting that applies logic evenly, if the difference between Lotor not being able to make a better choice within the confines of the setting really boils down to Lotor not being Allura (with her magic) nor having Voltron at his disposal then…it seems like that choice was already made by Alfor, and the consequences of that choice have been felt by the universe for 10k years, and someone should call that out in-story.

So will the writing continue to gloss over consequences and/or never place the protagonists into a moral choice trap?

I’m not holding my breath. The plot armor within this double-standard setting is very heavy, and should that continue, it's going to kill what little desire I have to finish out the series.

#voltron #voltron meta #lotor #lotor discourse #voltron critical #vld s6 critical #voltron: legendary defender

251 notes · View notes

vezoneseosblog · 2 years ago

Text

Legislation Administration Private investigator -

When ever an offence is certainly entirely commited, it is essential to learn many of the research affiliated with it all and locate all the culprit. Is it doesn't police bodies what person make arrest. But they demand accomplish analysis of the grounds regarding all the transgression, procedures included in choosing all the transgression, perfect suspects, etc. verizon for law enforcement This can be achieved either in-house and / or certified private investigators are usually hired. The person can be described as police investigator.

Responsibilities of an police investigator:

Legitimate possible suspects:

And locate outside what person any cause is certainly, all the investigator might want to occupation interview a number of those people associated with the crime. She will also need to validate the positioning of the perfect suspects the moment all the transgression was committed.

Legitimate witnesses:

Investigations add looking over if any kind of witnesses can provide information that will aid tell you all the individuality on the culprit.

Reading through files:

All the investigator might want to take a look at database and additionally files to do background record checks of an individual associated with the case.

Presenting revisions:

Common revisions must be presented to the authorities area with regards to the progress on the case.

Preserving files:

Files on the brought on must be managed so that they can be produced as and when required.

Testifying within the judge:

All the investigator may very well be required to prove to get true within the judge in law.

Shall we discover how private investigators help police bodies:

Accumulating research:

A strong investigator accumulates ample research applying moral means. It is utilized all the bodies to hit cost to make all the arrest. This unique research must wind up being brought to you within the court as well.

Work force support:

Quite a few a time full the authorities bodies have too a lot of cases to handle. In these instances, many people fork over the duty in investigation certain instances to personal investigators.verizon for law enforcement These products assemble research, interrogate witnesses, etc. in order that the bodies have enough time to pursue more significant cases.

Diverse Tactic:

Because a personal investigator jointly a strategy which is completely different from in which on the bodies, true can be looked at right from a different sort of perspective. At the same time, they might be more capable with certain kinds of cases compared to authorities.

Legitimate witnesses and additionally uncovering consumers:

Quite a few citizens are not comfortable with in conversation with authorities. In these instances, the help of a personal investigator are quite useful. The reason is he or she can select and additionally occupation interview witnesses. These products can simply provide justifies, subpoenas, etc.

Subsequently

Not like best selling faith in which detectives and additionally criminal court bodies you should never solve cases together, a number of us noticed that a good police investigator allows criminal court solve problematic cases.

#law #verizone #enforcement

0 notes

shenanigumi · 6 years ago

Note

Hello!! I'm on my third playthrough now but tbh I still don't really understand the politics in the game, like what everyone wants to achieve and who's allied with whom and what their statuses are... do you maybe know of a website or any other source where this is explained in a simple and comprehensable way? The ingame encyclopedia doesn't really help... ;~~; Thank you very much!!

Hey there! Information about the Bakumatsu Period in Japan is, for whatever reason, comparatively hard to come by in English sources. It’s a little easier to find biographies on specific warriors, but even those are scattered. I can give you a super-basic rundown of the situation since I did an independent study on the time period, but the sources I had to use are neither simple nor easily accessible. If anyone else has recommendations for more professional sources, please feel free to reblog or comment with them!

Disclaimer: This is super-simplified and I’m not covering events that didn’t happen in the game. Also, it’s been over a year since I’ve done said independent study, so I may be a little rusty. I apologize in advance.

Basically, the situation around which the game is built is that as of 1853, the Western powers forced Japan to open itself to trade with other nations, causing a great deal of domestic unrest. Nobody in Japan was happy about this, but two factions arose with different ideas about how to deal with the situation. One side was comprised of the shogunate forces, loyal to the Tokugawa regime, who believed that the Tokugawa clan held supreme authority to govern Japan due to their victory in the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600. The other side was comprised of the imperialist forces, who were growing rapidly more impatient with the shogunate’s inability to expel the foreigners as promised, and believed that elevating the emperor to sole ruler of Japan would unite the people and expedite the process. The important thing to note here is that the emperor himself was pro-shogunate, so he had little to no control over those who wanted to give him more power.

Initially, imperialism was a widely shared sentiment, but lacked a real army to back it up (since the shogun was the military commander). However, the people’s unrest was growing quickly with every year the shogunate failed to rid the country of the foreigners. Wary of the situation in the imperial capital, Kyoto, the shogun raised the Roshigumi, the first-ever officially recognized group of warriors that didn’t have to be born into the samurai class in order to be allowed to fight, and sent them there to make sure that a.) the citizens were safe from the disillusioned ronin wandering the streets; and b.) the imperialist situation didn’t get out of hand, as both the shogun and the emperor were in agreement. After a series of complicated situations, covered in the events of Reimeiroku, the group became known as the Shinsengumi and remained in Kyoto to keep order as the shogun’s special police force.

Meanwhile, the Choshu domain—or Chōshū, but it’s simplified in the Hakuōki translation—as well as a few others took up force of arms in the name of the emperor, but without official recognition or even approval. This led to their adoption of violently unorthodox methods, such as kidnapping the emperor to force him to comply with their demands. This was what the Choshu were planning during the Ikeda Incident and later attempted to carry out during the Kinmon Incident (localized as the Hamaguri Rebellion). The shogunate forces quashed it, but the general unrest remained.

Following this, the shogunate branded the Choshu enemies of the state and ordered its domains to prepare for an expedition against them as punishment. However, the shogun did not personally lead the expedition, and morale had already begun to fail among the domains. The leaders of many domains did not see the point of pursuing the Choshu when they had already been routed, and perceived it as a waste of time, soldiers, and supplies. To make matters worse, several of the domains loyal to the shogunate were actually forced into subservience centuries ago, again due to the outcome of the Battle of Sekigahara. Among them were the Satsuma, who began sympathizing with the Choshu and ultimately allied with them, as revealed by Shiranui at Aburakōji (Aburano Koji).

But that only officially happened a few years later, so let’s back up a bit, to when Itou Kashitaro and his men joined the Shinsengumi. They did so partly to leech off the shogun’s protection, and partly to compromise their secondary function in Kyoto: suppressing the imperialist agenda. As imperialists, their ultimate aims differed from the Shinsengumi, but they were able to rally behind the common cause of protecting the people for a time. However, as tensions continued rising between the shogunate and imperialist forces, exacerbated by the deaths of both the shogun himself and the pro-shogunate emperor, the rift between the Shinsengumi and Itou’s faction grew wider. This was especially important because by that time, the Satsuma and Choshu were in accord and had insinuated themselves in the imperial court, naming the fifteen-year-old grandson of one of the Satsuma officials the new emperor. With a shift in power in their favor, Itou and his men no longer had any reason to cooperate with the Shinsengumi and founded the organization localized as the “Guardians of the Imperial Tomb”.

Some time later, the ronin Sakamoto Ryouma of the imperialist Tosa domain successfully convinced the newly named shogun to abdicate power willingly, and wrote up a plan for the transference of power. However, due to being perceived as the final blow to the failing shogunate, he was assassinated by members of the Mimawarigumi, another shogunate-affiliated group. Itou slandered Harada Sanosuke by insisting that he had been responsible, and that combined with his intention to kill Kondou led to the Shinsengumi’s decision to assassinate him at Aburakōji.

On a larger scale, tensions between the imperialists (who now held legitimate governmental power) and the shogunate forces (who were now disgraced) grew equally violent. This ultimately led to the Battle of Toba-Fushimi, which resulted in several domains formerly loyal to the Tokugawa defecting to the imperial side, and the shogunate army officially being condemned as traitors. Even the shogun had no interest in opposing the imperial court, despite the efforts of his army, and retreated to Edo rather than hole up in Osaka Castle. This is the main controversy of Chapter 4 [or Ch5 in KW], as the men of the Shinsengumi were prepared to fight to the death for the shogun in the Kyoto area but were then duty- and honor-bound to follow him to Edo instead.

(Incidentally, this also became a matter of war by proxy. Although everyone in Japan wanted the foreigners out, they elected to take advantage of their presence in their country to employ their strategies and technology. The English allied with the imperial army, while the French allied with the shogunate army, which is why the Shinsengumi later had access to Western wear and weaponry.)

As the war went on, similarly to the original situation in which the emperor had little control over the imperialists, the shogun lost any control over the pro-shogunate army. Hijikata’s initial attempts to persuade the higher-ups in the shogunate to grant the Shinsengumi more men and supplies failed, as so few of them had an interest in fighting, until finally Katsu Kaishū granted them the means to try and capture Koufu Castle. This may have been a ploy to get rid of the Shinsengumi by throwing them into an impossible battle, as the more they fought in the name of the shogunate, the longer the violence would persist. As the Shinsengumi continued northward to try and join the alliance of northern clans, and then to Ezo, it became more and more a matter of the imperial court fighting against those they had labeled traitors, regardless of the reason, until finally the last remnants of the formerly shogunate army were routed at the Battle of Hakodate. Kazama was right, as usual: it really was little more than a scramble for power, money, and reputation.

Hope I could help!! If you have any more specific questions, please feel free to ask me, though the same disclaimer will always apply.

#answered #history lesson

23 notes · View notes

standtoreason93 · 6 years ago

Text

The Bible: Reading the “Ordinary” Way

By Greg Koukl

I never like the question “Do you take the Bible literally?” It comes up with some frequency, and it deserves a response. But I think it’s an ambiguous—and, therefore, confusing—question, making it awkward to answer.

Clearly, even those with a high view of Scripture don’t take everythingliterally. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves.

On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts that others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied, vivified corpses rising from graves, etc.

A short “yes” or “no” response to the “Do you take the Bible literally?” question, then, would not be helpful. Neither answer gives the full picture. In fact, I think it’s the wrong question since frequently something else is driving the query.

Taking “Literally” Literally

Let’s start with a definition. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.” Why do people balk at this common-sense notion when it comes to the Bible or, more precisely, certain passages in the Bible?

Let’s face it, even non-Christians read the Bible in its “usual or most basic sense” most of the time on points that are not controversial. They readily take statements like “Love your neighbor as yourself” or “Remember the poor” at face value. When citing Jesus’ directive “Do not judge,” they’re not deterred by the challenge “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

No, when critics agree with the point of a passage, they take the words in their ordinary and customary sense. They naturally understand that language works a certain way in everyday communication, and it never occurs to them to think otherwise.

Unless, of course, the details of the text trouble them for some reason.

What of the opening chapters of Genesis? Is this a straightforward account describing historical events the way they actually happened? Were Adam and Eve real people, the first human beings? Was Adam created from dirt? Did Eve really come from Adam’s rib? Did Jonah actually survive three days in the belly of a great fish? Did a virgin really have a baby? Such claims seem so fanciful to many people, it’s hard for them to take the statements at face value.

Other times, the critic simply does not like what he reads. He abandons the “literal” approach when he comes across something in the text that offends his own philosophical, theological, or moral sensibilities. Jesus the only way of salvation? No way. Homosexuality a sin? Please. A “loving” God sending anyone to the eternal torment of Hell? Not a chance.

Notice the objection to these teachings is not based on some ambiguity in the text that makes alternate interpretations plausible. The Scripture affirms these truths with the very same clarity as “Love your neighbor.” No, these verses simply offend. Suddenly, the critic becomes a skeptic and sniffs, “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

This subtle double standard, I think, is usually at the heart of the taking-the-Bible-literally challenge. Sometimes the ruse is hard to unravel.

An example might be helpful here.

Literal vs. Lateral

In the Law of Moses, homosexual activity was punishable by death (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). Therefore (the charge often goes), any Christian who takes the Bible literally must advocate the execution of homosexuals.

Of course, the strategy with this move is obvious: If we don’t promote executing homosexuals, we can’t legitimately condemn their behavior, since both details are in the Bible. If we don’t take the Bible literally in the first case, we shouldn’t in the second case, either. That’s being inconsistent.

How do we escape the horns of this dilemma? By using care and precision with our definitions, that’s how.

Here’s our first question: When Moses wrote the Law, did he expect the Jewish people to take those regulations literally? If you’re not sure how to answer, let me ask it another way. When an ordinance is passed in your local state (California, in my case), do you think the legislators intend its citizens to understand the words of the regulations “in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion”?

Of course they do. Legal codes are not written in figurative language allowing each citizen to get creative with the meaning. The same would be true for the Mosaic Law. Moses meant it the way he wrote it.

But now, it seems, we’re stuck on the other horn of the dilemma. To be consistent, shouldn’t we currently campaign for the death penalty for homosexuals? For that matter, aren’t we obliged to promote execution for disobedient children and Sabbath-breakers, both capital crimes under the Law?

The simple answer is no. Here’s why. Even when a biblical command is intended to be understood literally, that does not mean it is intended to be applied laterally, so to speak—that is, universally across the board to all peoples at all times in all places.

Consider this situation: Jesus told Peter to cast his net in deep water (Luke 5:4). That’s exactly what Peter did because he took Jesus’ command literally, in its ordinary sense. He had no reason to think otherwise. However, even though Jesus’ command to Peter was literal, that does not mean the same command applies laterally to everyone else. We’re not obligated to cast nets into deep water just because Peter was.

Here’s another way of looking at it. California legal codes are to be readliterally, but not applied laterally. They only apply to those in California and have no application to people in other states. Its laws have local, literal application within its own borders, but no lateral application elsewhere.

In the same way, the words of the Mosaic Law, like those of all laws, are to be taken at face value by anyone who reads them. Yet only those under its jurisdiction are obliged to obey its precepts.[i]

The Jews in the theocracy were expected to obey the legal code God gave them, including the prohibition of and punishment for homosexuality. It was not the legal code God gave to Gentiles, however. Therefore, even if the words of the Mosaic Law were to be taken literally by those under the jurisdiction of that code, this does not mean that in our current circumstances we are governed by the details of the provisions of that Law.

A clarification is necessary here. Am I saying that nothing written in the Mosaic Law is ever applicable to Christians or other Gentiles or that there are no universal moral obligations that humanity shares with the Jews of Moses’ time? No, I’m not saying that.

Though Moses gave legal statutes for Jews living in the Jewish state, that Law in some cases still reflects moral universals that have application for those outside the nation of Israel. As I have written elsewhere:

Perversion is still perverse, and wickedness is still wrong, whether it be adultery, rape, incest, or bestiality—or any of a number of evil acts all condemned by Moses in the “old” Law.[ii]

So yes, we can glean wisdom and moral guidance from the Law of Moses for our own legal codes, but there are limits. Working out those details is a different discussion, however. [iii]

The question here is not whether we take the Mosaic Law literally, but whether we are now under that legal code. We are not. That law was meant for Jews living under a theocracy defined by their unique covenant with God. Simply because a directive appears in the Mosaic Law does not, by that fact alone, make it obligatory for those living outside of Israel’s commonwealth.

Americans are a mixture of peoples in a representative republic governed by a different set of decrees than the Jews under Moses. We are not obliged to obey everything that came down from Sinai. Even though it was commanded of the Jews, that does not necessarily mean it is commanded of us. If anyone thinks otherwise, he is duty-bound to take his net and cast it into deep water.

That confusion aside, we’re still faced with our original question: When do we take the Bible literally?

Reading the “Ordinary” Way

Here’s how I would lay the groundwork for an answer. If I’m asked if I take the Bible literally, I would say I think that’s the wrong question. I’d say instead that I take the Bible in its ordinary sense; that is, I try to take the things recorded there with the precision it seems the writer intended.

I realize this reply might also be a bit ambiguous, but here, I think, that’s a strength. Hopefully, my comment will prompt a request for clarification. This is exactly what I want. I’d clarify by countering with a question: “Do you read the sports page literally?”

If I asked you this question, I think you’d pause because there is a sense in which everyone reads the sports page in a straightforward way. Certain factual information is part of every story in that section. However, you wouldn’t take everything written in a woodenly literal way that ignores the conventions of the craft.

“Literally?” you might respond. “That depends. If the writer seems to be stating a fact—like a score, a location, a player’s name, a description of the plays leading to a touchdown—then I’d take that as literal. If he seems to be using a figure of speech, then I’d read his statement that way, figuratively, not literally.”

Exactly. Sportswriters use a particular style to communicate the details of athletic contests clearly. They choose precise (and sometimes imaginative) words and phrases to convey a solid sense of the particulars in an entertaining way.

Sportswriters routinely use words like “annihilated,” “crushed,” “mangled,” “mutilated,” “stomped,” and “pounded,” yet no one speculates about literal meanings. Readers don’t scratch their heads wondering if cannibalism was involved when they read “the Los Angeles Angels devoured the Houston Astros.”

We recognize such constructions as figures of speech used to communicate in colorful ways events that actually (“literally”) took place. In fact, we never give those details a second thought because we understand how language works.

When a writer seems to be communicating facts in a straightforward fashion, we read them as such. When we encounter obvious figures of speech, we take them that way, too.

That’s the normal way to read the sports page. It’s also the normal—and responsible—way to read any work, including the Bible. Always ask, “What is this writer trying to communicate?” This is exactly what I’m after when I say, “I take the Bible in its ordinary sense.”

Of course, some people may differ on what point the text of the Bible is actually making. Fair enough. There’s nothing dishonest about honest disagreement. They might have reasons to think some Christian is mistaken on the meaning of the text. Misinterpretation is always possible. However, conjuring up some meaning that has little to do with the words the writer used is not a legitimate alternative.

If people disagree with the obvious sense of a passage, ask them for the reasons they think the text should be an exception to the otherwise sound “ordinary sense” rule. Their answer will tell you if their challenge is intellectually honest, or if they’re just trying to dismiss biblical claims they simply don’t like.

Two Thoughts on Metaphor

Reading any writing the ordinary way requires we understand two points about figurative speech, both implicit in the concept of metaphor.

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines metaphor as “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable…a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else.” So, metaphors take one meaning of a word and then creatively leverage it into another meaning to make an impact on a reader.

Here is the first point to be clear on: All metaphors (or other forms of figurative writing) rely first on literal definitions before they can be of any use as figures of speech. All words must first be understood in their “usual or most basic sense” before they can be used figuratively.

We find, for example, the word “shepherd” prominently featured in the 23rd Psalm. Do you see that we must first understand the literal meaning of “shepherd” before the phrase “the Lord is my shepherd” has any figurative power?

This point is critical for accurate biblical interpretation. Here’s why.

Sometimes we attempt to solve interpretive problems by digging through a Bible dictionary. This can be a helpful place to start since all figurative language relies in some way on dictionary definitions. But the dictionary cannot be the final word because it can never tell you what use a specific writer is making of any particular word or phrase.

Strictly speaking, no word standing alone can be a metaphor. Words can only be used metaphorically when they’re embedded in a context. Therefore, it makes no sense to ask of a solitary word, “Is the word meant literally?” because the word standing on its own gives no indication.

Dictionaries, by definition, can only deal with words in isolation. Other things—context, genre, flow of thought, etc.—determine if the word’s literal sense is being applied in a non-literal way, symbolically “regarded as representative” of something else.

Take two sentences: “The sunshine streamed through my window,” and, “Sweetheart, you are a ray of sunshine to me this morning.” Sunshine’s literal meaning is the same in each case. However, it is used literally in the first sentence but metaphorically in the second. Further, unless my wife understands the literal meaning of “sunshine,” she will never understand the compliment I’m offering her in a poetic sort of way.

So first, literal definitions must be in place before a word can be used figuratively. Second, metaphors are always meant to clarify, not obscure.

There’s a sense in which figurative speech drives an author’s meaning home in ways that words taken in the ordinary way could never do. “All good allegory,” C.S. Lewis notes, “exists not to hide, but to reveal, to make the inner world more palpable by giving it an (imagined) concrete embodiment.”[iv]

Figurative speech communicates literal truth in a more precise and powerful way than ordinary language can on its own. The strictly literal comment “Honey, your presence makes me feel good today” doesn’t pack the punch that the “sunshine” figure provides. The metaphor makes my precise point more powerfully than “words in their usual or most basic sense” could accomplish.

Remember, even when metaphor is in play, some literal message is always intended. Hell may not have literal flames,[v] but the reality is at least as gruesome, ergo the figure.

Once again, it’s always right to ask, “What is the precise meaning the writer is trying to communicate with his colorful language?” But how do we do that? Here I have a suggestion.

The Most Important Thing

If there is one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one useful tip I can offer to help you solve the riddle of scriptural meaning, it’s this: Never read a Bible verse. That’s right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph—at least.

On the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I’m asked, even when I’m not familiar with the particular passage. When I quickly survey the paragraph containing the verse in question, the larger context almost always provides the information I need to help me understand what’s going on.

This works because of a basic rule of all communication: Meaning flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.

Here’s how it works. First, get the big picture. Look at the broader context of the book. What type of writing is it? History? Poetry? Proverb? Letter? Different genres have different standards for reading them—obviously.

Next, stand back from the verse and look for breaks in the passage that identify major units of thought. Then ask yourself, “What in this paragraph or group of paragraphs gives any clue to the meaning of the verse in question? In general, what idea is being developed? What is the flow of thought?”

With the larger context now in view, you can narrow your focus and speculate on the meaning of the verse itself. When you come up with something that seems right, sum it up in your own words. Finally—and this step is critical—see if your paraphrase—your summary—makes sense when inserted in place of the verse in the passage.

I call this “the paraphrase principle.” Replace the text in question with your paraphrase and see if the passage still makes sense in light of the larger context. Is it intelligible when inserted back into the paragraph? Does it dovetail naturally with the bigger picture? If it doesn’t, you know you’re on the wrong track.

This technique will immediately weed out interpretations that are obviously erroneous. It’s not a foolproof positive test for accuracy since some faulty interpretations could still be coherent in the context. However, it is a reliable negative test, quickly eliminating alternatives that don’t fit the flow of thought.

If you will begin to do these two things—read the context carefully and apply the paraphrase principle—you will radically improve the accuracy of your interpretations. Remember, meaning always flows from the larger units to the smaller units. Without the bigger picture, you’ll likely be lost.

Don’t forget the rule: Never read a Bible verse. Always read a paragraph, at least, if you want to be confident you’re getting the right meaning of the verse.

Do I take the Bible literally? I try to take it at its plain meaning unless I have some good reason to do otherwise. This is the basic rule we apply to everything we read: novels, newspapers, periodicals, and poems. It’s reading the “ordinary” way. I don’t see why the Bible should be any different.

___________________________

[i] This principle is critical to understanding the role of Old Testament Law in New Testament times.

[ii] See Gregory Koukl and Alan Shlemon, “A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need: Answering Revisionist Pro-Gay Theology—Part I,” available at str.org.

[iii] For the record, I think the immorality of homosexuality is one of those universal moral laws since, among other reasons, it’s identified in the New Testament as wrong irrespective of the Mosaic Law (e.g., Rom. 1:27).

[iv] C.S. Lewis, The Pilgrim’s Regress, “Afterword to Third Edition,” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 208.

[v] In more than one instance, Jesus described Hell as “outer darkness” (e.g., Matt. 8:12) and literal flames give light.

1 note · View note