#diverse opinions within humanism

[in-sightpublishing]

I’m #HumanistBecause it reflects my approach to life

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing Publisher Founding: September 1, 2014 Publisher Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada Publication: Freethought Newswire Original Link: https://humanists.uk/2024/08/13/im-humanistbecause-it-reflects-my-approach-to-life/ Publication Date: August 13, 2024 Organization: Humanists UK Organization Description: Humanists UK is the…

[clonehub]

clones' independence from the Republic and the Empire would have stood on its own as a series, but the writers for YEARS have been hesitant to have any singular clone go "too far" because they either don't understand or don't want to go into the implications of having a member of a slave army call a spade a spade. then they'd have to admit that the CIS is shit but also the Republic is worse than previously presented. that's why they keep acting like the clones have as much and as equal a choice in what they do as any other character in star wars. Any decision they make is stifled by their upbringing and the violent consequences of going against the grain. this isn't to undermine characters that do make difficult choices, good or bad, but come on.

ive seen random people in this fandom make the most poignant and beautiful analyses and arguments about the clones, how they're written, how they should be written. never shying away from the moral dilemmas of the Jedi helping to run a slave army but also being the only option that wouldn't dehumanize them entirely. the moral dilemmas in honor, duty, pride, loyalty, but also individuality and inner peace and autonomy. not wanting to be used. not just following orders.

but what happens time and again when a clone is given the opportunity? they choose to fight. every single time. they say "this is what i was made for!" as they die in battle or rebellion. and i understand that choosing to fight for the rebellion is leagues different from choosing to fight for the republic, i understand that fighting for the rebellion is a noble cause regardless, but at the same time...the only clone who doesn't want a life of warfare is cut? and then before that, slick? who killed his brothers?

[coreene]

I know it's the popular opinion in fandom that Astarion was a corrupt magistrate, I like to think he was the opposite.

I think he was lawful to a fault. An idealist and a dreamer. He was born in a secluded elven clan, not much contact with humans but once he got a taste of the outside world, it was impossible to keep him there. So, despite his family's protests - he left. He made a good life for himself in Baldur's Gate, enjoyed the diversity the city offered and lived his life as fast as humans did, until when he got beaten to death and was saved by his tormentor.

Slowly, he lost that spark within himself. Ideals, dreams, doing the right thing, obeying the law - all was lost, replaced with the primal need to survive.

[fozmeadows]

As someone who hasn't read the works of radical feminists like Simone de Beauvoir, could you explain what's wrong and what bothers you about biological essentialism? I'm curious about your opinion after reading your post on radfems (and I'd like a perspective that isn't so based on biological gender essentialism, which I honestly have a hard time moving away from because I don't understand other perspectives well). 👀

The problem with biological essentialism is that purports to answer the eternally unanswered question of nature vs nurture in a wholly one-dimensional way - ie, with biological sex as The Single Most Important Aspect Of Personhood, regardless of any other considerations - while simultaneously ignoring the fact that biological sex is not, in fact, a binary proposition. We've learned in recent decades, for instance, that intersex conditions are much more common and wide-ranging than previously thought, not because scientists have arbitrarily changed the definitions of what counts as an intersex condition, but because our understanding of hormones, chromosomes, karyotpying and other physical permutations has expanded sufficiently to merit the shift. So right away, the idea that humanity is composed of Biological Men and Biological Women with absolutely no ambiguities, overlap or middle ground simply isn't true. Inevitably, though, if you mention this, people with a vested interest in biological essentialism become immediately defensive. They'll start saying things like, oh, but that's only a tiny minority of the population, they're outliers, they don't count, as though their argument doesn't derive its claim to authority from a presumed universality. To use a well-worn example, redheads are also a tiny minority of the population, but that doesn't mean we exclude them when talking about the range of natural human hair colours. But the fact is, even if humans lacked chromosomal diversity beyond XX/XY; even if there were no cases of cis men with internal ovaries or cis women with internal testes or people with ambiguous genitalia - and let's be clear: all of these things exist - the fact is, our individual hormones are in flux throughout our lives.

There are standard ranges for estrogen and testosterone in men and women (which, again, vary according to age and some other factors), but two cis men of the same age and background could still have completely different T-counts, for instance - meaning, even the supposed universal gender factor isn't universal at all. More, while our hormones certainly play a major role in our moods and cognition, so do a ton of other genetic and bodily factors that have nothing to do with the sex we're assigned at birth - and on top of that, there's nurture: the cultural contexts in which we're raised, plus our more individual experiences of living in the world. One of the most common, everyday (and yet completely bullshit) permutations of biological essentialism comes when parents or would-be parents talk about their reasons for wanting a son or a daughter. Very often, there's a strong play to stereotypical assumptions about shared interests and personalities: I want a son to play football with me, for instance, or: I want a daughter to be my shopping buddy. But even within the most mainstream channels of cishet culture, it's understood that these hopes are not, in fact, grounded in any sort of biological certainty. The dad who wants a sporty son might be just as likely to end up with a bookworm, while the mother who wants a little princess might find herself with a tomboy. We know this, and our stories know this! For the entirety of human history - for as long as we've been writing about ourselves - we have records of parental disappointment in the failure of this child or that to embody what's expected of them, gender-wise. More than that: if biological essentialism was real - if men were only and ever One Type Of Man, and women were only and ever One Type Of Woman, with recent progressive moments the sole anonymous blip in an otherwise uniform historical standard - then why is there so much disparity and disagreement throughout human history as to what those roles are? The general conception of women espoused in medieval France is thoroughly different to that espoused in pre-colonial Malawi, for instance, and yet we're meant to believe that there's some innate Gender Template guiding all human beings to behave in accordance with a set, immutable biological binary? And that's before you factor in the broad and fascinating history of trans and nonbinary people throughout history - because despite what TERFs and conservative alarmists have to say on the matter, our records of trans people, and of societies in which various trans and nonbinary identities were widely understood (if not always accepted), are ancient. We know about trans priestesses from thousands of years before Christ; the Talmud has terms describing eight different genders, and those are just two examples. All over the world, all throughout history, different cultures have developed radically different concepts of femininity and masculinity, to say nothing of designations outside of, overlapping with or in between those categories - socially, legally, behaviourally, sexually - and yet we're meant to believe that biology is at all times nudging us towards a set, ideal gender template? There's a lot more I could say, but ultimately, the point is this: people are different. While some aspects of our personhood are inevitably influenced by genetics, hormones, chromosomes and other biological factors, we're also creatures of culture and change and interpersonal experience. The idea that men and women are fundamentally different, even diametrically opposed, at a biological level - that the major separator in terms of our personalities and interests isn't culture, upbringing and personal taste, but what's between our legs - is just... so reductive, and so inaccurate.

We can absolutely have common experiences on the basis of a shared gender, but gender is not the only possible axis of commonality between two people, let alone the most salient one at all times, and the idea that we're all born on one side of an immutable biological equation that cannot possibly be transcended makes me feel insane. According to modern biological essentialism, intersex, trans and nonbinary people are either monstrous, mistakes or imaginary; all men are fundamentally predisposed to violence, all women are designed for motherhood, and we're meant to just hew to our designated places - which, conveniently, tend to echo a very specific form of Christian ideology, but which in any case manifestly fail to account for how variedly gender has been presented throughout history. It's nuts.

[hamliet]

Do you have any thoughts on how RWBY handled the white fang storyline?

Unpopular opinion: it's decent?

Now, now, before people come at me with pitchforks: yes, it's overly simplified. The entire story is a fairy tale, though, so that's not out of place. It also complements the rest of the story thematically, and manages to incorporate nuance and complexity in despite the simplification of issues.

I think it's a mistake to look at the White Fang as a 1=1 of the real life struggles of marginalized groups. That said, there obviously are parallels, and so people aren't mistaken to note those. I just think it's not meant to be an instructional manual and shouldn't necessarily be viewed as one, but rather a conversation starter in some ways. And yes, those conversations can and should include critiques.

So I'll go over the points that I think it did well and how those ties into real life, but also specifically how they work for RWBY's overall story. This does not negate criticisms, especially those by marginalized groups.

In contrast to some other fictional depictions, RWBY actually is better as well because it avoids the number one pitfall of such issues: the X-Men fallacy. I've talked about this in terms of Attack on Titan before, but essentially it's the idea that the problem with depicting discrimination against superpowered people is that, well, there is a logical reason for people to be concerned about superpowers; hence, it almost justifies that very discrimination it seeks to condemn. This isn't present in the faunus/human divide. They are both capable of superpowers.

It also doesn't fall into another common pitfall: the idea that people have to be perfect to be victims of discrimination. The White Fang... has senselessly and cruelly murdered people; doesn't mean faunus discrimination isn't also cruel and senseless and doesn't justify it. And this is something that we do see in real life too--people trying to either completely whitewash the actions of radical anti-oppression movements, which can do awful things, or trying to use these awful things as evidence that these people deserve discrimination when really it's a result of rage and desperation at a society that refuses to give them anything. That doesn't justify the pain of the victims of the awful things (see, Weiss) but nor does it negate the righteousness of that anger.

It does portray the faunus as a fairly diverse group too, when fiction often portrays marginalized groups as a monolith. That's not true. People from one group have very different ideas about what liberation looks like, and what they want to achieve. People in marginalized groups are people, and they can be motivated by a variety of selfless principles and egotistical validation, and neither negate the other. See, Sienna vs. Ghira vs. Adam.

Now, of course within RWBY Ghira's more nonviolent principles more or less win out. That's because RWBY is again a fairy tale where you have to fight to live, but that also doesn't endorse violence. If you expected otherwise, wrong genre. Of course the real world is far more complex, but it's not as if there is no real world basis for this either. Peacemakers exist, and nonviolence has accomplished a lot before. Whether or not that's the be-all-end-all of the faunus struggle in RWBY isn't even clear, so I don't think it's intended to be the be-all-end-all preached moral as it applies to the real world either.

Story-wise, the White Fang functions as a Jungian shadow of society. If you do not take charge of your own life, you are letting others decide for you. The faunus who disagree with the White Fang take it back, because they have to acknowledge it to move forward in society. They have to integrate with it, and accept their own humanity: capable of good and what they might rather deny.

This faction--the faunus who don't like the White Fang--are represented in Ghira, who becomes passive and steps back from aspects of the movement. However, when Blake arrives in Menagerie, this changes, because Blake's entire arc is about integration. Ghira then becomes active, working for the rights of the faunus and for the White Fang to be better rather than simply disavowing the White Fang in an attempt to be a good person, because doing nothing isn't exactly good.

On a more character level, the White Fang exists for Blake's arc. Her Jungian archetype is the Shadow. Like, it's literally her semblance's name. Hence, the idea of the shadow is gonna be important. If you want more on this, @aspoonofsugar has written a meta on it here and another here.

So, for Blake, on a personal level the White Fang (especially under Adam) represents the parts of herself she doesn't like. The part that ran from her family. The part that is violent. And yet, she cannot abandon it or simply disavow it. No, the answer is instead:

We’re not going to destroy the White Fang. We’re going to take it back.

She has to integrate with it, take the good--the righteous anger, the focus on justice and equality.

The White Fang also comments on the microcosm/macrocosm of alchemy.

For the unaware, RWBY is an alchemical story, and the principles of alchemy are represented in the symbol for the philosopher's stone, as seen above. Microcosm: the smaller circle enclosing two people in the center who come together (hence chemical weddings). The square is the four elements: water, earth, fire, air. The triangle is body, heart, and mind. The larger circle is the macrocosm.

The Shadows for Blake on a personal level--microcosm--is Adam. The Shadow on a worldwide, big picture scale--the macrocosm--is the White Fang. Integrating with the shadow isn't only an individualistic endeavor, but also one that benefits society as a whole and brings life to the entire world. The main point of alchemy's philosopher's stone, which Blake, along with the rest of RWBY, are symbolically being transformed into.

I think the main issue with the White Fang, by the way, is its handling of Adam. Typically you don't kill the shadow, though I do think Blake kinda had no choice. Still, I don't think the show fully explored him.

Yet what does work with what we have is that Yang has to face Adam, Blake's shadow, to be with Blake. Yang losing her arm to Adam parallels her being upset about losing Blake to fear, because symbolically Blake can hurt her deeply in the way only a lover can. Blake has to stop running from her shadow and allow herself ot be known and seen by Yang to be with her.

[togglesbloggle]

🔥The ice giants

Oh, this one's tricky. Do people have strong enough feelings about the ice giants for opinions about them to be unpopular? Even NASA doesn't care enough about them to send a spacecraft more than once in a blue moon. I think I'll try to weasel out of this one with the opinion 'all planets are interesting, even Neptune,' on the grounds that uninterestingness is itself the dominant opinion.

The midcentury explorations of the solar system were, in retrospect, kind of crushing for the human imagination. We went from totally unbounded speculations about the diversity of worlds- imagining robust ecosystems on Venus and Mars as late as the 50s and early 60s- to a series of photographs showing cratered, dead, atmosphere-less worlds. And 'realism' became accepting these photographs, building a story of the cosmos that is not just sterile but quite simple, treating the solar system as conforming closely to low-complexity models of planetary formation. Gravity collects micrometeorites and gas particles in planetoids and moons according to the ratios predicted by temperature and distance from the center of the accretion disk; terrestrial worlds close in, gas giants further out, ice giants further still. The planets sort themselves by density, with interior deformation or sortition based on thermal gradients, radioactive decay, magnetic forces; moons find a stable orbit or don't, and that's that.

But the thing is, once you actually get past that superficial Voyager flyby-photograph, these worlds all tend to have dramatic and exciting particularities of their own. Look at Pluto! Look at Titan! Look at Enceladus! Look at Ceres! Probably the most boring and well-studied planet I can think of is Mercury, and even that has cool stuff like solid ice at the surface.

Part of this is just noticing over time that the interface between planets and space (that is, their surface) is not always or even usually the most interesting part of them, and assumptions to the contrary are an understandable but misleading form of Earth-chauvinism.

And a larger share of it, I think, is just that once you get something substantially larger than an asteroid, the combined influence of so much volume, so much mass, and so much time just tends to amplify the variance of your system incredibly far beyond what you'd expect from your 'terrestrial, gas giant, ice giant' template. The model is actionably useful, don't get me wrong, and worlds rarely vary so much that they outright break their category. But nothing the size of a moon or planet is actually simple, and nothing on the scale of four billion years is actually stable. And so each of these things, no matter how straightforward the template, will gradually tilt and totter its way within an unfathomably large space of possibilities to something that is practically speaking unique, and which reveals something new about the cosmos that you can't find anywhere else.

If the ice giants seem simple, it's a reflection of our methods and our technological limits, not the planets themselves. We are, generally speaking, absolutely terrible about investigating gaseous worlds on their own terms- and maybe we simply don't have the right tools or the right questions yet to figure out what makes Neptune and Uranus special. But it's only a matter of time.

[guiltyonsundays]

In defence of Will Ladislaw

George Eliot's characterisation of Will Ladislaw is one of the few aspects of Middlemarch that is not universally praised, with no less a person than Henry James commenting in 1873 that he lacked “sharpness of outline and depth of color”, making him the novel’s “only eminent failure.” And while Will's character is certainly not as clearly defined as some of the other characters in the novel, I believe that this was absolutely intentional on Eliot's part. Middlemarch is full to the brim of characters who believe they know exactly what they want—not least among them, our two protagonists, Dorothea Brooke and Tertius Lydgate, whose ardent ambitions and inflexible attitudes lead them into catastrophic errors of judgement and unhappy marriages.

By contrast, Will's lack of strongly defined goals and his changeability are almost his defining character traits. He's aimless and pliable, prone to rapid mood swings and drastic career changes, with even his physical features seeming to "chang[e] their form; his jaw looked sometimes large and sometimes small; and the little ripple in his nose was a preparation for metamorphosis. When he turned his head quickly his hair seemed to shake out light."

Will’s inscrutability is closely tied to his ambiguous status within the rigid class structure and xenophobic society of Victorian England, with his Polish ancestry and “rebellious blood on both sides” making him a target for suspicion. He is repeatedly aligned (and aligns himself) with oppressed, marginalised, and outcast populations—Jewish people, artists, and the poor.

He serves as a narrative foil for characters like Lydgate and Edward Casaubon, who prioritise specialist expertise above all and are consequently incapable of broad knowledge synthesis. He critiques Casaubon's life's work as being "thrown away, as so much English scholarship is, for want of knowing what is being done by the rest of the world." By contrast, Will serves as Eliot's defence of the value of a liberal education. One of the first things that we learn about him is that he declines to choose a vocation, and instead seeks to travel widely, experiencing diverse cultures and ways of life. He has broad tastes and interests, trying his hand at poetry and painting before eventually pursuing a career in politics.

He also functions as a narrative foil for Dorothea. Will is initially apathetic to politics, whereas Dorothea initially professes herself to be disinterested in art and beauty. This is perfectly encapsulated in their exchange in Rome, when Dorothea declares, "I should like to make life beautiful—I mean everybody's life. And then all this immense expense of art, that seems somehow to lie outside life and make it no better for the world, pains one", to which Will replies, "You might say the same of landscape, of poetry, of all refinement [...] The best piety is to enjoy—when you can [...] I suspect that you have some false belief in the virtues of misery, and want to make your life a martyrdom.”

By the end of the novel, Dorothea unlearns some of her puritanical suspicion of sensual pleasure, whereas Will becomes more serious, compassionate, and politically engaged, dedicating his life to the accomplishment of humane political reforms. They are both flawed individuals, who ultimately become more well rounded through their relationship with each other. Admittedly, Dorothea's influence on Will is more significant than his on her—and once again, I believe that this was intentional on Eliot's part.

In my opinion, the negative response to Will Ladislaw at the time of Middlemarch's publication (and in the centuries since) was and is profoundly informed by gendered expectations of masculine dominance in romantic relationships. Will's marriage to Dorothea has often been described as disappointing, with many readers and critics viewing the ambitious Lydgate as the embodiment of the ideal husband that Dorothea outlines at the beginning of the novel—a talented man engaged in important work for the betterment of humanity, to whom she can devote herself.

However, one of the central themes of the novel is that people are often mistaken in their beliefs about what they want, and Dorothea's marriage to Edward Casaubon certainly demonstrates that she would not in fact be happy living her life in submission to a man who does not respect her opinions. I firmly believe that Lydgate's misogynistic attitudes and expectations would have made it impossible for him to be happy in a marriage of equals with a woman like Dorothea. He is explicitly drawn to Rosamond Vincy because she has "just the kind of intelligence one would desire in a woman—polished, refined, docile."

By contrast, George Eliot made a deliberate choice to pair Dorothea with a man who is not ashamed to be influenced by her, and indeed looks up to her as his moral superior. Through Dorothea's influence, Will discovers his life's work. In turn, by marrying Will, Dorothea is able to pursue her true passion. As a result of their influence on each other, these come to mean the same thing—reform. Thus, George Eliot grants Dorothea Brooke a subversively feminist, politically progressive, and profoundly cathartic ending: a life of companionate marriage, sensual pleasure, and meaningful work, in which Dorothea can devote herself (within the limited means available to her as a woman in the 19th century) to the achievement of just and compassionate reforms that "make life beautiful" for everybody—herself included.

[mywitchyblog]

Adressing the Race-Changing Discourse

It seems that a debate has been stirred up within the Shiftblr community, and my recent posts might have unintentionally added fuel to the fire. So, let me clear up where I stand.

First off, do I race change? No, I don’t. It’s just not something I’ve felt the need to do in my shifting practice. But do I support others who choose to race change? Absolutely, as long as they’re doing it with respect and not for some fetishizing bullshit.

There are two things everyone needs to keep in mind when it comes to this whole controversy:

Respect for Opinions: Everyone is entitled to their own damn opinion. If someone doesn’t like the idea of race changing, that’s their business. But what we can’t stand for is bullying, harassing, or insulting someone just because they see things differently. Everyone’s perspective deserves respect, even if you don’t agree with it.

Diverse Preferences: Just like some people don’t like using face claims or prefer not to mess with certain Desired Realities (DRs), some people don’t like race changing. And that’s perfectly fine! It’s called freedom of speech and opinion, and it’s a fundamental right—only limited when you start screwing with someone else’s rights.

Now, here’s where things get real problematic:

If you’re cussing people out, insulting them, or harassing them because they disagree with you, you’ve crossed a line. No one has the right to attack others over their opinions. Period.

To those who oppose race changing: I get it. I understand that you might feel uncomfortable with it, and that’s completely within your rights. HOWEVER, it’s crucial to recognize that not everyone who shifts to a different race is doing it to fetishize or sexualize that race. That’s a fact that needs to be acknowledged, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Yes, there are people who misuse the practice of race changing, but you’ve also got to recognize the other side of the coin—the respectful and beneficial aspects of this practice within the shifting community. Here’s the thing: nothing in reality shifting is inherently good or bad, black or white. It’s all shades of grey, full of infinite nuances.

And let’s be real—some of you are being downright hypocritical.

Yeah, I said it. You can argue or debate in the comments all you want, but the truth is, some of you are cool with people shifting to become Mermaids, Animals, Aliens, Na’vi, and whatnot, but then you turn around and label anyone who changes their ethnicity as weird or wrong.

That, my friends, is the textbook definition of a hypocritical double standard. It’s the same damn thing.

If I were to ask why you shift to become a Na’vi, a dragon, a god, or an alien, I’m sure your reasons would be rooted in curiosity and exploration—not to sexualize or fetishize that race, right? The same logic applies to those who shift into a different human ethnicity.

You can’t claim that one side of the apple is bad while the other is perfectly fine. It doesn’t work that way. If one side’s rotten, the whole damn apple is.

Yet, while shifting to become a fictional or non-human race is often celebrated as a form of exploration and creativity, shifting to become a different human race is slapped with labels like wrong or offensive. This criticism completely ignores the potential for personal growth, empathy development, and deeper understanding that comes from experiencing life through the lens of a different racial identity. Just like with age changing, race changing in shifting can be a powerful tool for healing, exploration, and expanding your consciousness.

The hypocrisy here is glaring: the same people who criticize race changing as cultural appropriation or fetishization often have no problem with the idea of embodying entirely "fictional races", which can involve similar, if not greater, levels of stereotyping and romanticization. Keep in mind that in the context of reality shifting it is not fictional nothing is.

Imagine if someone discovered that you shifted to be their race and they are discriminated and persecuted and you shifted because of it (looking at you Avatar shifters that shift to be a Na Vi you are litterally shifting to be Native american but with a blue paint on top be fucking for real, you cannot ignore the fact that they litterally inspired at 99% by Native culture and their struggle against colonial forces The remaining 1% is the fictional setting, remove that and its just human history from this reality).

If the argument is that adopting another race’s identity is wrong because it involves stepping into experiences not your own, then the same damn logic should apply to any form of identity transformation in shifting. But it doesn’t—and that’s where the double standard lies.

This hypocritical double standard also reminds me of how teenage shifters react when they hear about adults aging themselves down to be minors. They immediately assume the worst—yet have no problem aging themselves up to 30-something parents in one DR and then being 16 in the next. This inconsistency shows a deeper misunderstanding of what shifting truly involves and how it allows us to explore different aspects of identity and experience with respect and intention.

[srbachchan]

DAY 5826

Jalsa, Mumbai Jan 30/31, 2024 Wed 12:04 am

Birthday - EF - Valentina Ivanovna/Ef Sourav Banerjee/ Ef Madhumita Gupta,Birthday Wednesday, 31 January .. all good wishes for this special day .. from the Ef ..❤️🌹

.. and the ever present social media lingers about .. once started it remains page after page after page .. making the World an 8 billion inhabitant journalist question markers .. and around 4 billion camera operators ..

the scarcity of information was never more acute than now ..

😂

Social media, once heralded as a tool for connectivity, has devolved into a breeding ground for societal evils. Its addictive algorithms manipulate users, fostering a culture of comparison and low self-esteem. Cyberbullying thrives in the anonymous shadows, leading to mental health crises. Privacy erosion becomes the collateral damage as personal data is exploited for profit. The incessant barrage of curated content perpetuates misinformation, polarizing societies and undermining critical thinking. The pursuit of online validation eclipses genuine human connections, contributing to loneliness and disconnection. Social media's insidious influence seeps into every facet of life, corroding empathy and amplifying the darker aspects of human behavior.

Social media, despite its drawbacks, offers a myriad of benefits. It facilitates instant global communication, connecting people across distances and fostering a sense of community. Platforms serve as catalysts for social movements, enabling collective activism and awareness. Businesses leverage social media for marketing, reaching diverse audiences efficiently. Educational opportunities flourish through online courses and collaborative platforms. Social media becomes a tool for self-expression, giving marginalized voices a platform. It serves as a vast information hub, promoting knowledge-sharing and global awareness. Ultimately, social media, when used judiciously, can be a force for positive change, empowerment, and enlightenment.

the opinions from the informed .. above 👆🏼

sensible and within the limits of ts express .. for every opinion in the Universe of the DAY , is ever pronounced by the question mark of the question ..

Is it ..?

Will it ..?

How ..?

what will be .. ?

can it be .. ?

the question is .. ?

good night .. without any question mark ..

Amitabh Bachchan

[gay-jewish-bucky]

went back and blocked a bunch more vile people on this post (highly rec yall do that) as rebloged by my beloved mace

i notice that people still screaming about the disgusting far-right riots in defence of some truly deplorable actions, riots that were small and absolutely condemned within israel and seen as disgusting by most israelis, are absolutely silent on the fact almost 1 million israelis were on the streets protesting the government handling of the war and demanding it end and that the biggest union in the country is on strike until it happens, this is by capita bigger than any protest america has had, and it's obviously representative of the feelings of most israelis

other than the actions of far right nutjobs being a fucking ridiculous reason to condemn a whole country, how would these americans feel if we decided january 6th represented the whole of america and thus all americans are evil far right nutjobs and deserve to suffer and die?

it's obvious they dont actually care about anything that doesn't allow them to paint israelis as evil blood thirsty rapist monsters, but instead shows them that israelis are human beings with wide aray of diverse opinions and politics, just like they are, because if you humanize them, you start to feel compassion

you can't have compassion for a group that you want to feel good and just wiping of the face of the earth, then you might feel bad about it and question if it's the right thing to do

[centrally-unplanned]

How did dems shoot themselves in the foot with Latino voters? What did they do

I don't think there is one answer or any settled answer to this - in some respects of course the answer is "how did Trump successfully court Latino voters", he was president after all, and sometimes you just lose out to positive actions from the opponent.

IMO most of the evidence suggests that A: Latinos, like black voters, are more socially conservative than white voters within the Dem coalition (or even amoung independent voters), and less left in a general sense. But unlike black voters, latino voters do not have historically hyper-deep political orgs tied into the democratic party to keep them on their side despite the shifting views of the party. So in the 2010's - particularly when Trump was president and there was no democratic policy to evaluate, only their words as opposition & like media/vibes - the left shift on cultural topics, from racial politics to queer/identity issues and so on (or more muddled topics like Covid policy), was isolating to Latino voters. And this was paired with a generalized "taking them for granted" amoung many operatives - like they were just assuming Latinos would be opposed to Republican rhetoric on immigration, but no, they are quite capable of being just as nativist as anyone else (a human trait, that), and additionally tended to live in the communities most "exposed" to undocumented immigration waves and so many groups had negative opinions. Hispanic Americans are diverse, and Dem messaging didn't acknowledge that.

I also think that the 2020 crime wave should be its own point here too. In the summer of 2020, the Democratic party became vibe-associated with harsh anti-police sentiment, and then in the summer/fall of 2020 the US had a huge spike in crime, particularly violent crime like murder. Like black voters, Latino voters tend to disproportionately be the victims of crime, and thus are typically more "law and order" minded - and additionally don't have the same relationship with police black Americans might have that complicates that pattern voting-wise. So, even if imo it was pretty unfair because it wasn't like actual Democratic politicians (outside of a few cities where they almost immediately backtracked) ever themselves supported cutting police funding and Trump was president at the time, the Dems got heavily viewed as the weak party on crime, and that voting block heavily punished them in 2020. That block had a lot of Latino voters in it.

But I have no doubt there are other stories to spin. Like in the current election Robert F Kennedy disproportionally has Latino supporters. Probably some level of growing "anti establishment" sense there, and Trump (hilariously, as nepo baby billionaire megadonor former president) has the outsider brand in US politics right now, so 2020 may have reflected that.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:

Most people are “very” or “extremely” concerned about the state of the natural world, a new global public opinion survey shows.��

Roughly 70 percent of 22,000 people polled online earlier this year agreed that human activities were pushing the Earth past “tipping points,” thresholds beyond which nature cannot recover, like loss of the Amazon rainforest or collapse of the Atlantic Ocean’s currents. The same number of respondents said the world needs to reduce carbon emissions within the next decade. 

Just under 40 percent of respondents said technological advances can solve environmental challenges. 

The Global Commons survey, conducted for two collectives of “economic thinkers” and scientists known as Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance, polled people across 22 countries, including low-, middle- and high-income nations. The survey’s stated aim was to assess public opinion about “societal transformations” and “planetary stewardship.”

The results, released Thursday, highlight that people living under diverse circumstances seem to share worries about the health of ecosystems and the environmental problems future generations will inherit. 

But there were some regional differences. People living in emerging economies, including Kenya and India, perceived themselves to be more exposed to environmental and climate shocks, like drought, flooding and extreme weather. That group expressed higher levels of concern about the environment, though 59 percent of all respondents said they are “very” or “extremely” worried about “the state of nature today,” and another 29 percent are at least somewhat concerned.  

Americans are included in the global majority, but a more complex picture emerged in the details of the survey, conducted by Ipsos.

Roughly one in two Americans said they are not very or not at all exposed to environmental and climate change risks. Those perceptions contrast sharply with empirical evidence showing that climate change is having an impact in nearly every corner of the United States. A warming planet has intensified hurricanes battering coasts, droughts striking middle American farms and wildfires threatening homes and air quality across the country. And climate shocks are driving up prices of some food, like chocolate and olive oil, and consumer goods. 

Americans also largely believe they do not bear responsibility for global environmental problems. Only about 15 percent of U.S. respondents said that high- and middle-income Americans share responsibility for climate change and natural destruction. Instead, they attribute the most blame to businesses and governments of wealthy countries. 

Those survey responses suggest that at least half of Americans may not feel they have any skin in the game when it comes to addressing global environmental problems, according to Geoff Dabelko, a professor at Ohio University and expert in environmental policy and security. 

Translating concern about the environment to actual change requires people to believe they have something at stake, Dabelko said. “It’s troubling that Americans aren’t making that connection.”

[bogkeep]

hmm

so a sentiment i've seen repeated many times over the years is "advocate for intersex people because we deserve rights, not as a gotcha to prove transphobes wrong" and obviously i 100000% agree with this, human rights are their own merit and argument!!!

HOWEVER i am struggling to wrap my head around, like... How do you educate about gender Without talking about the reality of intersex people? i will fully admit that i might just not be plugged in enough to the intersex community to have experienced the particular phenomenon that's being referred to. there's probably discussions i'm fully unaware of.

like, theoretically, even if sex WAS a very rigid, strictly binary phenomenon, we would still have to advocate for the rights of transgender and non-binary people on the basis that we deserve human rights and dignity.

but "biological sex" is NOT a very rigid, strictly binary phenomenon. to me, the understanding of biological sex as an incredibly diverse spectrum is FUNDAMENTAL to understanding gender. when i was volunteering for the queer youth organization, i was taking courses on how to educate teens about sex and gender. what that particular education initative had found, through experience, was that teens best understood what was meant by "gender assigned at birth" and gender as a social construct when we started the whole section by explaining that intersex people exist and that "biological gender" is a lot more complicated than we're often taught.

i think the thing is maybe, like, that intersex people as a category are frequently thought of as outliers, 'defects' even, when we're not. intersex people are a part of the natural diversity of humans. our existence is as natural as the existence of any non-intersex person. like that's the THING. is it a gotcha to reinforce the reality of our existence? to remind bioessentialists over and over that they're the ones denying the observable truth?

i also just think that advocating for intersex rights and trans rights are deeply intertwined in so many ways. so much of the societal fear around transition and detransition strikes me as a fear of intersex bodies. by accepting the capability of a human body to change, to exist within multitudes, to not be beholden to our silly little categories nobody has ever fully belonged to perfectly to begin with - to accept women with beards and men with boobs as not only possible but perfectly natural, to prioritize our own health, wellbeing and bodily autonomy above the tyrannical categorization of the gender binary...

idk!!! my personal intersex experiences are vital to how i experience and talk about gender and how i advocate for trans rights. i can't separate them. maybe it's different for me because i do self-identify as intersex. maybe i'm just clueless about what the criticism is directed towards. this is my personal and biased opinion, please don't take my word over that of far more established intersex activists :')

[fantastic0fairy]

The creative world of neurodiversity

In recent years, the concept of neurodiversity has gained significant attention, reshaping how we perceive neurological differences such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other cognitive variations. Far from being deficits, these differences can be powerful sources of creativity and innovation. This blog entry delves into the creative potentials within the neurodiverse community, exploring how these unique perspectives enrich our world. We invite readers to engage in a vibrant discussion about the impacts and contributions of neurodiversity to creativity.

Understanding Neurodiversity

Neurodiversity refers to the idea that variations in the human brain regarding sociability, learning, attention, mood, and other mental functions are normal and should be recognized and respected. This concept challenges the traditional view of neurological differences as disorders that need to be cured or fixed. Instead, neurodiversity promotes the acceptance of all cognitive differences as part of the natural spectrum of human diversity (Armstrong, 2010).

Creativity and Neurodiversity

Neurodiverse individuals often exhibit exceptional creativity. For instance, people with autism might display remarkable skills in areas such as art, music, and mathematics. Temple Grandin, a renowned scientist and autism advocate, attributes her success in animal science to her ability to think in pictures, a trait common among many autistic individuals (Grandin, 2006). Similarly, individuals with ADHD might excel in creative fields due to their ability to think divergently and generate a multitude of ideas quickly (Eisenberg & Strikwerda-Brown, 2011).

The Role of Different Perspectives

Neurodiverse individuals often approach problems from unique angles, offering fresh perspectives that can lead to innovative solutions. For example, historical figures like Albert Einstein, who showed signs of dyslexia and ADHD, revolutionized physics with their unconventional thinking patterns. Such diverse cognitive styles can be invaluable in collaborative environments, fostering a culture of creativity and out-of-the-box thinking (West, 2014).

Challenges and Support

While the creative potential of neurodiverse individuals is immense, they often face significant challenges. Society's misunderstanding and stigmatization of neurological differences can hinder the ability of these individuals to express their talents fully. Providing support through inclusive education, workplace accommodations, and social acceptance is crucial for unlocking their creative potential (Singer, 2017).

Inclusive Practices in Education and Workplaces

Inclusive practices in education and workplaces can make a significant difference. Schools that implement flexible teaching methods and workplaces that offer tailored support and accommodations can help neurodiverse individuals thrive. For instance, project-based learning and the use of technology can cater to different learning styles, while flexible work hours and quiet workspaces can enhance productivity and creativity (Armstrong, 2010).

The Future of Neurodiversity and Creativity

The future of neurodiversity is promising. As awareness and acceptance grow, we are likely to see a greater appreciation for the contributions of neurodiverse individuals in various fields. Encouraging diversity in thought and experience not only enriches our culture but also drives innovation and progress.

Try reflecting on these questions ”How has neurodiversity impacted your life or the lives of those around you?” “ What steps can society take to better support and celebrate neurodiverse individuals?” And feel free to leave your comments below with your experiences and opinions in order to engage with others in this enlightening discussion, on the creative world of neurodiversity!

References

Armstrong, T. (2010). Neurodiversity: Discovering the Extraordinary Gifts of Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, and Other Brain Differences. Da Capo Lifelong Books.

Eisenberg, D., & Strikwerda-Brown, J. (2011). ADHD and creativity: Exploratory and confirmatory findings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.24

Grandin, T. (2006). Thinking in Pictures: My Life with Autism. Vintage.

Singer, J. (2017). Neurodiversity: The Birth of an Idea. Judy Singer.

West, T. G. (2014). Thinking Like Einstein: Returning to Our Visual and Active Roots in Education, Learning, and Research. Prometheus Books.

[monratarot]

Tarot tips and tricks - Conflict indicators

Please like and reblog if you find this information useful! 🌸🎀💕

//don’t claim it as your own and/or repost it on other platforms//

Conflict refers to a disagreement or struggle between two or more parties due to incompatible interests, goals, or values.

Conflict can arise in various settings, such as within relationships, organizations, communities, or even on a larger scale between countries. It is a natural part of human interaction, but how it is managed and resolved can have significant impacts on relationships and outcomes.

Conflict resolution strategies can include negotiation, communication, mediation, or seeking compromise.

By approaching conflicts with empathy, communication, and a willingness to learn and grow, you can navigate challenging situations in various aspects of life and foster stronger, more meaningful relationships with others.

*ੈ✩‧₊˚5 of wands

In a group setting, the 5 of Wands suggests that there may be disagreements or differing opinions among members. It could indicate healthy competition or creative tension that can lead to new ideas and solutions. However, it also signifies the need for effective communication, compromise, and cooperation to navigate these conflicts and work towards common goals. Embracing diversity of thought and finding a balance between individual perspectives can help in resolving conflicts and fostering a more harmonious group dynamic.

*ੈ✩‧₊˚The tower

When The Tower card appears in a Tarot reading, it symbolizes a major shake-up or upheaval in one's life. This could be triggered by a conflict, crisis, or sudden event that disrupts the status quo and breaks down existing structures. While this may initially seem challenging or distressing, it ultimately paves the way for necessary transformation and growth. The Tower encourages embracing change, letting go of what no longer serves you, and being open to rebuilding stronger foundations for the future. It signifies that sometimes conflicts or disruptions can lead to positive outcomes and personal evolution.

*ੈ✩‧₊˚7 of wands

When the 7 of Wands appears in a reading, it indicates a situation where you are facing opposition or challenges from others. This could be in the form of conflicting opinions, competition, or resistance to your ideas or actions. The card encourages you to stand firm in your beliefs, defend your position with confidence, and be assertive in protecting your interests. It highlights the importance of maintaining your boundaries, being resilient in the face of adversity, and showing determination in overcoming obstacles. By asserting yourself and staying true to your values, you can successfully navigate conflicts and emerge stronger from the experience.

*ੈ✩‧₊˚2 of swords

When the 2 of Swords appears in a Tarot reading, it signifies a period of indecision and inner conflict. You may be facing a situation where you feel stuck between two options, unable to see clearly or make a decision. This card highlights the need to acknowledge your conflicting thoughts or emotions, confront the issue at hand, and seek clarity to move forward. It encourages you to trust your intuition, weigh your options carefully, and find a balanced resolution to the internal struggle. By addressing the root of the conflict and choosing a path forward, you can overcome indecision and gain a sense of clarity and peace.

*ੈ✩‧₊˚3 of swords

When the 3 of Swords appears in a Tarot reading, it signifies a period of emotional distress, heartbreak, or betrayal. This card often symbolizes the pain of a broken heart, feelings of sadness, or the aftermath of a difficult situation in relationships. It highlights the need to address and process your emotions, acknowledge the hurt you are experiencing, and work towards healing and moving forward. The 3 of Swords encourages you to confront your feelings, seek closure if needed, and take steps towards emotional recovery and self-care. By acknowledging your pain and allowing yourself to grieve, you can begin the process of healing and eventual renewal.

*ੈ✩‧₊˚5 of cups

When the 5 of Cups appears in a Tarot reading, it symbolizes feelings of disappointment, grief, and focusing on what has been lost rather than what remains. This card often represents a period of sadness or regret, where you may be mourning past disappointments or missed opportunities. The figure in the card is usually depicted looking at the spilled cups, symbolizing a fixation on what has gone wrong rather than noticing the two cups that are still standing upright, representing hope and potential for renewal. The 5 of Cups encourages you to acknowledge your feelings of loss and disappointment but also reminds you to shift your perspective towards finding opportunities for growth, learning, and moving forward. By recognizing the silver lining amidst the challenges, you can begin to heal, let go of the past, and embrace new possibilities for the future.

*ੈ✩‧₊˚9 of swords

When the 9 of Swords appears in a Tarot reading, it signifies a period of intense worry, anxiety, and mental turmoil. This card represents the overwhelming burden of negative thoughts, fears, and internal conflicts that may be keeping you up at night. The figure in the card is often depicted with hands on their head, surrounded by swords, symbolizing the mental anguish and distress they are experiencing.

The 9 of Swords serves as a reminder to address your fears and anxieties, confront your inner demons, and seek support if needed. It urges you to challenge negative thought patterns, practice self-care, and find healthy ways to cope with stress. By acknowledging your worries and taking steps to address them, you can work towards easing your mind, finding peace, and moving towards a place of mental clarity and calm.

[lynnettys-world]

CALM AFTER THE STORM |BTS OT7 X READER| HYBRID AU (M)

Pairing: OT7 BTS!HYBRID X FEM!HUMAN READER

Kim Namjoon: Black Mackenzie Valley Alpha wolf

Kim Soekjin: White Alpha Lion

Min Yoongi: White Alpha Jaguar

Jung Hosoek: Alpha Snow Leopard

Park Jimin : Alpha Albino Cobra

Kim Taehyung: Alpha White/ Bleached Tiger

Jeon Jungkook: Alpha Black Panther

Reader: Heaven Valentino Human

Status: Ongoing

RATED (M) FOR MATURE

WARNING: EVENTUAL SMUT, BLOOD GORE, DETAILED GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION, ABUSE (ALL FORMS), PROFANITY, VIOLENCE, MENTIONS OF SUICIDE, CHARACTER DEATH(MINOR), SADOMASOCHISM ACTS, MENTIONS OF BDSM, ETC...

Summary: Heaven Valentino, the name that sends shivers down one's spine, is a woman whose influence leaves a profound impact.

As the youngest and only daughter of the esteemed Valentino family, many perceived her as a privileged and helpless individual who relied solely on her family's support.

However, little did they know that this very woman would rise to power, commanding the world with an unwavering determination.

Heaven's demeanor is one devoid of leniency; she refuses to tolerate even the slightest hint of absurdity. Her exterior holds an air of ethereal fragility, reminiscent of a precarious deity.

Yet, beneath this facade lies a heart of gold, a tenderness she reveals only to her loved ones. It is a contrast that intrigues many and keeps them guessing about her true nature.

Meanwhile, the story takes a compelling turn as the lives of seven rare hybrids intertwine with Heaven's destiny.

These hybrids, perfected through careful conditioning, represent a diverse array of predator species. Bound together by their unique circumstances, they hold on to a glimmer of hope for freedom, relying on their deep mutual affection to retain their sanity throughout their hardships.

A collision occurs, abruptly merging the paths of these hybrids with Heaven's own trajectory.

The question beckons: will their lives be elevated under Heaven's influence, or shall they descend into an abyss of despair from which recovery seems impossible?

Embark on this thrilling journey to discover the true potency of Heaven Valentino and witness the extraordinary consequences that unfold when lives intertwine with her unwavering will.

The answers lie within the pages of this captivating narrative, where boundaries shall be pushed, emotions shall run high, and destinies shall collide.

Read to find out more...

MATERIALIST

AUTHOR-NIM

Hey there!

So, let's dive into this book, shall we? First things first, if you're expecting a soft and fluffy story with cute scenes and characters, this might not be the book for you. Nope, this book is definitely not for the faint-hearted!

Now, let's talk about what you can expect. There will be some selected bonus chapters, specifically requested by you awesome readers. I want to make sure you're getting exactly what you're looking for!

But here's the thing, I won't shy away from deep and dark scenes. Brace yourself for some intense moments that might even trigger you. I believe in portraying real emotions and experiences, even if they're not always sunshine and rainbows.

Oh, one more thing. Plagiarism and translations of my work without permission? Not cool! I've poured my heart and soul into this book, so if I catch you doing that, I won't hesitate to report you. Let's keep things fair and respect each other's work, deal?

Now, criticism is totally fine. Feel free to express your opinions about the characters' behavior! But here's a line, folks. Degrading the characters or expecting them to follow your personal agenda? Nope, not allowed. We're here for a good time, not to pick a fight!

Okay, here's the deal with the pace of the story: slow-burn. Yep, you heard it right. We're taking our time, letting the story and relationships develop at a deliciously slow pace. So, if you're all about that slow-burn anticipation, you're in for a treat!

Now, let's talk about some ground rules. Racial, prejudiced, and intolerant comments? Not welcome at all! I won't tolerate any form of discrimination. If I catch you doing that, I'll report you faster than you can say "oops." Respect is key here, folks. Respect the characters and respect your fellow readers. No irrelevant arguments or fan wars allowed in the comments section. Let's keep it chill and focus on the story, okay?

Now, finally, let's talk about the content warning. Brace yourself, because this book has it all. We're talking blood, gore, sexual abuse, profanity, explicit mature themes, violence, mental trauma, and even torture. Yes, it's intense, but it's all part of the story. I just want to make sure you're aware before you dive in.

One more thing, I want to make it crystal clear that I don't own BTS or HYBE. This is all pure entertainment and should not be taken seriously. But everything else? Yeah, that's all mine.

If you're not comfortable with any of this, I totally understand. Maybe this book isn't the right fit for you, and that's okay! But if you're up for the challenge, buckle up and get ready for an exciting ride. I wish you the best of luck as you embark on this journey with me!

Author: Lynnetty Lee Mubanga.

All rights reserved.

©Lee.

Now, my friend, it's time to sit back, relax, and enjoy this wild ride!

Oh, the Tag list is open so feel free to ask me to add you to the taglist.