#health is not a moral imperative

[unnonexistence]

i started doing climate data transcription on Zooniverse today & it's nice. i feel a certain kinship with these 1950s weather observatory scientists who were trying to use up their stack of preprinted-for-the-1940s observation sheets & had to keep crossing out the "4" in the year field. they were doing it until at least 1952

[kabretoss]

please be proud of me, I ollied out of an Internet Discussion before it became an Internet Argument

[quotelr]

So it is always preferable to discuss the matter of veganism in a non-judgemental way. Remember that to most people, eating flesh or dairy and using animal products such as leather, wool, and silk, is as normal as breathing air or drinking water. A person who consumes dairy or uses animal products is not necessarily or usually what a recent and unpopular American president labelled an "evil doer.

Gary L. Francione

[theculturedmarxist]

In 2020, Robert Kuciemba, a woodworker in San Francisco was infected with covid by a co-worker after his Nevada-based Victory Woodworks transferred a number of sick workers to the San Francisco site for a few months. 

Through the proceedings of the case it turns out that the employer knew some employees might be sick but they transferred them anyway and ignored a San Francisco ordinance in place at the time to quarantine suspected covid cases.

Kuciemba was subsequently infected and he then infected his wife, who ended up in ICU on a ventilator.

The California Supreme Court just ruled against Kuciemba on the basis that a victory, while, in the court's words, "morally" the right thing to do, would create "dire financial consequences for employers" and cause a "dramatic expansion of liability" to stop the spread of covid.

There’s a few stunning details to note in this case. First, the court agreed that there is no doubt the company had ignored the San Francisco health ordinance. In other words, they accepted the company had broken the law. And then concluded “yeah, but, capitalism.”

Secondly, the case was so obviously important to the struggle between capitalism and mass infection that the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organisation got involved and helped the company with its defence. Remember, this is a tiny company in a niche industry. The involvement of the biggest business lobbyists in the country tells us a lot about the importance of the principle they knew was at stake.

Thirdly, the defence of the company is very telling. They said “There is simply no limit to how wide the net will be cast: the wife who claims her husband caught COVID-19 from the supermarket checker, the husband who claims his wife caught it while visiting an elder care home." 

Well, exactly. Capitalism couldn’t survive if employers were liable for covid infections contracted in the workplace, and the ripple effect of those infections. And they know it. 

This case is something of a covid smoking gun, revealing what we always suspected but had never seen confirmed in so many words: the public health imperative of controlling a pandemic virus by making employers liable for some of that control is, and always must be, secondary to capitalist profit. 

This ruling is also saying out loud what has been obvious to anyone paying attention for the last two years: employers don’t have a responsibility to keep your family safe from covid. You have that responsibility. And if you give a family member covid that you caught at work and they get sick or die – even if it was a result of law-breaking by your employer – that’s on you buddy.

It is the same old capitalist story: the shunting of responsibility for ills that should be shared across society, including employers in that society, onto individuals.

This ruling essentially helps codify workplace mass infection and justifies it as necessary for the smooth functioning of capitalism.

This is not new. This is where the ‘just a cold’ and the ‘mild' narrative came from. It came from doctors and healthcare experts whose first loyalty was to capitalism. Not to public health. To money, not to lives. Abetted by media who uncritically platformed them.

While this ruling tells us little that we couldn’t already see from the public policy approach of the last two years, it is revealing (and to some extent validating) to see it confirmed by the highest law of the land in the United States. 

[roach-works]

you need to stop equating legality with morality

i know im shouting into the void here but i'm really stressed out over how many gen-z kids seem to think that all bad things are illegal and therefore all good things are legal. this is a child's system of ethics and furthermore it's one that fascist bigots REALLY REALLY WANT YOU TO KEEP

here are some things that are legal in the united states of america:

-you can marry a child in 46 states. "The organization Unchained At Last found nearly 300,000 children under the age of 18 were legally married between 2000 and 2018."

-it's not murder to shoot someone to death in 28 states under Stand Your Ground Laws.

-officers of the law can take and keep your personal property "in the course of conducting an investigation." you have to go to court to get it back. since the year 2000, cops have taken and kept personal property totaling a profit of at least 68.8 billion... that we have records for. Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

here are things that are illegal in an increasing number of states:

-birth control hrt, and abortion

-dildos

-telling kids anything about homosexuality or transexuality

-helping a minor access birth control or an abortion without their parent's consent

-dressing in drag

-protesting against corporate malfeasance

-protesting against police brutality

-suing a company for knowingly endangering your health through exposure to infectious diseases, chemical toxins, or oil pollution

-inhibiting private logging, fracking, and mining operations, even those conducted on public lands, even those conducted without the requisite permits, even those conducted against treaty regulations

IN CONCLUSION:

a country's legal system is not a nice little collection of good rules for proper people. it is a system of top-down control that determines, in broad and violent strokes, which people get what they want, and which people don't.

the sooner you realize that it is a moral imperative to break unjust laws, the sooner you can stop saying shit like 'dni if you support illegal/immoral behavior' and sounding like a fucking chump.

[fandomsandfeminism]

As we move towards the summer months, this is a healthy reminder that:

BMI is misapplied at best and pseudoscience at worst.

That genetics have far more affect on body type than any other factor.

That a "healthy weight" varies wildly from person to person.

That your body's actual healthy weight shouldn't require constant dieting to maintain.

That some studies have shown that being slightly "overweight" based on BMI actually makes you more resilient against injury and illness.

That unless your weight is actually directly causing you mobility issues or pain, it isn't a problem.

That movement and food should be a source of joy, not self discipline and stress.

That everyone looks better in clothes that fit properly.

That being hydrated and well fed is far more important to your health than you realize.

That fed is best.

That chiseled abs are only really visible if you are dehydrated.

That feeling the sun on your skin and bird song can heal the parts of you that years of dieting and weight watching and self criticism has injured.

That you have no obligation to be sexy or beautiful.

That you should never say things about your own body that you wouldn't say about a friend's or a partner's.

That it is not a moral imperative to be healthy or mobile or skinny.

That the people who judge you for your weight are fighting their own demons.

That People are absolutely terrible at guessing a person's weight. How you dress and carry yourself has far more impact on perception.

That You don't have to be beautiful to enjoy a beautiful day.

Better happy than skinny.

Feeling good is better than looking good.

[spacenoirdetective]

I'm unimpressed

Whenever any leftist interacts with me, it's always the same. They posture and laugh at me for being a conservative. They look down on me. They cite false statistics or allegations fed to them by propaganda networks. They exhibit arrogance, smug superiority and overwhelming condescension without any knowledge, understanding or moral fortitude to back it up. When everything else fails, they resort to the New Communist slogan of "racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic".

To which I respond: My best friends include a black man from Trinidad, a Latina woman who immigrated to the US at the age of five, a man with Aspergers and severe anxiety disorder, a black lesbian, an Indian South African, a Chinese American woman, an octogenarian gay man, a Cameroonian man and a Saudi Arabian man who describes himself as pansexual. And a whole bunch of really awesome white people who are not racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic.

I'm gay. I voted for Trump because i don't believe the Democrats love me. I don't need them to love me. I don't want their love. They love sin and the embrace of dark triad behavior as their paragon for leadership skills, totalitarian thought control, the destruction of society, and they seek to make atheism the norm. They love the denigration of any individual that defies them, disagrees with their tactics, calls out their lies...they hate truthtellers. They hate anyone that places God as an imperative and sacred texts as crucial to their ethical conduct. They hate anyone that threatens their power and they believe in encouraging public vitriol to meet their needs. They believe in the destruction of the nuclear family. They encourage the worship of and dependence on the state to replace the family. They believe in a direct pipeline between the White House and newly established propaganda networks that cater only to the Democrat Party and the CIA. They believe in reputation destruction using those propaganda networks. They believe they have the right to assassinate Trump and anyone else who they deem a threat to their power. They have initiated the single worst attack on children in the history of our country via human trafficking and institutionalized rape ordered by the CIA. They normalized embezzlement, money laundering and inflationary tax on an unheard of scale to further demoralize the populace and inflate their own bank accounts. They conduct constant psychological war against their own people, which extends to perverting the minds of their children without their knowledge via the trans cult, the gender theory cult, and the DEI/Critical Race Theory cult.

On the issue of transphobia, I certainly don't endorse violence. But it is not violence to state that all trans people are mentally ill and they must be stopped from mutilation of children and sterilizing minors with puberty blockers, from demanding forced speech regarding their delusions, from using public funds to procure trans surgeries and from public attaining positions of power such as the Secretary of Health where they may spread their perverse cult directives causing psychological and physiological arm to adults and children alike.

They believe in these things because they want to secure a future for an elite minority that takes everything for itself, enslaves the rest of the populace, and convinces the populace that their astronomical greed is justifiable and that their destructive policies that result in totalitarian hell should be embraced as godly, necessary, and protective measures. They mockingly wear a mask of sympathy, compassion and the moniker of "social justice" which is nothing more than a code for "thought police" whose sole purpose is to implant hatred for political opponents and self hatred amongst whites, any minorities with religious sensibilities, and the intelligentia at large.

The future that they desire is a constant hell of pervasive misery and support of a one party state, supported by thoughtless government worship, slogan repetition, dehumanization of political opposition, desensitization to violence to meet the ends of the party's plans, mentacide, hatred of the past and all the accomplishments of Western Civilization, physical degradation and obesity from technological addiction and slow chemical poisoning from tainted food and lastly lowering testosterone via pbthalates.

I'm a gay white male and that doesn't play into my vote. It shouldn't. The body you're born with shouldn't determine your vote. Your party has done absolutely nothing for me. You have never done anything to help me. I am happy to fight you to the bitter end in any way I can to stop you from the communist genocide you so lovingly long for.

[transmutationisms]

i feel so insane every time i look up another one of these covid sci comms twitter thread posters and find them doing versions of the same narrative whereby the us and uk's state policies of covering their ears and going Lalala until covid magically goes away are somehow being caused by an insufficient degree of fear amongst the population. and you could ofc have bad unserious politics and still be producing useful data or studies (many such cases actually) but this genre of poster is often not even actually producing this knowledge they've just styled themselves as interpreters of other people's research or state statistics---meaning that actually their moral commitment to fear as a tool of public health has a huge effect on how useful their posting is because it's the guiding principle of their entire analysis. i don't think it's a coincidence that two of the big names in these circles are a psychologist (mike hoerger) and a journalist who was previously covering climate denialist pr (nate bear)---it's that framing of public health as a battle of ideas (despite occasionally paying lip service to a vague anti-capitalist line) where alarm becomes morally imperative and appeal to Raise Awareness in individual hearts and minds is the only field of action. and then these people continue to get elevated and their shit passed around regardless of this glaring degree of liberalism and how tenuous their data interpretation actually is, because at least they're still saying to take covid seriously and the alternative is like some leana wen lie or peter hotez patting himself on the back abojt vaccines. fucking bleak

[thegambitgazette]

The Reluctant Ruler Trope: A Philosophical Inquiry into Unwanted Power, Responsibility, and the Burden of Leadership

WC: 3,489

Index

Introduction The Reluctant Ruler in Literature and Folklore The Existential Dilemma of Unwanted Authority Political Implications and the Burden of Responsibility A Special Case or a Universal Relatability? Closing Words

Introduction

“The world is something that was put into your hands and that you must deal with - so you will. You have a rigid back and steady hands, either metaphorically or physically. Is it nature or nurture? You don't know. You are tired of being steady. You dream of feeling alive. Not that you aren’t, but, sometimes, it’s hard to remember that there is a heart between your ribs.” —“Are You A Soldier, Poet, or A King?” quiz by @atlanticsea

Does anyone here remember the “Soldier, Poet, King” quiz that went around about a year or so ago? When I initially took it, I expected “Poet;” you can imagine my surprise when the “King” result absolutely obliterated my mental health.

As I’ve found, a common theme in my writing is the Reluctant Ruler trope, where either 1) a character is thrust into the role of a savior, hero, or king/queen despite not having any wish to lead people or 2) a character assumes the role of a leader without the full understanding of the morally corrupting demands of the job.

The narrative trope of the Reluctant Ruler has long captivated the human imagination, resonating across cultures and epochs. From mythical tales of kings and queens reluctant to ascend the throne to contemporary narratives of reluctant heroes and leaders, this archetype speaks to fundamental questions about the nature of power, responsibility, and the human condition. But what makes this trope such a tragic and believable character? How do we, as an audience, end up relating to and debating the conflicts and moral dilemmas that these characters face? Today, we embark on a philosophical inquiry into the Reluctant Ruler trope, aiming to uncover its deeper meanings and implications within existential and political philosophical discourse.

The Reluctant Ruler in Literature and Folklore

The archetype of the reluctant ruler is deeply embedded in the narratives of literature and folklore, transcending cultural and historical boundaries. Across diverse traditions, tales abound of individuals thrust into positions of leadership against their will, grappling with the weight of power and the burdens of governance.

Shakespeare’s “Hamlet:” One of the most iconic depictions of the Reluctant Ruler can be found in William Shakespeare's timeless tragedy, “Hamlet.” Prince Hamlet, the melancholic protagonist, is suddenly confronted with the task of avenging his father’s murder and assuming the throne of Denmark. Despite being heir to the throne, Hamlet is plagued by doubt, indecision, and existential angst. His famous soliloquy, “To be, or not to be,” encapsulates the profound existential crisis he faces, torn between the demands of duty and the desire for personal authenticity. Hamlet’s reluctance to embrace his role as king stems not only from fear or cowardice but from a profound skepticism about the legitimacy of authority and the corrupting influence of power.

The Arthurian Legend: In the rich tapestry of Arthurian legend, the motif of the Reluctant Ruler is exemplified in the character of King Arthur himself. According to some versions of the myth, Arthur is initially unaware of his royal lineage and is raised as a commoner by Sir Ector. Upon discovering his true identity and rightful claim to the throne, Arthur reluctantly accepts the mantle of kingship, guided by the wise counsel of Merlin and the moral imperative to uphold justice and chivalry. Despite his noble intentions, Arthur grapples with the burdens of leadership, facing betrayals, challenges to his authority, and the tragic consequences of his own choices. His reluctance to embrace his destiny as king reflects the ambivalence inherent in assuming power and the moral ambiguities of governance.

The Biblical Story of Moses: In the Abrahamic traditions, the narrative of Moses provides another compelling example of the Reluctant Ruler trope. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses is initially an ordinary Israelite that ran from his station as a prince of Egypt, content to live as a shepherd in the wilderness. However, when called upon by God to lead his people out of bondage in Egypt, Moses initially resists, citing his own inadequacies and speech impediment. Despite his reluctance, Moses eventually accepts the divine mandate and becomes the revered leader of the Israelites, guiding them through the trials of the Exodus and delivering the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. Moses’s reluctance to assume leadership underscores the theme of human frailty and the transformative power of faith and divine providence.

The Existential Dilemma of Unwanted Authority

Despite not having instances in our lives where we are unexpectedly crowned king or being spoken to by a deity, there are still profound lessons in identity and responsibility that we can pull from these characters.

The Anguish of Freedom and Responsibility

Existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre asserted that “existence precedes essence,” emphasizing the radical freedom and responsibility of human beings to define their own meaning and purpose in a seemingly indifferent universe. For the Reluctant Ruler, this existential freedom becomes a source of anguish and uncertainty. Suddenly endowed with authority and influence, they are confronted with the weight of responsibility and the moral implications of their actions. The existential angst of the reluctant ruler arises from the tension between the desire for autonomy and the demands of duty, as they struggle with the paradox of being simultaneously free and bound by social expectations.

Furthermore, with freedom comes the moral imperative to act responsibly and ethically. The Reluctant Ruler, however, finds themselves burdened with the weight of moral decision-making, as they navigate complex ethical dilemmas and confront the consequences of their actions. Existentialist philosophy emphasizes the inherent responsibility of individuals to create their own moral framework and to confront the ethical implications of their choices with honesty and integrity. The anguish of responsibility lies in the tension between the desire for moral clarity and the recognition of the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of ethical decision-making. The reluctant ruler must contemplate on the ethical complexities of their role, striving to uphold their moral principles amidst the exigencies of power and governance.

Authenticity and Self-Deception

Central to the existential dilemma of unwanted authority is the quest for authenticity (we already knew this; I wrote two posts on authenticity already that you can check out here and here)—the authentic expression of one’s true self and values in the face of external pressures and expectations. The Reluctant Ruler may experience profound existential alienation as they navigate the demands of their role, questioning whether they are living in accordance with their own genuine desires and beliefs or merely conforming to societal norms and conventions.

In fact, they may be tempted to resort to self-deception—to deceive themselves and others about the true nature of their actions or motivations. Existentialist philosophy warns against the dangers of inauthenticity and self-delusion, highlighting the existential crisis that arises from living inauthentically and betraying one’s own values. The Reluctant Ruler may succumb to the pressures of their position, rationalizing their actions or compromising their principles in order to maintain power or avoid conflict. Self-deception becomes a means of coping with the existential anguish and moral dilemmas inherent in their role, providing a false sense of security and comfort amidst the uncertainties of leadership.

Self-deception ultimately leads to existential alienation—the estrangement from one’s authentic self and the sense of disconnection from the world. The Reluctant Ruler who succumbs to self-deception finds themselves adrift in a sea of moral ambiguity and existential angst, unable to reconcile their actions with their inner convictions.

The Absurdity of Human Existence

“The Absurdity of Human Existence” is a philosophical concept rooted in existentialist thought, particularly articulated by philosophers such as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. It posits that human life is inherently absurd, devoid of inherent meaning or purpose, and characterized by the fundamental tension between the human desire for meaning and the indifferent, chaotic nature of the universe.

In assuming positions of power unwillingly, the Reluctant Ruler confronts the absurdity of their situation, grappling with the arbitrary nature of authority and the futility of their efforts to impose order and control upon a chaotic world. The absurdity of leadership lies in the recognition of its inherent limitations and the inevitability of failure and impermanence. Despite their best intentions, the Reluctant Ruler may find themselves overwhelmed by their predicament, struggling to find meaning and significance in a world devoid of ultimate purpose.

Here is where another familiar element of existence comes into play: the illusion of control. The illusion of control is a psychological concept that refers to the tendency of individuals to overestimate their ability to influence or control events, particularly in situations characterized by uncertainty or randomness.

For the Reluctant Ruler, the illusion of control becomes apparent as they assume positions of power unwillingly and attempt to impose order and control upon a world that defies their efforts. Despite their best intentions, they soon come to realize the inherent unpredictability and uncontrollability of the events and circumstances they face. This recognition challenges their preconceived notions of authority and power, revealing the illusory nature of their perceived control.

The Reluctant Ruler may initially believe that they have the ability to shape the course of events and influence outcomes according to their will. However, as they encounter resistance, opposition, and unforeseen challenges, they begin to understand the limitations of their authority and the unpredictable nature of the world they seek to govern. This realization undermines their confidence and exposes the fragility of their sense of control.

Moreover, the illusion of control can lead the Reluctant Ruler to engage in behaviors and strategies aimed at maintaining the illusion of power, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They may resort to authoritarian measures, manipulation, or denial of reality in an attempt to assert their authority and preserve their sense of control. However, these efforts ultimately prove futile, further reinforcing the absurdity of their situation.

The existential implications of the illusion of control lie in its confrontation with the fundamental unpredictability and contingency of human existence. The Reluctant Ruler's quest for control becomes a Sisyphean task, as they strive to impose order upon a world characterized by chaos and uncertainty. In confronting the illusion of control, they are forced to confront the absurdity of their condition and wrestle with the inherent limitations of human agency in the face of existential uncertainty.

Political Implications and the Burden of Leadership

Naturally, we cannot talk about the complexity behind the Reluctant Ruler without diving into those whom they govern. In examining the reluctant ruler trope through the lens of political philosophy, we confront the complex interplay between governance, legitimacy, and the ethical responsibilities of leadership.

Legitimacy and Consent

The concepts of legitimacy and consent are central to theories of political authority, shaping the foundation of governance and the relationship between rulers and the ruled. In the context of the Reluctant Ruler trope, the legitimacy of political authority is called into question, as leaders may assume power unwillingly, without the explicit consent or endorsement of those they govern.

Political theorists have long debated the sources of legitimacy in governance, seeking to identify the basis upon which political authority is justified. Traditionally, legitimacy has been derived from various sources such as divine right, tradition, charisma, or popular consent. However, the assumption of power by a Reluctant Ruler complicates these traditional sources, as their authority may not be grounded in the typical mechanisms of legitimacy. Instead, the legitimacy of the reluctant ruler may be contingent upon factors such as adherence to legal norms, effectiveness in governance, or recognition by key power holders.

In democratic societies, where the principle of popular sovereignty reigns supreme, the consent of the governed is considered foundational to the legitimacy of political authority. Democratic legitimacy is typically understood to derive from the consent of the people, expressed through free and fair elections. However, the Reluctant Ruler challenges this notion, as their assumption of power may not be the result of popular choice or electoral mandate. Or, on the other hand, perhaps it was, indeed, the populace that raised them to their position while they continued to protest and fight against it. This raises questions about the compatibility of their leadership with democratic ideals and the accountability of political institutions to the will of the people.

A Special Case or Universal Relatability?

The Reluctant Ruler archetype, emblematic of individuals thrust into positions of power against their will, serves as a focal point for exploring the intricate interplay between existential realization, political pragmatism, and ethical considerations within the realm of political philosophy and ethical theory. Through the lenses of political philosophers and ethical theorists, such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Hannah Arendt, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle, we can seek to elucidate the moral spectrum of the Reluctant Ruler, shedding light on the ethical and existential dimensions of their predicament and the broader implications for human nature and governance.

Political Philosophers:

Thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Hannah Arendt might consider the ethical and political dimensions of the Reluctant Ruler trope. They would examine questions of legitimacy, authority, and the responsibilities of leadership, shedding light on how the Reluctant Ruler’s predicament illuminates broader themes in political philosophy.

Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli, a seminal figure in political philosophy, is often associated with political realism, a perspective that emphasizes practical considerations over moral ideals in governance.

Machiavelli’s political realism emphasizes the importance of power dynamics, interests, and strategic calculations in politics. He might argue that the Reluctant Ruler cannot afford to be guided solely by moral principles or existential concerns but must instead prioritize the preservation of authority and the maintenance of order.

For him, the reluctant ruler’s primary concern should be establishing and consolidating their authority, regardless of the circumstances of their ascension to power.

He famously suggests in The Prince that rulers should be prepared to act ruthlessly when necessary, even if it means sacrificing ethical principles.

The ends justify the means in politics, and that the reluctant ruler must be willing to employ any means necessary to achieve their goals.

Ultimately, Machiavelli would likely emphasize the importance of maintaining order and stability as the primary goals of the reluctant ruler. He might argue that the ruler's legitimacy and authority depend on their ability to govern effectively and preserve the social order, even if it requires making difficult decisions or compromises.

Machiavelli might caution against allowing existential angst or moral qualms to undermine the reluctant ruler's ability to govern decisively. He would likely stress the need for pragmatism and flexibility in navigating the complexities of political life.

Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt was a prominent political theorist known for her contributions to the understanding of totalitarianism, the nature of power, and the concept of political action.

Arendt would delve into the existential angst experienced by the reluctant ruler, examining how their struggle with assuming power unwillingly reflects broader themes of human existence. She might explore the absurdity of the situation, where individuals find themselves thrust into positions of authority without their consent or desire.

Arendt would likely emphasize the importance of individual conscience in guiding the actions of the reluctant ruler. She might suggest that the ruler's moral integrity is central to their ability to exercise legitimate and effective leadership, even in the face of existential uncertainty.

She might also argue that political action is inherently bound up with questions of ethics and morality, and that the reluctant ruler's existential crisis serves as a catalyst for deeper reflection on the ethical dimensions of governance.

Arendt might caution against sacrificing moral integrity for the sake of pragmatic considerations, suggesting that the Ruler’s adherence to their conscience is ultimately what determines the legitimacy of their leadership.

Ethical Thinkers

Thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Aristotle would likely explore the ethical dilemmas faced by the Reluctant Ruler. They would analyze how the tension between personal ethics and pragmatic considerations shapes the Ruler’s decision-making process, offering insights into human moral psychology and the pursuit of virtuous leadership.

Immanuel Kant

Kant’s deontological ethics emphasizes the importance of moral duty and universal principles in guiding ethical behavior. He would likely analyze the Reluctant Ruler’s predicament by focusing on the categorical imperative, which states that individuals must act according to principles that can be universally applied.

Kant might argue that the Reluctant Ruler faces a moral obligation to uphold certain ethical principles, even if it conflicts with pragmatic considerations. He would emphasize the importance of acting out of a sense of duty and moral integrity, rather than being swayed by expediency or self-interest.

Aristotle

Aristotle’s virtue ethics focuses on the development of moral character and the cultivation of virtuous qualities. He would likely analyze the Reluctant Ruler’s ethical dilemmas by considering how their decisions reflect their moral virtues and character traits.

Aristotle might argue that the reluctant ruler should strive to embody virtues such as courage, wisdom, and justice in their governance. He would emphasize the importance of practical wisdom (phronesis) in navigating the complexities of political life, suggesting that the ruler should aim to achieve eudaimonia, or flourishing, through virtuous leadership.

On Our Nature

Needless to say, not only can we reflect on our own ethical “what-ifs” in parallel to the Reluctant Ruler trope; through this character study, we can unearth a multitude of political and existential debates and still never settle on a universal answer.

The perpetual debates and unanswered questions surrounding the Reluctant Ruler trope speak volumes about human nature and the complexity of individual experiences. At its core, the Reluctant Ruler archetype encapsulates the fundamental tensions between existential realization, ethical responsibility, and political pragmatism, reflecting the intricate interplay of human desires, values, and motivations.

Firstly, the inability to settle on a universal answer regarding the Reluctant Ruler trope underscores the inherent complexity and ambiguity of human existence. Human nature is characterized by its multifaceted makeup, encompassing a diverse range of perspectives, beliefs, and experiences. The reluctance of individuals to embrace leadership roles speaks to our innate desire for autonomy, authenticity, and personal fulfillment, as well as our inherent susceptibility to doubt, uncertainty, and existential angst. The analyses surrounding the Reluctant Ruler trope reflect the diversity of human experiences and the myriad ways in which individuals examine with questions of identity, purpose, and morality.

Moreover, the fact that many individuals can relate to the Reluctant Ruler trope on a personal level speaks to the universality of human struggles and aspirations. Whether it be the fear of assuming responsibility, the desire for authenticity and self-expression, or the ethical dilemmas inherent in leadership, the themes embodied by the Reluctant Ruler resonate with people from all walks of life.

However, the Reluctant Ruler trope also serves as a mirror through which we can reflect on our own ethical convictions, political beliefs, and existential uncertainties. By examining the complexities of this archetype, we are compelled to confront our own values, biases, and assumptions, and to consider how they shape our perceptions of leadership, responsibility, and human nature. The inability to settle on a universal answer regarding the Reluctant Ruler trope challenges us to confront the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of human existence, prompting us to engage with questions of identity, meaning, and morality in our own lives.

Closing Words

What initially appears as a narrative device in storytelling reveals itself as a mirror reflecting the intricacies of our own ethical frameworks, existential dilemmas, and political realities.

At its essence, the Reluctant Ruler archetype embodies the universal struggle between autonomy and responsibility, authenticity and conformity, freedom and obligation. Yet, beyond the realm of fiction, it prompts us to reflect on our own ethical convictions and existential uncertainties. Are we, too, begrudging in our own lives, navigating the delicate balance between personal desires and societal expectations? Do we confront the existential angst of freedom and responsibility, or do we succumb to the illusion of control and self-deception?

Moreover, the Reluctant Ruler challenges us to examine the legitimacy of political authority and the ethical responsibilities of leadership. In a world where governance is often characterized by power struggles and moral ambiguities, how do we reconcile the demands of pragmatism with the imperatives of justice and integrity? How do we ensure that those in positions of power govern with wisdom, virtue, and compassion?

Ultimately, the Reluctant Ruler trope serves as a catalyst for introspection and dialogue, inviting us to confront the complexity of human nature and the ethical dimensions of governance. As we scrutinize the unresolved questions and perpetual debates surrounding this archetype, we are reminded of the enduring relevance of philosophy in our quest for understanding, meaning, and ethical clarity.

In the end, the Reluctant Ruler challenges us not only to ponder the existential dilemmas of fictional characters but also to confront the ethical complexities of our own lives and societies. It is through this introspective journey that we may gain deeper insights into the nature of leadership, autonomy, and the human condition, and perhaps, find a path towards a more just, compassionate, and authentic world.

[her-satanic-wiles]

October 8th

Breeding, Papa Nihil x Reader

Masterlist

Words: 1.3k

Warnings: Breeding; power imbalance; dubcon; Nihil is a selfish lover tbh; no after care; dirty talk; degradation; manipulation; this is actually really creepy and dark, please don’t read this if older men manipulating younger women for sex triggers you; use of scissors to cut off clothes; no foreplay; unprotected sex; piv sex; minor restraint; praise kink;

Taglist: @sodoswitchimage @enchantedbunny @bitchywitchygardener @thew0man @sodomiser @the-did-i-ask (if you want to be added to the list please let me know!)

The following fic contains scenes and elements that some may find disturbing. I have highlighted particular content warnings above that may be particularly triggering to some. If you are in any way in a place where this fic could trigger you, please do not read ahead. Your mental health is more important than a work of fiction.

I do not condone the actions taken in this fic. Please remember that it is a work of fiction, and meant for entertainment purposes only.

Thank you.

🔞 MDNI 🔞

As this is dark fiction, I'm choosing to rate it 21+. Please respect my rating. Thank you.

You were merely a young sister in the Satanic Church when you met him. You’d barely taken your vows, just out of your teenage years and not even making a name for yourself in the Ministry when you assigned your first job. Papa Nihil, the founder of the Ghost Project and head of the Satanic Church, was spending the early 60s touring multiple countries, attempting to topple governments and recruit new members to the church. It was your job, while on tour, to make sure Nihil got everything he needed and that he was comfortable. His son, Primo, who was the same age as you, had been left behind to run things in his father’s absence and take care of his two infant brothers. His father got to gallivant and do what or whom he liked.

Nihil enjoyed the fame and success the Ghost Project brought him and the church, and while it wasn’t considered “righteous” to fornicate with others out of wedlock, it still didn’t sit correctly in most people’s moral codes. He enjoyed strings of girls, each one a different variety to the other. Nihil wasn’t picky, and that was perhaps the only good thing about him. If you had a vulva he wanted you, end of story. But this was his biggest problem, as he was already promised to a different sister, a future Prime Mover - and it wasn’t his favourite Ministry squeeze, Sister Imperator.

But this was how you found yourself sat on your 45-year-old Papa’s sofa, his hand grasping harshly at your thigh and his painted lips attached to your neck. That very same hand moved up towards your core and began to rub you through your tights and panties. You weren’t entirely comfortable with this situation. You wanted to give Nihil what he asked for, and in fact your body was craving it, but your mind constantly thought of his future Prime Mover and his lover, who was only in the next room. You told him this, said that you could go and get Sister Imperator for him. But it was no good. Papa Nihil wanted you. “You wouldn’t deny your Papa, would you?” He murmured into your neck. His fingers were swiping just right on your clit and had you gasping out. “More importantly, you wouldn’t deny your Dark Father, would you? He loves the gifts you give him. Will you, scricciolina? Will you give Him what He asks for?” Little Wren. He liked calling you that because you were as sweet and soft as one, a fitting name for someone so cute and pliant.

You nodded. “Y-yes, Papa.” You replied, your hips beginning to buck to meet his hands.

“Brava ragazza. Stendersi. Spread yourself open for me.”

You lay on your back on the couch, Nihil pulling himself away from you just long enough to let it happen. It didn’t matter that you were still fully clothed, Nihil always preferred it when you were while in public spaces. Not that he’d stop fucking you if he got caught. He always said it was to preserve your modesty, but there was always a darker look in his eye when he grabbed the scissors from their location and sliced through your tights. He’d slice your panties too if he were impatient enough, which, today, he was.

You heard the familiar rip of your tights before you felt the coldness of the blade against your labia. One horizontal snip later, your panties were now destroyed and your sweet, delectable cunt exposed to Nihil’s predatory gaze. He palmed himself through his trousers at the sight of you, but it didn’t take long before his cock was out and lined up to your entrance. You were wet enough to welcome him without pain, but not so wet as for the stretch to be completely comfortable or pleasurable. But even so, he pushed all the way in not even considering your own state. The groan he released was somewhat primal, and just the feeling of your unprepared hole was enough to get the man going.

He braced himself on top of you, letting his whole weight on your body and pressing you down into the sofa. He began babbling incoherently in your ear as he fucked you for his own pleasure. “Ecco, take it like a good girl. Take your Papa’s cock.”

You felt completely degraded but there was a huge part of you that was thrilled by this. Knowing that Nihil didn’t care for you, knowing that he was just using you to get what he wanted excited you to the point where you should be concerned. But the more he thrust in and out of you, the wetter you became. The closer he got to cumming inside you, the tighter you squeezed without realising you were doing it.

What if he came inside you? What if he got you pregnant? The thought of it should disgust you. This man was old enough to be your father, and barbaric enough to enjoy this because he thought you were sweet and innocent. But you were losing yourself to the pleasure, to the idea that he would release his white, sticky cum inside you and put you at risk for pregnancy. If you were pregnant, then everyone would know. Everyone would see that Papa Nihil had laid claim to the newest sister. You were part of his harem, at his beck and call. Free to use whenever he liked.

“Talk to Papa,” he said, “t-tell me what you’re thinking.”

You moaned. “Papa!”

“Your… your cunt is so tight, scricciolina. Why?”

“I - mmm fuck! Papa! I want your c-cum!”

Nihil chuckled above you. “You want to receive your Papa’s cum, hm? Want - merda - Nihil to knock you up? Fill up this tight cunt and fuck a baby into you? Is that it?”

“Yes!”

“Want to be round and full with my spawn? Such a good. Fucking. Girl.” Each word was punctuated with a thrust.

You had heard rumours from the other sisters who had been in your position that Nihil’s biggest kink was spreading his seed around. Because of your words, he seemed to lose a little more control than he had previously. His mind began to wander and his mouth let slip every single thought. “Cunt so good, might make you my Prime Mover. Might fuck you until you’re pregnant with the antichrist.” Your stomach dropped at the thought, especially since your previous worries had returned at the mention of ‘Prime Mover’ but your mouth released a moan so loud, it bordered on pornographic. The coming of the antichrist was a big deal for the church, and an honour for the woman who bore him. You hadn’t considered it before, but now you had, there was no turning back.

Your legs wrapped around Nihil’s waist and kept him trapped between them, only allowing him to pull back a certain amount. “Fill up my c-cunt, Papa! I want your cum so badly.” You were practically wailing now, your nails running down his clothed back. “Get me pregnant, sh-show the Ministry who I belong to. Please, Papa!”

That seemed to do the trick. With one final and brutal thrust, reaching all the way to the back of your pussy almost painfully, Nihil stilled. His cum spilled out of him while his mouth released a groan so low, it was practically a growl. “Th-that’s it.” He stammered. “T-take my seed.”

When he pulled out of you, you felt his cum leaking from your abused hole. He noticed it too, and spent a little while watching it ooze from you before standing up and dressing himself. “You should head back to your room.” He told you, not even looking in your direction. “You have an early morning, don’t you?”

You adjusted your own clothes, feeling his cum running down your thighs as you stood. “Yes, Papa.”

And with that, you left.

Previous Day ⛧ Next Day

[two-corpses-in-the-burial-mounds]

It's interesting to me how much of the fandom seems to be convinced that Wei Wuxian has low self-worth, considering that I (having only watched the live-action, admittedly) see very little evidence of this in canon.

I assume this is because of his tendency towards self-sacrifice, which shows up multiple times in canon like with the golden core transfer, but I personally think this is a false equivalence. Yes, Wei Wuxian often makes decisions actively detrimental to his own health and wellbeing; he gives his golden core to Jiang Cheng, he takes a curse from Jin Ling, he takes the Wen brand for Liu Qingyang and he takes a whipping from Madam Yu and considers the loss of a hand for Lotus Pier.

However, in none of these circumstances does this choice seem to be made from a lack of care for himself. Instead, it is usually made because he thinks he can handle the situation better than the person in question. Wei Wuxian thinks that between him and Jiang Cheng, he can better handle not having a golden core. Between him and Jin Ling, he thinks he can overcome the course where Jin Ling cannot. The Wen brand is less premeditated, but again the pattern is clear in that Wei Wuxian makes the choice to take the brand because he thinks having it on his chest is better than Liu Qingyang having it on her face. At the fall of Lotus Pier, Wei Wuxian decides that his pain and his hand is an acceptable loss for the lives of everyone in Lotus Pier.

These acts hurt him, but that is a side effect of a larger goal. The choice to handle these events himself does not indicate a lack of value in himself, but rather a prioritization of other goals. However, there seems to be a common conflation of Wei Wuxian's prioritization of others with his not caring or valuing himself. However, if Wei Wuxian doesn't value himself, then why does he make such an effort to survive for as long as he does? If he does not value his own thoughts and opinions, then why does he argue with Lan Qiren in the Cloud Recesses study arc? The problem is not that Wei Wuxian has low self-worth, it is that Wei Wuxian's decision-making process weighs harm to himself as acceptable in the pursuit of his moral imperatives. He wants to live without regrets and stand with justice, and to stand with justice, sometimes he has to walk a single-plank bridge. Necessarily, that will sometimes hurt him.

I suspect this association of Wei Wuxian's sacrificial acts as indicative of low self-worth stems from modern Western storytelling practices, which are deeply interested in the psychology of our characters. Recent media has been interested in the consequences of heroism on the hero themself and fandom especially is heavily interested in the psychological ramifications of these actions on characters. There's an idea that's been popular lately that extreme heroism is inherently self-destructive, and the solution to this is to raise a character's self-worth to convince them that they, too, are worth saving.

Now, whether this applies to Wei Wuxian is up to interpretation. However, he views his actions as correct in many of the sacrificial cases indicated above and these choices are framed by the narrative as being in some way noble. I don't think it's radical to suggest that the above actions cause harm to Wei Wuxian's self; that is not in question. I do, however, doubt that increasing Wei Wuxian's self-worth would change any of these decisions. He isn't throwing himself into harm's way because he believes his life is worth less than those he is taking harm for, he does it because he understands the harm he is incurring and chooses to take it upon himself because he thinks it minimizes the harm that would be done.

Rather than leaving the Jiang sect leader without a golden core, or a child with a very dangerous curse, or a young female cultivator permanently disfigured, or allowing Lotus Pier to be attacked and slaughtered, Wei Wuxians chooses to accept consequences in their place. It is more difficult to replace a sect leader than a head disciple. It is more difficult for Jin Ling to overcome the curse, so Wei Wuxian does it in his place. It is less consequential for a young male cultivator to take that brand to the chest than for a Liu Qingyang to be disfigured unjustly, so he does. It is more important than him, as a singular disciple, that Lotus Pier is safe. This is how Wei Wuxian approaches these problems.

Raising Wei Wuxian's self-worth would not change the reasoning behind these choices. He would not revisit these situations and decide to take a different course of action due the inherent value of himself as a person. His value as a person has always been part of the equation, but it is not his priority.

Self-sacrifice does not inherently equal unwellness. Recent trends in Western storytelling suggest that self-sacrifice is both admirable, but an indicator that a person is struggling. However, there are other models of heroism. There are other sets of values. In some moral systems, the willingness to commit self-sacrifice, even when a person does want to live and does value themself, is an admirable virtue. This appears to be the framework that Wei Wuxian is working within.

Does self-sacrifice inherently mean that a person does not value themself? I don't think so. But it's interesting that a lot of people seem to think it does.

-- Right Corpse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm gonna briefly chime in Right Corpse's post here with my thought as an Asian person:

I totally agree with what RC said here. I don't think self-sacrificing should be conflated with low self-worth. A person can view themselves as noble, upstanding and honorable (which, inherently is a very confident mindset) and be self-sacrificing as a result of that mindset, because helping others in spite of yourself in a dire situation is essentially a very noble trait.

And I'm glad RC brought up Western storytelling practices, because I thought the difference between Western and Eastern's mentality is exactly where this discourse came from. Western mentality is individualism-based, and Eastern mentality is more collectivism-based. Western mentality values individual's well-being, rights and freedom, while Eastern mentality values the well-being of group/societal-unit as a whole. I'm not saying one is better than other, I'm simply pointing out that it makes sense for Wei Wuxian to act the way he did given the setting of the story, regardless of his own view of himself. No matter how much self-worth a person has, growing up in this setting means the expectation is that you'd always put the clan's well-being, your family's well-being above your own. Filial piety is a very heavy expectation in this society, clan loyalty is a very heavy expectation in this world.

A noble, morally-upstanding cultivator who pride himself as such should be doing what Wei Wuxian was doing. And a big part of the MDZS story is definitely a criticism toward all of the clans and cultivators, who call themselves all those traits and did the opposite. Wei Wuxian saved Jiang Cheng not only because he viewed Jiang Cheng as his brother, but also because saving the leader of your clan when you have the mean to was the right thing to do, both for your leader but most importantly, for the clan as a whole, for the region of Yunmeng. Hundreds of people rely on the Jiang family and Lotus Pier, and Jiang Cheng is the figurehead of it. You can argue that Wei Wuxian can take over if JC is indisposed, but that's not how it works, that's not how politics works. So Wei Wuxian made the best choice for the collective given the circumstances, even if that came as a cost to him, and to circle back to what RC said earlier, Wei Wuxian calculated the risk and believed that he can handle that cost, and he did.

Similarly, Wei Wuxian saved Jin Ling because he believed as an adult, he could handle the risk better than a child like Jin Ling, and as a man, he could live with a scar rather than a young woman like Mianmian. In fact, I think he took pride in himself in all of these instances. He didn't boast about them to other people, but I think he's proud of himself that he can live according to his principles and never fail them.

-- Left Corpse

[the-exercist]

Health is not an obligation.

Health is not a moral imperative.

I want you to feel good and to treat yourself well, and that will take on many different forms throughout each of our lives. Do your best and work with what you've got.

Beating yourself up over failing to achieve perfection is about as productive as, well, beating yourself up.

[letters-of-libertas]

I'm bi and yeah your note on women not having solidarity seems sadly true. Apart from not dating men would there be anything you would suggest to improve ones life apart from stating away from those women if possible?

I love this question because this is how to start thinking: being practical.

What it takes to "improve ones life" is subjective so with that said firstly define what a better life(style) for yourself away from moids would look like. Temporarily mentally remove xy terrorist existence. What would your habits/routine be? What would you work towards & pour your energy into? What would you want to be? What would you center your life around? Take your time with these questions or anymore that come up. Have a general idea then be more specific and start breaking your life down into sectors/sections/areas, then look at where you want to be in those areas and work towards it.

For example; I divide my life into 6-7 aspects:

Physical Strength - Not just about muscle but knowing how to fight, where to hit and when to fight. Being stronger makes it easier to defend yourself in altercations (especially with other women). Some mfs will try you & you cant always rely on others coming to your rescue. Also work on building stamina to help endurance, and keeping as healthy as possible.

Emotional Strength - If you cant control your emotions they will control you. In a world of chaos being emotionally strong will let you cut through the noise and focus on what truly matters. Building emotional strength is not easy but it's worth it. Being able to rise above immediate reactions and pace yourself will allow you to assess situations more rationally & make more beneficial choices.

Finances - Get your bag up. Having money to gain resources is imperative to quality of life. I dont care what anyone says having a certain amount of money in life WILL make you happier as you're able to meet your needs better. Having more money/resources also makes it easier to support other women should you choose to do so, it also allows you to be more influential and have more control over your life. However, dont become a slave to getting money tho because that's how you get scammed.

Network - The type of people you hang around can make or break who you are as a person. Aim to connect with likeminded women who will encourage & inspire you as you go on this journey. Hang around people that value & will be honest with you while giving you grace. Not all women you engage with have to be single & childfree but beware the moid crazy ones because they will bring danger to you in their quest for maIe validation. Life isn't perfect but you cant go wrong having the right people around you, valuable relationships are hard to find but it goes a long way even if it's just online. However, no company > bad company.

Spirituality/Guide - Having something bigger than yourself to guide you through the chaos in this world can offer guidance/purpose that keeps you grounded & focused. For many people generally this is religion/god. Not everyone needs or ascribes to religion/spirituality though, but at least consider sets of morals/beliefs to follow. However even that isn't for everyone. So if you feel better off without spirituality or a 'higher' guide at least be clear on it & your reasons why (for yourself).

Hobbies & Interests - As turbulent as the world is, find things to enjoy amidst the chaos. Constant work, doom, and gloom will not change anything you will only hurt yourself. Take time to indulge in things that make you happy to recharge & relax. Engage in hobbies that serve you, share your passion with other women & hear theirs out too. It goes a long way in terms of mental health.

Security - It takes privilege to decide to not get married or have children as a woman & live it out. Everyone's situation is different so what I'll generally suggest is to constantly look into how you can protect yourself, have backup methods, and stay in the loop of xy predation. Dont drown in it but moids are predators & being completely blind to them is being blind to danger. Elaborated on point 10 here.

Sounds like a lot? Great, it'll keep you busy because this isn't a vacation or destination but a lifestyle. And to be honest, some of y'all can do with the busyness as it'll let you focus on what actually matters. This not to say to overwhelm yourself in things for the sake of it but to prioritise your energy on effective things for your life. As you focus on building you'll find that you have less energy to care about insignificant stuff or stuff out of your control anyways. For example, Instead of getting wound up about user somerandomadjectivefem stirring discourse calling you an extremist or whining about how impossible it is for her & other women to live without romantic love n' whatnot (or even women irl pulling this crap), you either ignore or quickly shut down the conversation & swiftly move on.

Everything I've mentioned are just examples, you may feel differently do whatever you feel best applies. Also remember to enjoy the process along the way as you are living through it afterall :3

Long story short: Work on building resources & other aspects of your life up for yourself.

[kemetic-dreams]

All Abrahamic religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, although one who is known by different names. Each of these religions preaches that God creates, is one, rules, reveals, loves, judges, punishes, and forgives. 

However, although Christianity does not profess to believe in three gods—but rather in three persons, or hypostases, united in one essence—the Trinitarian doctrine, a fundamental of faith for the vast majority of Christian denominations, conflicts with Jewish and Muslim concepts of monotheism.

Since the conception of a divine Trinity is not amenable to tawhid, the Islamic doctrine of monotheism, Islam regards Christianity as variously polytheistic.

Judaism and Islam have strict dietary laws, with permitted food known as kosher in Judaism, and halal in Islam. These two religions prohibit the consumption of pork; Islam prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages of any kind. Halal restrictions can be seen as a modification of the kashrut dietary laws, so many kosher foods are considered halal; especially in the case of meat, which Islam prescribes must be slaughtered in the name of God. Hence, in many places, Muslims used to consume kosher food. However, some foods not considered kosher are considered halal in Islam.

With rare exceptions, Christians do not consider the Old Testament's strict food laws as relevant for today's church; see also Biblical law in Christianity. Most Protestants have no set food laws, but there are minority exceptions

The Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA) embraces numerous Old Testament rules and regulations such as tithing, Sabbath observance, and Jewish food laws. Therefore, they do not eat pork, shellfish, or other foods considered unclean under the Old Covenant. The "Fundamental Beliefs" of the SDA state that their members "are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures".

Proselytism

Judaism accepts converts, but has had no explicit missionaries since the end of the Second Temple era.

Judaism states that non-Jews can achieve righteousness by following Noahide Laws, a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[k] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah"—that is, all of humanity. It is believed that as much as ten percent of the Roman Empire followed Judaism either as fully ritually obligated Jews or the simpler rituals required of non-Jewish members of that faith.

Christianity encourages evangelism. Many Christian organizations, especially Protestant churches, send missionaries to non-Christian communities throughout the world. See also Great Commission. Forced conversions to Catholicism have been alleged at various points throughout history. The most prominently cited allegations are the conversions of the pagans after Constantine; of Muslims, Jews and Eastern Orthodox during the Crusades; of Jews and Muslims during the time of the Spanish Inquisition, where they were offered the choice of exile, conversion or death; and of the Aztecs by Hernán Cortés. Forced conversions to Protestantism may have occurred as well, notably during the Reformation, especially in England and Ireland

[spacelazarwolf]

Tipping vs shoplifting anon here, thanks for your response. One more thing though, aren't employers supposed to make it up to waiters if they don't meet the regular minimum wage with tips? Unless I'm misunderstanding the law, I got it from the elaws section of the US Department of Labor website.

i was gonna answer this like a normal person but my autism decided to go overboard.

minimum wage for servers and if/how much their employers are required to credit them depends on the state. some states require employers to pay servers full state minimum wage, but some have a different minimum wage for tipped employees which is where the tip credit comes in. for example, missouri's minimum tipped wage is $6/hr, and state law requires that employers ensure employees are making at least $12/hr. and iirc this doesn't mean they have to look at how much the employee got in tips per hour and if there was one hour they got no tips they'd have to pay them an extra $6, it just means their wages plus tips should average out to at least $12/hr. and the thing with tipped work is that there is an expectation that you will make more than the minimum, which is why employers get away with paying tipped employees so little.

so say we have a hypothetical server who lives in missouri. they work on average around 25 hours a week, usually serving an average of 3 tables per hour and each table's check is usually around $40. if none of their tables tipped for a month and their employer was forced to make up the difference, before tax they would make a total of $1,200. if all their tables tipped an average of $10, before tax they would make a total of $3,600.

that's a huge difference. the first would put you well below the poverty line, especially if you have a family. you would likely not qualify to rent any apartments unless you had a partner whose income could make up the difference, and even though you would qualify for some federal assistance, it's difficult to get and maintain. the second would allow you to qualify for significantly better housing and especially if you had a partner's income to rely on as well you could easily pay for health insurance and other necessities. and all it took was everyone at the table chipping in a few bucks.

if 10 people decide to steal $10 in pencils from walmart, walmart says "darn" then maybe files a loss prevention report. if 10 of our servers tables decide not to tip $10, that's $100 the server could have used to pay their bills or buy groceries. that's not to say tipping is in any way a good model for paying employees. it has an incredibly racist history, and relying on customers to basically pay your employees for you is fucked up. but until the system changes, tipped employees will continue to rely heavily on tips for their livelihood, and i will continue to consider tipping to be a moral imperative.

[mariacallous]

Even as a growing number of foreign governments commit to protecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) people, others are actively marshaling their resources against them. From the Hungarian government’s legal and political attacks on LGBTQI+ people to Iraqi legislation that punishes those who “promote homosexuality” and increases criminal penalties and fines for same-sex relations, the negative trends are significant and concerning.

In many places, politicians blame LGBTQI+ people for a wide array of societal ills to boost their popularity at home and their geopolitical interests abroad, distracting from the real economic, social, and political challenges their countries face. In Georgia, for example, the ruling party may have used anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric to manipulate the political landscape ahead of elections. Meanwhile, in Lebanon, a country long considered relatively welcoming for LGBTQI+ people in the Middle East, one activist described a political leader’s rhetoric as “the manufacturing of a moral panic in order to justify a crackdown, and to deviate public attention away from their unpopular policies.”

Although human rights are seen by some as a lower-priority foreign-policy issue for the United States than so-called hard security threats, the failure to protect them abroad can have significant negative consequences for U.S. interests. Now more than ever, the United States needs to push back against foreign-government repression of LGBTQI+ rights while also doing this work at home. As U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken put it recently, this matters “not just because we have a moral imperative to do so,” but because doing so “helps strengthen democracy, bolster national security, and promote global health and economic development.”

Across a range of issues, it’s clear that anti-LGBTQI+ policies and rhetoric can cause significant damage to many of the United States’ top foreign-policy priorities.

To start, efforts to repress LGBTQI+ rights are often a canary in the coal mine for more severe persecution to come. A 2022 report found, for example: “From Nazi Germany to genocide in Darfur to the breakup of former Yugoslavia, the imposition of ‘moral’ codes that directly assault sexual and gender identities and freedoms came before widespread state-led physical violence and atrocity crimes.”

The targeting of LGBTQI+ people can also be a precursor to, or occur alongside, abuses against other vulnerable populations. The Taliban-promoted sexual assault of and life-threatening attacks on LGBTQI+ people, for example, have occurred concurrently with brutal restrictions on women’s and girls’ participation in education, work, and other aspects of public life. Likewise, vicious torture of gay men in the Russian Republic of Chechnya has taken place against a wider backdrop of long-term human rights abuses by Chechen authorities.

Erosion of LGBTQI+ human rights can also signal and exacerbate the breakdown of democratic norms and institutions, including restrictions on independent media and judicial review, serving as a bellwether for the state of civil society more generally. Russia’s recent detention and prosecution of LGBTQI+ people have paralleled its crackdown on independent journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society.

Countries in which the human rights of LGBTQI+ people are less respected also frequently have greater levels of corruption, partly because discriminatory legal regimes create barriers to reporting wrongdoing by corrupt officials, making LGBTQI+ people an easy target for extortion. Corruption, in turn, compounds other pressing problems: It degrades the business environment, drives migration, and impedes responses to public health crises and climate change. States with endemic corruption are also more vulnerable to terrorist networks, transnational organized crime, gang-related criminal actors, and human traffickers. This is, in part, because threats to transparent and accountable governance are among the root causes of radicalization, and restrictions on LGBTQI+ and other civil society organizations reduce the capacity of those groups to mitigate the conditions conducive to violent extremism, terrorism and other criminal activity.

Not only are anti-LGBTQI+ policies a drag on economic growth, but they are also detrimental to public health. Punitive laws fan the flames of stigma and discrimination, in turn making vulnerable communities reluctant to seek life-saving and public health-protecting services. Across 10 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, HIV prevalence in countries that criminalize homosexuality is five times higher among men who have sex with men than in countries without those laws.

Taken together, the failure to protect LGBTQI+ people’s human rights can create disastrous effects for U.S. interests. State-sponsored discrimination and violence undercut the United States’ tremendous investments in international anti-corruption efforts, counter-terrorism programs, economic development, and public health. And, as the COVID-19 pandemic made clear, a disease threat anywhere can quickly become a disease threat everywhere. The same can be said for terrorism, corruption, and economic instability. When governments target LGBTQI+ people, they also increase the chances that the symptoms and consequences of this repression will spread in their communities and across borders.

Given the stakes, it is crucial that the United States uses the tools and powers it has to promote accountability for human rights abuses and mitigate their harms to U.S. citizens and businesses.

In this respect, the recent heightened repression by the Ugandan government is illustrative. In May 2023, Uganda signed into law the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), which mandated the death penalty for certain “serial” offenses and a 20-year prison sentence for the mere “promotion” of homosexuality. Although the legislation was decried by human rights advocates, it was lauded by some of Uganda’s geopolitical partners as evidence of shared interests. Shortly after the legislation was passed, the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi visited Uganda and made the unfortunately common—and demonstrably inaccurate—claim that homosexuality is a Western import. He also identified opposition to Western support for LGBTQI+ people as “another area of cooperation for Iran and Uganda.” In similar fashion, an editorial on the pro-Kremlin Tsargrad website summarized the law as “a geopolitical victory [for Russia], which they see as the direct result of years of their hard, methodical work [on a] global anti-LGBTQ hate campaign.”

The AHA was the final, egregious straw amid an ongoing decline in respect for human rights, including of LGBTQI+ people, and democratic backsliding in Uganda, and the United States’ response was swift and comprehensive. Underscoring the link between the violation of the human rights of LGBTQI+ people and broader harms to American interests, U.S. President Joe Biden described the law as part of an “alarming trend of human rights abuses and corruption.” The United States issued a business advisory; updated the U.S. Travel Advisory and Country Information Page for Uganda; expanded existing visa restrictions to include those repressing vulnerable populations, such as human rights advocates, LGBTQI+ people, and environmental defenders; supported the World Bank’s decision to pause Uganda’s access to new funds; and imposed sanctions on the Commissioner General of the Uganda Prisons Service for widespread violations of human rights, including credible reports of physical abuse of political opposition and LGBTQI+ people. President Biden also determined that Uganda did not meet the eligibility requirements of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), “on the basis of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

Although the law remains in place, these actions and international attention have had effect: Uganda’s government has not conducted widespread roundups of or ordered death sentences against LGBTQI+ people. But violence, abuse, and evictions have increased in the country, and arrests of LGBTQI+ people have persisted and likely risen under an earlier, colonial-era law that criminalizes same-sex conduct.

As the situation in Uganda demonstrates, the United States has options to respond to foreign governments that fail to uphold their human rights obligations. These measures can be unilateral, as is the case for issuing travel advisories or removing trade preferences, or multilateral, which could involve working with the United Nations, the World Bank, or other multilateral institutions. They can also be affirmative, as opposed to punitive—for instance, expanding humanitarian and development assistance for human rights defenders and mobilizing private sector capital to support businesses that operate consistent with international non-discrimination standards.

As with all diplomatic efforts to address wrongdoing, the choice among these options will vary depending on circumstances, such as whether a government is launching a new campaign against LGBTQI+ people or has an older but little-enforced criminal law on its books. Inevitably, the importance of raising human rights concerns will be weighed against other U.S. priorities, and human rights will not always prevail. However, increasingly, LGBTQI+ issues are being integrated into bilateral relationships, even when doing so is not easy and when quiet diplomacy is the only option. In all circumstances, consultation with LGBTQI+ civil society must be prioritized in weighing the benefits and risks of action to ensure that efforts do not contribute to backlash or negative repercussions for LGBTQI+ people on the frontlines of global human rights movements.

In a recent State Department convening on LGBTQI+ rights in U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Blinken made our commitment clear, telling civil society leaders: “Our promise is this: We will be with you every step of the way. We’ll persevere with you. We’ll listen to you. We’ll learn from you. We’ll help resource and support your fight. And we’ll bring our strength together with yours so that finally together we can build a world where all people are genuinely free—free to be who they are, free to love who they love.”

Although this work may have been in the spotlight during Pride month, it requires our focus year-round. Indeed, our national security depends on it.