#entrenched beliefs

[heich0e]

i'm not a particularly litigious person but i have seriously been considering legal action against whoever recently mentioned "don't start stories with a character waking up" on my dash bc now every single time i get inspo for a fic that i picture opening that way i get self conscious and don't write it

[time-traveling-fetus]

i do think that i am very smart and have good opinions, personally, but it really isn't good for me to put too much energy into expressing my opinions about anything that matters, like politics. Not good for my mental health and frankly not really something i want to fill my followers' dashboards with.

honestly i'm not even sure that using social media to discuss politics is even a good thing, for a multitude of reasons

[moodr1ng]

a thought in my head: a lot of the time people express like, complete bafflement and frustration at the fact that a mode of oppression or an oppressive political stance exist at all, like in the "i just dont understand how people are racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc" or "i dont GET how people believe in nationalist bullshit" type of statement. i see this from centrists to liberals to hardcore leftists, though i tend to think that the further towards 'centrism' aka status quo preservation someone leans, the more the thing they supposedly 'dont get' is likely to be something they themselves believe in/promote, just in less obvious ways. but that aside.. is this genuine? are these statements genuine expressions of confusion, or performative ones? i honestly struggle to tell.

like, ive never had a ""right wing phase"", ive never leaned right-wing politically in essentially any way aside from like, 6 months when i was 17 when i was into the lightweight transmed shit, which is the deepest ive been into reprehensible politics. but i literally do get it. it doesnt make me think any different about the positions but i get where they come from. i understand the emotional, social and cultural reasons for believing reprehensible things. i do get how people are nationalists - im not sure id be good at explaining it, but i understand it. i understand the impulses and urges that lead to right-wing politics and oppressive beliefs and on some level i do recognize them in myself and am continuously working to disarm them in myself.

and i feel both a sense of... not necessarily shame but impropriety? at admitting this, like by saying 'i understand the reasoning and emotions that go into oppressive thinking' im in some way revealing that im like, tainted or ethically bankrupt. which is why i ask 'is saying you absolutely dont understand this performative' - because i feel like it could be? saying that you dont have the slightest idea how people get to awful political stances can make you appear as if youre so morally pure that you could never lower yourself to even understanding the thought patterns of immorality, right? but at the same time... i have a hard time trusting in people who repeatedly exclaim that it is so beyond their understanding how anyone could be a bigot. it kinda feels like, implicitly, theyre saying 'i trust so deeply that i am wholly removed from bigotry that i am not in fact doing the work of figuring out which of my thought patterns and impulses can lead to reactionary ideas'. so even if the statement is genuine.. well, idk, maybe thats a bit worse??

idk. thoughts?

[woodfrogs]

while were talking about javert. "est-ce qu'un âme se rachête? est-ce qu'un homme peut changer? (can a soul be redeemed? can a man change?)" from the paris revival is SUCH a funny line. this guy would have an awesome political blog with the most rancid opinions youve ever seen

[fideidefenswhore]

Despite relentless pressure to acknowledge her illegitimacy, Mary had always held out. But now, under the very real threat that her dear friends would otherwise go to the block for supporting her claim, Mary finally submitted and put her hand to the document that declared the invalidity of her parents' marriage and her own bastardy. The lives of Exeter, Carew, and their allies were saved, if only temporarily, by Mary's sacrifice, but their political influence had been shot.

Henry VIII’s Last Victim: The Life and Times of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, Jessie Childs

[chryblossomjjk]

all i wanted was u…

[wychelm]

I think so much about when david 8 is impersonating walter and his response to what sort of world will it be is "I think if we are kind, it will be a kind world" it's so sick because he is such a misanthropic pessimistic logic bro who is revolted by walter being what humans wanted him to be (placid, subservient, saying the nice things at the right time) so beneath the act it's dripping with malice and scorn but at the same time he's such a good actor and so good at mimicry (his entire personality is based on copying human performances in film & regurgitating human art and literature like vomit then licking it back up like a dog) that the line is delivered with complete sincerity and catches me right in its snare because it's so lovely and so exactly what I (human, sentimental) would appreciate hearing in that moment when I've lost so much and have more yet to lose in a world that has just shown itself to be violent cruel and completely ambivalent towards human life. and it being delivered by the android (walter) who serves as the human-obsessed humanist fantasy robot many people love & admire (see: data star trek), in which the android in question seeks to 'become' human by expressing emotion but already is human because the way the show sets it up is tautological, reaffirming humanness to ourselves and how superior it is, which david uses against us so perfectly at every turn, makes it the perfect little 'pspspspsps you're safe little human the entire world is about you don't worry' trap. but the joke is on him too because the narrative also kind of tautologically sets him up as a de-facto member of the human race (the concepts of sociopathy and misanthropy and genocide are just as human as the concepts of kindness and empathy and love) so he's not a god nor above it all and he never will be he's just as stupid impulsive and governed by cause and effect as the rest of us

[iviin-855]

Since imperial cult worship is allowed in the t'au empire do you think there is an heretek sect of the cult mechanicus that saw the T'au's fancy, fancy tech and went "we have to make sure the spirits of that beautiful tech is well cared for also gime gime"?

[ridiasfangirlings]

What if Fushimi and Yata never got close in middle school and Fushimi ended up joining the green clan? How do you think things would be with him there without Yata affecting his life? Also, the greens have this family dynamic too so I wonder if he'd be able to fit in. And this time around, Sukuna would end up being the new guy later if Fushimi was there first.

I could see him fitting in better with jungle versus Homra even with jungle's weird family dynamic if only because jungle does have the whole points and mission thing going on, so he's able to like have something to do besides sit there and play friends (in fact with the points system jungle pretty much has a way to literally quantify his existence, as long as he has more points than anyone he can stay in this place and that's what Fushimi clings to). Depending on how early he joins Yukari might not even be there yet, or at least might be fairly new to the clan so it's not even that big of a 'family.' I could see Fushimi preferring to talk more to Hisui than anyone, I think Yukari and Iwafune both would be hard for him to deal with – Yukari he feels acts too familiar with him (and please just imagine Yukari unconsciously taking Saruhiko as his new little brother to replace Kuroh) and Iwafune is way too parental in a way that makes Fushimi tense. He likes Hisui because Hisui talks about things in terms of games and missions, Fushimi has no interest in being taken care of like a child he wants to do great things and show the world.

In this AU I could see Fushimi ultimately clinging to Hisui in a way similar to how he is with Yata in canon, like for him Hisui is now the first person to really recognize his talents and Fushimi probably puts a lot of stock in never failing any of his missions because he basically ties his sense of self worth to his success as a clansman. He's also the member of the clan besides Hisui who is most proficient with computers so I could see him taking an administrative role a lot, maybe he doesn't do missions as often now but he runs most of jungle's systems and considers it a point of pride that he can hack into anything he wants. At some point I think he would grudgingly accept the affection given to him by Yukari and Iwafune but at the same time I think he would remain a bit aloof from them too, like Fushimi more than anyone is very adamant that this isn't a family and they aren't all here playing friends, they're just companions in a game who happen to have the same goal.

I think he wouldn't get along well with Sukuna either in this AU, I feel like the two of them have enough similarities that Fushimi would feel anxious about being replaced and would constantly lash out wanting to show how he's clearly the superior person. Like again especially depending on how young Fushimi is when he joins, say he was the youngest person ever to make J-rank until Sukuna comes along and while Fushimi acts like he doesn't care it really does rankle him, the possibility that this person could be more talented or take Hisui's interest away from him. Sukuna's willing to be open to Fushimi at first but Fushimi's always cold and sarcastic to him, constantly mocking him for being a kid, and it gets Sukuna's hackles up that he's always arguing back. Sukuna also worships Hisui too so that puts them at odds as well, they both want Hisui's attention and to be seen as his most trustworthy clansman and no matter how many times Hisui tells them to get along they're just constantly fighting.

[mrsegbert]

[Taps mic] Batman: Arkham Knight analysis but through the lense that Bruce has OCD. Thank you :)

[el3venthcommandment]

yeah ermmmm i’m in that cardiff afterlife for sure. being back home is a trip my parents treat me like i’m made of glass

[hussyknee]

I know some dickheads have now decided that Judaism is the "bad, violent, terrorist religion" and Islam is the "good, peaceful" one, which is only to be expected of white people, but how much of an issue is it currently? Like I've seen some USAmericans sharing how the Islamic faith shapes Gazans values and perseverance (good) except with that distinct white hippie "I'm about to imprint on this like the world's most racist duck" vibe (bad), but I didn't think they're already turning on Judaism in numbers.

Do they realize that Christianity is also the same kind of comfort to Christian minorities in Asia and Africa? That it was Buddhists that genocided the Rohingyas in Myanmar and Tamils in Sri Lanka? That Hindu fundamentalists are even now trying to ethnically cleanse Muslims in India? How Hindus and Christians are terrorized and persecuted in Pakistan? That Muslims have a history of persecuting and ethnically cleansing Jews too?

Really tired of asking y'all to be normal about people's religions man. There's no religion that's inherently violent or exceptionally peaceful. It's just like any other ideology that becomes a weapon in the hands of ethnic power. Interrogate power, not religion, and respect people's belief systems insofar as they aren't in your business.

Edit: I've amended the "long history" of Muslim persecution of Jews because it might be misleading in the current political climate. Zionism and antisemitic Arab nationalism are twin births resulting directly from Christian colonization, and Islamic empires tended to actually be more tolerant of other religions compared to Christianity, especially Judaism, which was considered a sibling religion. Antisemitism wasn't ideologically entrenched in Islamic tradition. It's simply that ethno-religious power will lead to ethno religious domination and intermittent cleansing of minorities, and Islam is no exception. Humans be humaning always.

[autistichalsin]

So I don't usually post all that many Astarion thoughts here, but I have noticed that some people feel that a certain set of lines spawn Astarion and ascended Astarion have in the new evil endings would have been better suited for the other. Namely, after the Dark Urge stabs either of them, Spawn Astarion cries, "I should have killed you when I had the chance!" while Ascended Astarion breaks down into inelegant blubbering, "no! No, this can't be. I can't- you can't- no!"

And I can definitely understand where it might feel like these would be better responses for the other- but I happen to completely disagree.

So, Astarion, first and foremost, is a fear-driven person after what he's been through. Everything- manipulating others, seeking power, lacking empathy- comes from his belief that power is all that matters, the only way to avoid being hurt, and only his quest to become the powerful one at last matters.

Through his friendship or romance (in this case, obviously, romance) with the player, though, he starts to find this being challenged. He sees genuine kindness for the first time. No expectations that he lay down his body to get advantages. No using him. His dignity and boundaries respected for the first time that he can remember. This is set against the backdrop of Cazador and the other spawn. If he kills them and takes Cazador's power, he can become powerful enough to never fear again. But if he doesn't, he can be something more than the game Cazador pulled him into when he made him a spawn.

Your confrontation with Cazador is the moment you either entrench Astarion in this belief, or free him from it. If you let him ascend, he becomes all-powerful- at the cost of believing forever that the world is nothing more than an extended power trip, a system where by necessity there are lower people and higher people and only the strong can be free. And he has finally become the strongest of the strong.

So imagine his surprise when you, who he thought was under his thumb, grab more power than him and kill him just like that. No chance to fight back or use his vampire lord powers. He went through all that, sacrificed the core of who he was- and it still wasn't enough. His one concession to his dog-eat-dog philosophy, his love for you, was the thing that let him die. No wonder, then, that all he can do is babble out something between disbelief, a plea, and a last attempt to assert power over you. He was as powerful as he ever could have hoped to be, and he still lost, cast aside by you as soon as he was no longer useful.

Meanwhile, there's spawn Astarion, weaker in every measure- but free of his belief that power is all that matters. He's fought hard and discarded Cazador entirely- including all the power he offered. He committed himself to becoming better. To experiencing a life where things like happiness and love have just as much of a place as sheer power. And he was enjoying it, too, especially with you at his side.

And then you show him that that was all a lie, that he may very well have made the wrong choice by abandoning all that; for all he knows, you may even have talked him out of the ritual specifically so he would be easier to kill later.

So it's not disbelief and begging. Spawn Astarion actually loved and trusted you and foresook his social-Darwinist beliefs for you; what he feels is raw betrayal. And betrayal gives way to anger rapidly. So instead, he's the one cursing you with his last breath. Lamenting that he let you live at all, let alone falling in love with you.

Ascended Astarion became more powerful but more arrogant, so his reaction is that of someone who can't wrap his head around how this could have happened. Spawn Astarion foresook power for the sake of a real relationship with you, so his reaction is utter fury and betrayal.

[tea-earl-grey]

i do think it's really interesting to compare the ways Star Trek and Doctor Who succeed and fail as pieces of progressive media because they almost have the opposite problem.

both of the shows are progressive, let's make that clear. while there are exceptions, both shows and worlds consistently critique capitalism, value compassion, solve problems without violence, and at least try to be diverse. there will always be individual episodes (and even eras/arcs) that contradict those values but in general, they are progressive compared to your average procedural or whatnot. but they, by the very nature of their premise, often fail to live up to fully realizing those progressive values. and yes, individual instances of racism or misogyny or any type of bigotry is a product of the bigotry of the writers/creators, but Star Trek and Doctor Who ultimately fail and will always fail to fully embody progressivism.

Star Trek is trapped in its own system of the Federation & Starfleet. for any of the shows to work, we the audience have to believe that the Federation is almost always a good & benevolent force and while criticisms of it are made, those criticisms are the exception and not the rule. the Federation/Starfleet can be criticized but at the end of the story, we must reaffirm that our characters are still good people and it's individual corruption that's the problem. the system can be portrayed as flawed but it must always be better than the alternative. if there is a Star Trek show that would truly dig far enough into how the Federation is a product of imperialism and how the nature of exploring & going where no one has gone before is inherently rooted in racism & orientalism then the franchise would collapse because nearly everything to this point relies on the belief in that a fundamentally good utopian system is possible.

now there's Doctor Who. Doctor Who has a quite different premise in that it is never rooted to one place or time the way Star Trek is attached to Starfleet/the Federation. (there could be an argument that Doctor Who is ultimately rooted in Britain but despite the 2005 series and the UNIT era in classic who, there are large swathes of classic who and the EU that never visit Britain. it's been made an important part of the show (as the show is an important part of British culture) but it's not inherent to the basic premise.) however, because Doctor Who is focused on traveling and seeing the wonders of the universe, its premise essentially becomes "some people turn up to fix a problem and then disappear". again, there are exceptions to this (especially in early classic who), but the formula of the show is almost trapped in the belief of individual action and power to solve systemic problems which... is not how most problems or solutions behave in reality. and just as Star Trek can criticize the Federation but must ultimately forgive it, Doctor Who can criticize the Doctor and portray them as flawed but must still reaffirm their status as a hero.

so we have Star Trek too caught up in its own systems to be able to critique them and Doctor Who too focused on running to portray how complex, long term solutions are needed to solve deeply entrenched problems.

and honestly... i don't think either of these are bad. they're simply the limitations of the shows as they exist and it would be far more worthwhile to develop new premises & find other media that incorporate those types of leftist political values from the start than to try to graft them onto 60 year old media franchises and pretend like they've always been there.

and they do serve a purpose! Star Trek might not be able to adequately portray the flaws of a system but it does give you hope for a better utopian future where people are taken care of and allowed to live however they choose, where there's infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Doctor Who might not be able to portray the complicated solutions to complicated problems that we face today but it tells you that every life matters, that kindness is the most important quality, and that everyone can make a difference in some way.

[ahb-writes]

Fantasy Worldbuilding Questions (Society)

Society Worldbuilding Questions:

What is each society’s crowning achievement or proudest "claim to fame"?

What are each society’s greatest ills or challenges? (Do these differ depending on who you ask?)

Who garners the most respect in this society, and why?

Who is shown the least respect in this society, and why (what does it value)?

Where are hierarchies and power differences starkest between people in this world, and why?

Where are social norms and influences (such as laws) most stringently upheld in this world, and why (e.g., what roles do politics, ideology, religion, or competition for resources play)?

When did this society’s power structures emerge or change significantly, and why?

When did major societal beliefs or practices become entrenched? Are there any that have recently fallen away or started to disappear?

Why is living within this society challenging for your main characters?

Why does each character enjoy or appreciate this society, if anything?

❯ ❯ ❯ Read other writing masterposts in this series: Worldbuilding Questions for Deeper Settings

[lesbianrobin]

what's so fascinating about eddie to me is that like almost every problem in his life is a direct result of his own decisions but they're all decisions that don't even seem like decisions to him. like he has this mindset where there are certain things he Must Do or Should Do and then he never really stops to be like but do i Actually have to do this. Why am i actually doing this. who does this benefit and How. and that's a mindset which is like a perfect storm for compulsory heterosexuality. like eddie is a lesbian magnet and he's not a remotely bigoted guy but he struggles So Much with challenging his own entrenched beliefs about like love and masculinity When Applied To Him.

and i think what's hardest for eddie is like. if he accepts that he's gay then he has to reevaluate all of these past choices he made and accept that he basically never once did what He wanted to do and he made most of the big decisions in his life out of a sense of obligation. like the Only thing he ever did for himself was moving out to LA to be a firefighter and even then he sorta went to LA specifically because of shannon. and how the hell do you accept that yknow how do you look yourself in the mirror and say yeah i spent the first thirty years of my life and an entire marriage and my son's entire life just going through the motions of what i thought i was supposed to do and it didn't even WORK it just made literally everybody miserable. i am mourning an idealized marriage that not only never existed but never even Could have existed. did i waste and ruin the painfully short life of a woman i loved? have i been hurting my son by pretending to be something i'm not for his entire life?

like eddie's already king of hating and blaming himself for everything but in a way that's far easier to stomach i think than the can of worms he'll open when he realizes he's gay. and that's why he's continued to repress it for so long.