#how different are science and religion | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

qqueenofhades · 2 months ago

Note

hi I hope you don't mind but I would love to hear your long tired historian rant you mentioned in your tags on that one post, if you feel in the mood to share? (no pressure!)

(also thank you for existing, you do wonderful work and the world is a better place for you being in it)

Aha. Well. For context, the mention of said rant was in relation to this post:

Basically, this post struck a nerve because of how it exactly encapsulates the anti-intellectual, anti-academia, anti-historical, anti-reality thinking that is absolutely rampant in social media spaces, even and especially spaces that identify as leftist, liberal, or otherwise "superior" to the right wing when it comes to identifying fake news or misinformation. (Example A: anything ever written by a self-proclaimed leftist on Twitter.) We all know that there are huge problems with the American public school system (and the people writing this are almost always American) and the American practice of education in general, and that yes, there are many things that happened in the past (or y'know, the present!) that are not taught very well, or at all. But because the American public school system is so decentralized and largely autonomous, incredibly dependent on the temperament of local superintendents and/or school boards, taxation and funding, availability of teachers, requirement of useless standardized tests, etc., it is very difficult (if not outright impossible) to claim that this is the result of a Unified Grand Conspiracy To Not Teach Real History To The Youth In Order To Make Them Mindlessly Support Capitalism. That is the exact sort of deranged conspiratorial thinking that the right wing does and fits everything into a sinister narrative about how "They" are planning to keep you ignorant and therefore nothing harmful that you ever think or do is really your fault. It's not good.

(Whoosh. That was very calm and reasonable of me. For the rest of this post, please just picture Captain Holt "apparently that's a trigger for me" dot gif.)

Also: even in public school, and despite the Republicans' best efforts, there are plenty of opportunities to study complex or "controversial" subjects. For example, I spend a week every June grading AP Euro History exams with a lot of other educators in a giant windowless steel box (woo-hoo, fun times!) Every year, there are questions on the exam about women's rights, imperialism and exploitation, slavery/race relations, the development of capitalism and the current economic model, religion and science, the history of labor, and other topics that would be considered "controversial" if you're an idiot. This is an exam taken by high school students in all grades from across the country, and there are also AP World History and APUSH (US history) exams every year which are doubtless making an effort to address similar themes. This is an advanced program, yes, but it's widely available to many schools and is not a result of a sinister plot to keep the youth from discovering the truth. Also: you live in an era of absolutely unprecedented access to information. Put down the ChatGPT bullshit generator and visit a goddamn public library. Or even open Wikipedia. The tools are there for you to start educating yourself and they are so easy to find!!!!!

The "Historians Are Hiding The Truth!!!" narrative becomes even more ridiculous in university-level or professional academic historical-study spaces, especially when historical educators and associations (such as the American Historical Association) have been at the forefront of pushing back against right-wing efforts to censor history, punish teachers, and remove culture-war subjects from classrooms. Also as someone who has advanced degrees in history, has taught/worked in several universities in different countries, writes and publishes historical research, and otherwise participates professionally in the field: trust me, we aren't "hiding" shit. There are vigorous debates and disagreements on various bogglingly obscure subjects and points of clarification and so forth, but that doesn't mean we're not talking about them (trust me, we're often talking about them too much). If you're issuing confident blanket statements about how "historians are conspiring to hide x," you're an idiot.

This also has dangerous repercussions in the field of, say, politics and civics, where a lot of absolutely braindead Online Leftists have spent the last four years posting deranged nonsense on social media and then, whenever they're called out on it for that not actually being how anything works at all, whining that "I was never taught this!!!" (And yet, it somehow never actually changes their perspective or their theories....) They whine about how "they didn't know this" and it was someone else's fault, they make up total fantasy about what the Biden administration did or should have done and now are still happy about Trump coming back because "It will teach the Democrats a lesson!!!" and otherwise accelerating us oh-so-quickly down that slippery slippery fascism slope. Their weaponized ignorance and their magical fantasies about what "should" have happened often come back to this same learned helplessness, where it's everyone else's fault (especially Capitalism's) that they're total wankers. Look: I'm not a goddamn fan of capitalism either. But we all grew up in this same system, and some of us aren't raving idiots, so at some point, you have to take the tiniest modicum of personal responsibility for the information you seek out, the content you consume, the opinions you propagate, and the people you surround yourself with. Shocking.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Online Leftists are actively and unrepentantly enabling American fascism and should be treated in the same way as we treat MAGA when it comes to deciding what is good or worthwhile information. This is because their entire political philosophy (insofar as their beliefs can be dignified with the term) is based on the "make shit up and remove it from any basic empirical references, grounding in reality, or 'should I run the most basic Google search and see if I'm completely talking out of my ass in a distorted social media echo chamber? Nah I'm good' " technique. This is, as the original tweet above references, trying to retcon sheer malicious laziness and stupidity into grand ideological theories about how it's actually "better" that they don't know a damn thing and won't shut up. It's your evil history teacher's fault, or "academics are all rich and elitist" (ask any academic-precariat person like me and we will laugh hollowly and then throw monkey poop at you), or "They" wouldn't let you learn this, or on and on. Even in our terrible, awful, no-good very-bad timeline, there are still ample tools to educate yourself, to learn how to filter out bad information and junk news, and otherwise gird yourself even a little for the even-more-massive assault on empirical reality that we are about to experience in the next four years (ugh). I suggest you take advantage of them.

#shootingstarpilot #ask #history #rant #i honestly think that was very restrained of me #there could have been way more expletives capital letters and exclamation points #the national nightmare

629 notes · View notes

captainjonnitkessler · 5 months ago

Text

"Indigenous peoples often have immense scientific knowledge that has been ignored for centuries because it uses a different framework from Western science, and we should stop rejecting that science and learn to work with different ways of looking at nature" - extremely true, extremely cool, I want to know more

"Respecting indigenous science means you have to literally believe in indigenous religion - no it doesn't matter which one, all indigenous religion is just feel-good animism about how nature loves us - and if you ever indicate that you don't believe in spirits you're actually a racist asshole who worships White Science" - this is literally just evangelizing and I'm blocking you

#if i never have to read another braiding sweetgrass quote . . .#atheism #skepticism umbrella

662 notes · View notes

femsolid · 21 days ago

Text

In my opinion, the radical feminist VS gender identity debate boils down to materialism vs dualism and feminism vs post modernism.

To explain:

Mind–body dualism, in essence, postulates that human beings have souls. It's a philosophy that denotes either the view that the mental is non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. Therefore, one can be born male and have a female soul/spirit/essence/psyche/personality/identity. It is compatible with many religions and was promoted by famous philosophers and theologians (often both.) It is a form of spirituality.

On the other hand we have materialism. Radical feminism, marxism, socialism and communism come from materialism. Materialism can also be found in science, such as the theory of evolution.

Materialism is a form of philosophy which holds that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. Mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes in the body without which they cannot exist. It opposes spirituality and dualism and negates the concept of a soul. Therefore, there is no female soul inside of a man's body because there is no soul at all, female or male, only a body. That man's body is male because of its sex which means his personality and thoughts are that of a male.

The other conflict is between feminism and post modernism.

Post modernism, as a philosophy, postulates that there is no "truth" because everything is relative. There is no objective reality, just opinions, perspectives and thoughts. Nothing is real, because everybody is different. There are no facts, only viewpoints. Therefore, postmodern philosophers spend a lot of time discussing theory and abstract concepts instead of the material reality of class struggle and its consequences. Think of all the discussions about "identities", "what is a woman" and how to "feel empowered." In this world, sexism is something relative and abstract, something to talk about, not to fight. To quote Catharine MacKinnon: "students are taught that nothing is real, that disengagement is smart (not to mention careerpromoting), that politics is pantomime and ventriloquism, that reality is a text (reading is safer than acting any day), that creative misreading is resistance (you feel so radical and comfortably marginal), that nothing can be changed (you can only amuse yourself)." Post modernism is directly linked to individualism (a social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective) and neo-liberalism (there is no public interest, only private interests) positioning itself against collectivism, class consciousness and class struggle, all core tenets of feminism.

Feminism is a political and materialistic movement that seeks to liberate women (radical feminism) or at the very least to improve the very real, very concrete, material lives of some women (liberal feminism). It postulates that men and women are social classes and that men are waging a war against women, and have been for centuries. The oppressors and the oppressed are clearly defined, it's not "relative", it's not a viewpoint, it's not "personal": it's historical, political and factual. Strategies and actions are used to free women from male supremacy (radical feminism) or to make said male supremacy more bearable (liberal feminism). In this movement, the idea of Woman the abstract concept or Woman the spirit/personality/soul in a body makes no sense and is considered misogynistic.

To summarize:

-> Trans activists believe that physical bodies are irrelevant or, at the very least, separate from the mind, that reality changes depending on how we think about it, and that women are a personality (and personalities are abstract concepts).

-> Radical feminists believe that women form a social class that is oppressed (even enslaved) by men precisely because of our physical bodies.

Those two positions are irreconcilable.

#trans #gender #radfem #feminism #philosophy #mp #postmodernism #post-modern

220 notes · View notes

elysiansparadise · 7 months ago

Note

Hi again! Can you tell me what does Jupiter in 9th house mean besides being drawn to religion and philosophy? Already thank you for the answer!

Hello love. Sure, I can tell you about this placement.

Jupiter in the 9th house

This astrological position shows a native with a fascinating mind, not only because of the high intelligence they have, but also because of the inquisitive attitude that the wearer has. They tend to be curious people, quick to learn and with immense enthusiasm for new and complex ideas. They are attracted by the strange, the new, what is not as simple as it seems. They are fascinated with intellectual challenges, with what keeps their mind in constant learning. They feel driven by that desire for personal growth, to know themselves and create a path in which to become the person they aspire to be. They question everything around them from a very young age. Many of them, although they appreciate points of view different from their own, will always seek to find what resonates most with them, they seek to define the truth on their own. It is worth mentioning that these natives, from a very early age, have that sense of justice deeply embedded in them, not hesitating to speak their minds when something is not correct under their moral compass. Likewise, they will never try to control other people, allowing them to express themselves and be authentic.

They tend to be people with a lot of knowledge in different areas and can stand out a lot for their intelligence and skills in a specific area. It predicts great success for them in their college student years, whether due to the experiences they will live, socially or academically. Academically they may not have significant problems, and, if Jupiter is well aspected, they may be easily liked and appreciated by teachers. These natives will be good at research, teaching, psychology or in general any activity that puts their mind into action. Many of these natives have a passion and talent for writing, and may be presented with the possibility of publishing or presenting their work to others. It is very likely that these natives have the ability to learn languages, as well as a taste for cultures other than their own. There are great possibilities of traveling abroad, attracting friends, mentors or influential people in your lives who come from other countries. They will not like simplistic or very mundane concepts, as they will prefer to choose to delve into the depths of something, and this not only applies to their interests, but also to themselves and other people. Something that is said a lot about this placement is that long trips are not only exclusive to the physical, but also to the spiritual and personal.

With Jupiter in this house it is common for people to choose to study things related to the humanities, social sciences, law or topics related to the law. Many of them have the philosophy of either doing things well or not doing them at all, and that is something they apply in different areas of their life. Despite how open-minded they can be, they are very blunt and clear people when it comes to their beliefs. They have very well defined what they want and do not want in their lives and what they are not willing to experience again. They may have a strong inclination towards spirituality and the search for universal truth. People can explore different religions, spiritual practices or even philosophical currents. Being in one of its domicile houses, Jupiter can shine easily, bringing luck, opportunities and a lot of wisdom to the life of the native. Ideas are very likely to come spontaneously to your minds, especially when you least look for them. They can easily be inspired by things that others don't see appeal or greatness in. They know how to appreciate the little things in life.

#astrology #jupiter #9th house #astro #jupiter in the 9th house #astrology content #natal chart #birth chart #astro note #astro observations #astrology notes #astrology observations

371 notes · View notes

txttletale · 11 months ago

Note

Can you elaborate on what you think would be the minimal needed changes to fix what you see as an issue in Civ? Civ has done fairly large shifts in some mechanics before, and "civ like" is still an interesting game space that can scratch certain itches

yeah i mean as i said, the baked-in racism arises from a certain set of core assumptions that i think lock it into that position, which are that civ is a

1) symmetrical

2) 4X

game about

3) 'real world civilizations' (deeply loaded terms ofc but that's how civ envisions them)

4) trying to 'win the game'

5) with a global

6) and transhistorical

scope

so, in its role as a symmetrical (1) game with victory conditions (4), civ as a text has to take positions on what constitutes a 'successful civilization'. as a (2) 4X game this definition also has to include some variation on the profoundly loaded eponymous Xs, 'explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate'. furthermore, as a (1) symmetrical game with a global, transhistorical (5, 6) scope, it has to necessarily create a model of what 'a civilization' looks like and apply it to every 'civilization' it wants to include, at all points in their history.

this all kind of naturally leads into civ being a game in which the colonial european imperialist powers are the default 'civilizations' and all other cultures are basically just like them -- a game where technology progresses linearly and innovations are made in the order they were in european imperial history -- a game where all cultures fundamentally work in the same way and hold similar values, a game where all religions are based on christianity (i mean, just look at civ vi's system, where every religion has a 'prophet', 'apostles', 'missionaries' and 'inquisitors'), a game where not only do cultures have teleological overarching 'goals' but where these goals are shared and these goals are fundamentally based on imperialist visions of 'victory'.

to drill into some specific examples: you can't play a game of civilization without founding cities. you will constantly be founding cities. when you're playing as 'the mongols' or 'the cree' or 'scythia', this makes no sense! these were peoples who historically had rich culture, science, arts, and certainly a notable military history, but were (to varying degrees, at varying times in their history, i don't mean to create a new and similarly heterogenous absolutist category here) nomadic!

similarly, to advance in civilization you must invent 'the wheel'. 'the wheel' is necessary to many later innovations, while of course the andean peoples represented by the playable 'inca' never made significant use of the wheel because the lack of suitable pack animals and environmental factors meant that it did not, in fact, prove a suitable tool for transporting large quantities of heavy goods. for an even more glaring example, a lot of early military technology is locked behind 'horses', which is pretty absurd considering that several of the game's playable civilizations, in the real world, developed plenty of military technology despite living on a continent without any horses!

so having established what i mean by 'the issue', which is that the game's core assumptions lock it into imposing a eurocentric, imperialist vision of 'civilization' onto cultures where it doesn't make sense, here's a few different jenga blocks you could pull out to resolve it:

SID MEIER'S EUROPE

the pillar you knock out here is #5. keep the game engine and core assumptions just as founded on eurocentric imperialist societies as they are now, and just make it about european empires doing imperialism. now, i think we can immediately spot some problems in there -- how are we going to represent the rest of the world? after all, this kind of just creates a situation where, either as NPC factions or as outright exclusions, all other cultures in the world are deprived of any meaningful agency in "history". this one just kind of gives you a new problem and also from a gameplay standpoint results in a game that just Has Less Stuff On It. i think this is a bad one

SID MEIER'S ELYSIUM

now here's one you can get if you knock out pillar #3. keep the same assumptions and gameplay and transhistorical global narrative scale, but remove the 'real-world' aspects. you can get real silly with it and add fantasy stuff to it, or you can be a relatively grounded 'our-world-but-to-the-left' situation. now to some extent this already matches a lot of the features already in civ games: after all, unless you specifically load in a 'true start location earth' map, you're usually playing on a strange parallel world with semiplausible but wholly original continents! now, you also need to get some fucking Nerds and Geeks working at your company to build out your fictional world, or you'll just end having pointlessly pallette swapped a bunch of factions that are now just Schmance, Schmina, and the Schoman Schempire, and not really have avoided the issue. but if you do that, and invent a deep and rich fictional history to riff on, then you could create something really cool and incorporate alt-tech or fantasy or retrofuturistic elements or all sorts of cool shit.

the downside of this is that it makes your game less accessible and appealing to a lot of people. a big part of (at least the initial) appeal of civilization is pointing at the screen and saying 'hey i recognize that thing!'. it is instantly more accessible to someone who isn't super invested in strategy or fantasy dork shit to say to them 'you can be BRAZIL and nuke FRANCE while at war with CHINA and allied to BABYLON'.

more importantly than that, i think some parts of the historical theming (because let's be honest, it is ultimately theming, i don't think civ is interested in 'history' in any serious way) serve a pretty load-bearing role in the game's information economy. it's a pretty tall order to ask a player to remember the unique abilities of dozens of factions and unique wonders, and the historical background makes it a lot easier. e.g., it is a lot easier for a player looking at wonders to remember 'the pyramids need to be built on desert' or 'broadway will help me make more culture' than it would be for them to remember the requirements/effects of 'under-eusapia' or the 'wompty dompty dom center'. i think this is one of the number one things that, if subtracted, would meaningfully create something that is no longer 'sid meier's civilization'.

SID MEIER'S ALPHA CENTAURI

now if you cut out #3 and #5 and #6 on the other hand... sid meier's alpha centauri is not technically an entry in the civilization franchise, but i think most people correctly consider it one. it has similar 4X gameplay to the series, and its (very bad) spiritual successor beyond earth was an official entry. instead of 'civilizations', the playable factions are splinters from a colony ship that fell into civil war as soon as it landed, each one representing a distinct ideology. now, y'know, this doesn't mean it's free from Some Problems (the portrayal of the Human Hive in particular is some of the worst apects of 90s orientalism all piled together) but i think they're problems it's not at all locked into by its design!

SID MEIER'S THERMOPILAE

by cutting out #5 and #6 -- making a civ game about a particular time and place in history you could achieve something much more richly detailed in mecahnics while also being able to handwave a lot more homogeny into it. giving the same basic mechanics to, say, every greek city-state in the peloponnesian war is far less ideologically loaded than giving them to every 'historical civilization' someone who watched a few history channel documentaries once can think of. it also lets you get really into the weeds and introduce era-and-place-specific mechanics.

the scale needs to be smaller conceptually but it doesn't really have to be smaller in terms of gameplay -- just make maps and tech trees and building more granular, less large-scale and more local and parochial and specific. this also gives you the advantage of being able to do the opposite of the last two options and really lean hard into the historical theming.

if this sounds like a good idea to you, then good news -- old world does something pretty similar, and it's pretty good! worth checking out.

SID MEIER'S LOVE AND PEACE ON PLANET EARTH

what if we take an axe to #2 and #4? instead of putting all these civilizations into a zero-sum game of violent expansion, make it possible for several civilization to win, for victory goals to not inherently involve 'defeating' or 'beating' other factions. now, that doesn't mean that the game should be a confictless city-builder -- after all, if you've decided to be super niceys and just try and make your society a pleasant place to live, that doesn't mean that the guy next to you isn't going to be going down the militarist-expansionist path. hell, even if all you want to do is provide for your citizens, a finite map with finite resources is going to drive you into conflict of some kind with your neighbours in the long run.

to make this work you'd have to add a bunch of new metrics -- 'quality of life', for example, as a more granular and contextual version of the 'happiness' mechanics a few games have had, or 'equality', game metrics that you could pursue to try to build an egalitarian, economically and socially just society where everyone is provided for. after all, why shouldn't that be a goal to strive for just as much as going to mars or being elected super world president or whatever?

SID MEIER'S DIVERSE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS

ultimately, all cards on the table, if i was made god-empress of The Next Civ Game, this is the option i'd go for: jettison #1 as much as practically possible, introduce as much asymmetry into the game as you can. some civilizations keep the established settler-city model -- others are nomadic, building their units in movable 'camps' -- maybe the 'colonial' civilizations, your USA and Brazil and so on, can be like the alien factions from the alpha centauri DLC, only showing as NPCs at the appropriate point in the timeline when other civs are colonizing other continents, or putting you into an accelerated-forward version of the game if you choose to play as one.

you could combine this with a more interesting version of humankind's civ-choosing system, where you lock certain civilization choices behind specific gameplay events. this would let you do crazy shit with the balancing -- imagine an ostrogothic kindgom civ with crazy strong abilities and units that you could only choose to play as if your capital is overrun by barbarians, or a hungarian civ that requires you to have started as a nomadic civ and invaded somewhere, or a soviet union civ that requires you to lose a revolution, or a usamerican civ that requires you to split off all cities on a foreign continent from your original civ -- you could add so much variety and so many new and bizarre strategies into the game with this!

as for the universal aspects of tech and the narratives of linear progression contained within, there are lots of approaches that already solve this! stuff like stellaris' semi-random branching tech paths, or endless space 2's circular tech web, could allow civilizations to take tech paths that make sense for them, rather than imposing one single model of 'technological progress' on the wole world.

obviously there's limits to this, right -- civilization isn't going to be a detailed historical materialism simulator any time soon. but i think abandoning the idea that every faction has to play fundamentally the same and introducing some severe asymmetry as well as choices that you can make after starting the game would work wonders to wash out some of the racist and colonialist assumptions built into the game's foundation, while also (imo) creating a more fun and interesting game.

#ask

1K notes · View notes

starryoak · 2 years ago

Text

The fact is that if you seriously believe in it, astrology is basically objectively indefensible from any standpoint besides, I guess, “people should be allowed to hold bigoted opinions as long as it’s a deeply held spiritual belief”, which, I hope at least you’re ideologically consistent in applying that rule!

For one, there’s the birthday racism thing, where fundamentally, believing that people’s personalities are immutably defined by the circumstances of their birth is a reactionary and inherently bigoted opinion, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a useful idiot for people using astrology to justify their pre-existing prejudices.

But here’s the thing! That’s only the start of how astrology is an incoherent pseudoscience from back before humans had actual methods of proving things and testing assertions, one that needs to be abandoned to the annals of fiction so we can continue to grow past our bigotries and abandon superstitions that enable them.

Any studies that try to assess its accuracy with any standards for proof whatsoever come up empty, and any mechanism for how it could possibly work makes no logistical sense whatsoever if you even think about it for more than five seconds. Let’s get into it.

The fact is, that if astrology is true, it would be true always, and it would be true because it is actually a physically present force in our world. There is no such thing as a force that can cause things to happen without being detectable in some way, even if it’s only detectable upon analysis as an absence of detectable things, like dark matter! Trying to justify otherwise is completely bizarre and unscientific.

It’s true that being born at different times in the year has an effect on you, but that is not in fact the same as meaning that astrology is correct. We’ve barely studied the phenomenon enough to know anything concrete, but we do know that the claims astrology makes about these things are wrong.

Some of the only way stars can physically affect you is gravity and light, and the gravity from stars is so miniscule it cannot be detected, and it starts getting into questions like:

-How does the gravity from a specific collection of stars affect someone’s personality and why are those collections special, when they’re just arbitrary groupings that we made up?

-If it’s not gravity, then what? Is it light, the only other thing we receive from stars? If so, how does the light affect people when they aren’t in the direct visible zone to see those stars at the time they’re born?

-If not those, then what? And if so, what are those forces that stars emit that cause this, and why haven’t we detected it in other forms if so? Why does it affect humans specifically this way? How do you know and how did you prove it exists? Why is it not a universally known and understood phenomenon that we can test objectively?

-How does the arbitrary grouping of stars stop exerting those forces on people from different months when they’re so far away any force exerted based on where you are wouldn’t change from month to month?

-In fact, all of these stars are present at all times all around us! Awfully odd that astrology doesn’t change based on where you are in the world, isn’t it? After all, if it’s some form of energy emitted by stars that is affecting people differently based on different months, shouldn’t it be that they only affect people facing them? But it doesn’t change based on whether you’re in the southern or northern hemisphere, for some reason! Odd!

-How does the energy emitted from these stars change so that someone born on December 21st, 11:59:59 PM is so fundamentally different from someone born on December 22nd, 12:00:00 AM such that they’re entirely different categories of people, Sagittarius and Capricorn?

-How convenient is that whatever these mysterious energies do and how they change happens to work out perfectly to align with human conception of our day/night cycle and human months!

-And if someone is going to claim that’s somehow a misunderstanding and ‘real’ astrology actually has an explanation for that, I sure hope someone can clarify in a way that doesn’t contradict any other highly esteemed astrologers! Sure is interesting that there’s no standardized methodology or way of testing this because astrologers have no consistent methodology or agreement on how any of this works! It’s very convenient to have unfalsifiable claims so you never have to prove anything, after all!

-It’s awful convenient, also, that the ways that these things work out is so that they result in Barnum Statements; statements that exploit a common tendency for humans to see extremely vague and general statements applied to them as extremely accurate and tailored to them specifically, even when they could apply to anyone. Really interesting how those are a common tactic of conmen! Definitely doesn’t say anything about the general validity of horoscopes or astrology!

And that’s not even all the potential objections I could come up with as to why astrology is fundamentally incompatible with a belief in almost any science whatsoever! It’s just the ones I could think of off the top of my head! Have a video on other objections that may include mine.

I understand that people who believe in astrology tend to be the kind of idiots who don’t care about science being a thing that exists and can test whether things are true or false and prove it to the greatest extent we can declare anything objectively, but I believe that fundamentally, anything that cannot be proven to be true must be treated as false, and it being a ‘deeply held spiritual belief’ doesn’t actually protect it from being evaluated and assessed as true or false.

Ok, admittedly, that was mean of me. It’s not idiocy, it’s just a fact that humans, and in fact, other animals, are attracted to superstitions due to reasons not fully understood at this time, likely instincts that helped our ancestors survive in the wild, because pattern recognition that can’t be turned off is an asset, even when it results in pseudoscience. People aren’t stupid for falling prey to the inbuilt human bias towards pattern matching that is in fact also the basis of science as we know it. But that doesn’t mean that astrology is true. It just means that it’s a result of apophenia, a natural human bias towards finding connections whether or not they exist.

And of course, then you have people come out of the woodwork assuring you, no, but I promise, astrology is just for fun! Nobody actually believes in it! Well, uh, that’s incorrect! Incredibly incorrect!

Astrology is absolutely used to discriminate against people in real life circumstances! If someone puts out a call for roommates but says Capricorns need not apply? That’s housing discrimination.

If a company puts out calls that they’re looking to hire “Gemini, Libra or Aquarius”, that’s job discrimination. It’s just objectively job discrimination and so obviously bad I can’t believe I have to link multiple fucking examples here.

Do you want to hear one of the most terrifying two word combination I’ve heard in a while? “Forensic Astrologer”. That’s right; criminal profiling that takes into account astrology.

A different form of astrology, but did you know? In Japan, there’s a superstition regarding the 43rd combination of the sexagenary cycle, the Fire Horse, that says that women born in that year will grow up to kill their husbands, that was so widely believed in that during the last year of the fire horse, 1966, the birth rate dropped 25%.

Once again, a different kind of astrology, in India, these things are taken extremely seriously, to the point where it’s common to assess relationship and marriage compatibility or even arrange them based on Vedic astrology, called Kundali matching, and frankly, I think it should be self evident as to why that’s a bad fucking idea. Hell, even just anecdotally, want any number of horrific descriptions of familial abuse based on stupid fucking bullshit? Check out the notes for this post and feel free to read all the people recounting their experiences with being mistreated for having the audacity to pop out of their mom’s vagina at the wrong time.

And to be completely frank here, if the best defense of an ideology any of its practicioners can come up with is that they know that it’s stupid and wrong, that’s honestly already the most damning indictment I can even conceive of.

If your claim in support of an ideology is that it’s so obviously wrongheaded on the face of it that only a moron would take it seriously, what does that say about you for knowing that and supporting it anyway?

I know that I’m being overly wordy here, but I can’t think of any other way to word this shit without being far more uncharitable about this than I already am. The TLDR here is; evidence based beliefs are good and based and unfalsifiable beliefs are bad and cringe.

I understand why it’s fun, I’m not stupid, arbitrary categorization is one of humanity’s favorite habits! But being fun is not enough to justify keeping around an ideology that is fundamentally predicated upon judging people based on things that they can’t control.

Astrology belongs in the only place where it can actually exist. Fiction.

We need to make it clear that men are not the only ones cool enough to reject astrology and religion.

#I’m a cis woman to be clear #or well #i’m autistic so cis is a strong word #but still cis in terms of I am comfortable identifying with the genitals I was born with #even if it’s a stupid system and dichotomy #skepticism #atheism #astrology #anti astrology #I borrowed some of the links from a different post by OP #thanks btw #science #astrology is my least favorite pseudoscience frankly #Because like I may be an atheist #But at least I respect that most religion nowadays has retreated to only making fact claims about the afterlife #Which while it is inherently unfalsifiable and thus suspect #at least it’s leaving reality alone so the rest of us can get on with our inherently finite lives #(Criticizing religion where it fails to do this is valid imo as long as it focuses on the facts of the matter so it doesn’t turn bigoted)#astrology has the gall to make objectively verifiable claims about reality #that people just refuse to address can be proved to be false #and retreat to justifying it with promises that they super duper promise it’s not FOR REALS #when frankly I don’t trust you! I don’t trust anyone on this!#I don’t trust the average person to be able to believe in these things for fun and then dismiss them entirely when making serious decisions #I think that if you believe in something for fun #You probably will believe in it for real even if just a little!#what’s that term? Shrodinger’s asshole?#Where you decide if you were joking about an offensive belief based on the reception of your audience?#yeah that’s how I worry some of you work with astrology. It’s all a joke until suddenly it’s not #to be clear it is fun and deeply historically meaningful for many cultures but that ultimately doesn’t mean it’s correct!#discourse

1K notes · View notes

specialagentartemis · 5 months ago

Note

ykw i am having so much fan watching you be a hater, that i’ve decided to ask for more. PLEASE give us a rant about a book you hated.

Haha aw I'm honored. And uh I hope you don't have any particular attachment to Becky Chambers. Sorry in advance.

But A Psalm for the Wild-Built won a Hugo and I do not get the love. Book 1 was nice enough, yeah. Book 2 had me tearing my hair out.

Sibling Dex is a restless Tea Monk who serves the God of Small comforts on the science-fantasy planet of Panga. I genuinely love the idea of a tea monk - part therapist, part confessor, travels around to the different towns, mixes tea blends for people, lets them talk about their worries and fears and stresses, and gives them, if not advice, then sympathy and a listening ear and some calming tea. This is meaningful work but they're unhappy. After doing this for a while they're still unsatisfied with their life, so they go into the woods searching for self-actualization, and meet a robot named Mosscap, a wild robot that lives in the woods. See, hundreds of years ago, all the robots "woke up" and became sentient one day, then they staged a quiet rebellion against humanity's greed and industrialization by walking into the woods and never coming back. Now, the continent is split in half: humans stay on the Human Side, and robots stay on the Robot Side. The Robot Side is kept wild and humans are discouraged from going in there because humans can't be trusted not to ruin Nature. The rpbots are welcome to come to the Human Side, they just never have. Dex is the first person in a While to venture into the woods of the Robot Side, and the first human since the great walkout to see a robot. Mosscap gives Dex a lot of philosophical pep talks about not pushing themself so hard, about allowing themself to just rest and appreciate the world without feeling like they need to be Providing A Service to justify their existence. It's a nice theme. Underbaked, imo, but nice. Relateable.

Book 2 was a goddamn mess.

Book 1 mostly takes place in the wilderness of the woods, so it's okay if the nice utopian human community Dex comes from was sketchily-built. It Just Works, and everyone Is Just Nice, this is a science-fantasy parable. There were some issues I had with it - like the strict ideological and physical divide between Nature and Humans, and the fact that Dex's religion seems to be the Only Religion In The World, and it's vaguely secular-humanist with the gods being not "really" gods but names given to primordial forces and philosophical concepts, and the religion not really making any demands of its adherents in any way except to become their best selves and devote themselves to what they like... it's potentially interesting, but overall kinda lazy. It felt like Becky Chambers was aware of the idea that having an enlightened-atheist sci-fi utopia is Problematic, so she made there be a central religion, but she also didn't want it to have any of the ~icky~ things religions have, like belief in anything supernatural, or dietary restrictions, or creeds, or codes of behavior, or expectations to make any kind of sacrifice in any way. All the gods "ask" is that humans observe and appreciate the world. But whatever.

In book 2, Dex and Mosscap return to Dex's society, and the book seems to want to explain how the world works, and oh my GOD is Chambers not prepared to do this.

"Observe and appreciate" is all anyone is asked to do. Book 2, A Prayer for the Crown-Shy, is an ode to ultimate virtue of Doing Nothing. There's this attitude I see in a LOT of utopian fiction, where the author is bluntly just not a good enough author to imagine a utopian society where people act like people, so in the world of Panga, utopian society is achieved through 1) homogeneity 2) no one giving a crap about anything.

As far as I can tell, there is the one religion. Most people are Fine with this. Most people are Fine with anything. There are no characters with distinct personalities. There's no money, except there is, except it's not real money and no one will deny you anything if your balance is in the red, even though your balance is available to be seen by anyone - this does not cause any kind of shame or pride or competition in any way, and Dex doesn't understand why it might. There are no hierarchies or governing bodies, people just volunteer to step up when things need doing (this is portrayed as great and not deeply concerning). There are different communities, but in them, everyone is uniformly nice, friendly, and helpful at all times. There are some parts of nature, like the seashore, where people are not allowed to go because they'll ruin the environment, and this is accepted as correct and necessary. Most people live in hippie, pro-recycling, high-tech, end-of-history green communities; there's one group they visit, however, that doesn't trust technology, and lives in a vaguely sci-fi-Amish way. You might think, Dex travelling around with a robot, this might cause conflict! It does not. The people from this community calmly explain their anti-technology position, Dex calmly explains their pro-technology position, and they politely respect each other. "Not bothered either way" is a phrase that turns up in various permutations a lot and is held up as the good, mature, responsible way to be.

There's a scene where they catch a fish for dinner, and instead of killing it, the scifi-Amish guy says "We let the air do that for us, and they let the fish slowly suffocate to death in the air while they all look on solemnly and sadly. This is portrayed as a deep, beautiful moment of them witnessing and honoring the final moments of a living being's life. And not. y'know. them torturing a living being to death so they can keep their own hands clean.

This is what I mean about the valorization of passivity: observing is all you are ever obligated to do. Letting a fish die in the air is better than killing it quickly and humanely, because doing things gets your hands dirty, while letting things simply happen is the Correct way to do it.

At the end, Mosscap and Dex blow off all their promises and appointments and just hang out at the beach chilling out instead, because do what you want forever, you don't have to do shit. This is the happy affirming ending. Mosscap you fucking said you'd meet with the city leaders as the robot ambassador to the humans, did you tell them you were blowing off this commitment because you didn't feel like doing that anymore??? Did you even let them know??????

It is SUCH a baffling book. The theme wants to be "you are more than your job, you deserve to just Be" and ends up feeling like "you don't have to do anything ever, and no one can make you do anything you don't want to do if you don't feel like it, and you don't owe anyone anything and searching for a purpose in your life is just making you stressed out so chill at the beach instead."

The thing that drives me crazy is like. Mosscap cheerfully tells Dex about robots that spend twenty years in a cave watching stalactites form because they think it's beautiful, and those robots are just as much a valued part of society as anyone else. Appreciating beauty and wonder is good enough, you don't need to be productive. And I'm just. fuckin. like. Humans are not robots! Robots don't need to eat or sleep! Humans need food, and clothes, and shelter, and medical care, and if we don't have SOMEONE working to provide that, we Die! Nice as it would be, we CAN'T just all do nothing forever until we feel like it! We can't do that!

And at the same time, the book bizarrely treats wanting a purpose in life as like... almost disordered. If you are seeking a purpose in life it's because you just haven't let go of your guilt and relaxed enough. It's bizarre. Valorization of passivity. Humans aren't meant to be in nature so we just Shouldn't. Doing nothing and having no strong opinions is the most self-affirmed you can possibly be. Letting a fish suffocate is more moral than quickly breaking its neck or spiking its brain. Someone else will do it. Who, if we're all supposed to be resting and only doing what we feel like? Don't worry about it.

"The heart of this book is comfort [...] There is nothing in it that can hurt you." YOU LIAR BECKY CHAMBERS THE FISH SCENE STILL DISTURBS AND UPSETS ME TO THIS DAY

#Monk and Robot #books #sorry to the fans #asks #serenity-the-firefly

332 notes · View notes

fairuzfan · 1 year ago

Note

Hey, I've read your post reply on the ask about the Standing together movement, and there you mentioned that it's incorrect to separate Palestinians and Jews and create a false dichotomy when speaking about liberating Palestine and anti-occupation movement. Could you please elaborate on that? It's a very interesting take that I haven't heard before yet.

So I generally don't understand why we are separating "Palestinian" and "Jews" with no potential for overlap between the two. By separating them, this implies, fundamentally, that there can be no Jewish Palestinians which... is not true. Just even historically, Jewish Palestinians exist and continue to exist.

Why are they mutually exclusive terms within their mission statement when they wish to "stand together"? And I'm not saying this in a condescending manner, I'm saying this because I know there are Palestinians who live in Israel who insist on being referred to as Palestinian. They won't let their Palestinian identity be erased under any circumstances. But they're the only group at risk of having that happen to them. Jewish people are not at risk of having their Jewishness erased for being Palestinian. So how can it be "standing together" when you acknowledge that there is a divide, societally, between perceptions of identity where one is at risk of total destruction by another and you, yourself, do not risk anything?

Where do Jewish Palestinians fall in this dichotomy, exactly? Does that mean no Palestinian will be able to convert to Judiasm without giving up their Palestinian identity? Are Jewish people just innately separated from Palestinians as a whole? If so, what is the thing that categorizes "Palestinian" in their eyes? Is it their religion? Well it can't be, because Palestinians have a diverse array of religions and like I said, people who identity as Palestinian and Jewish exist and are at risk of having their "Palestinian" erased in favor of their "Jewish" one.

Is it their ethnicity? Also can't be, because there is a vast array of ethnicities within Palestinian society. Unless they mean Palestinian=Arab, which is erasure. It erases Armenian Palestinians who play an integral part in Palestinian culture, for example.

So like what is the separation exactly? How are these mutually exclusive categories and how are we defining them? Unless, which is the reason that underlies all this, you mean to say that there is a difference between people who are Palestinians and people are Jewish innately in some unidentifiable manner?

Now, many Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship are not really subject to equal rights lol. And those rights are taken away *because* they are Palestinian. You have to acknowledge that. So when we say "Jewish and Palestinian" in a mission statement where you intend to """solve""" inequality, you're already setting that distinction in your mind that there is an actual difference between these people. So it's problematic in that vein.

But also, the group doesn't address the systematic abuses Palestinians face for YEARS, even before the Likud government. You can't erase that and attribute it to Netanyahu only. You have to address that the very system of Israel was founded on the mass expulsion and erasure of Palestinians, that includes Palestinian Jews.

But again, we have this dichotomy of "Jewish" and "Palestinian," setting into motion that "Palestinian" is somehow an identity that is separate from "Jewish." And through what definitions are we imposing that difference? Through... race science? Through cultural differences? Well, again, what about people who have cultural overlaps. Like if a nonJewish Palestinian marries a Jewish person who is not Palestinian and their child is growing up with both cultures? What does that mean for them? What does that mean for the two people who got married? And even Jewish Palestinians, are they having to give up their Palestinian side for marrying someone Jewish? Won't that cause further inequality within our groups? Isn't this separation just a nicer worded version of segregation in that way?

We have to acknowledge that it is within the state of Israel's interests, at their core, to separate these two identities. So by playing into this narrative, we're continuing the very colonization of history as they try to rewrite the past, implying that Jewish Palestinians especially were not considered a part of Palestinian culture and werent allowed to partake in it.

And it's just, to me, very racist to assume that there can't be overlap between these two types of people. It's happened in Palestine for centuries. But when Balfour comes in and is like "here you go, Jewish people of European cultural heritage, here is your homeland, nevermind the other people who have customs and traditions here, just do whatever you want and get out of Europe," everyone just nods their head like yeah that's reasonable. They didn't even try to learn Palestinian culture and life they just kicked us out. I'd argue that Palestinians would have welcomed Jewish immigrants who sought a safe homeland, so long as they didn't kick us out and enact nearly a century of violence. Palestine is the holy land for a reason! This land is the convergence of faiths and ideas and culture in such a unique way. Labeling it "Palestine" emphasizes that Palestinians are diverse and allow for an overlap of identities!

Essentially, when you try to separate groups of people like this, particularly when the separation of "Palestinians" (or more commonly referred to as "arabs" in Israeli society. Even our identities are erased to homogenize us) and "Jews," it makes it seem like Palestinians are fundamentally anti-jewish and antisemitic. And historically, just doesn't even make any sense.

#palestine

811 notes · View notes

alpaca-clouds · 4 months ago

Text

Worldbuild Differently: Unthink Religion

This week I want to talk a bit about one thing I see in both fantasy and scifi worldbuilding: Certain things about our world that we live in right now are assumed to be natural, and hence just adapted in the fantasy world. With just one tiny problem: They are not natural, and there were more than enough societies historically that avoided those pitfalls.

Tell me, if you have heard this one before: You have this fantasy world with so many differnet gods that are venerated. So what do you do to venerate those gods? Easy! You go into those big temple structures with the stained glass in their windows, that for some reason also use incense in their rituals. DUH!

Or: Please, writers, please just think one moment on why the fuck you always just want to write Christianity. Because literally no other religion than Christianity has buildings like that! And that has to do a lot with medieval and early post-medieval culture. I am not even asking you to look into very distant cultures. Just... Look of mosques and synagogues differ from churches. And then maybe look at Roman and Greek temples. That is all I am asking.

Let's make one thing clear: No matter what kind of world you are building, there is gonna be religion. It does not matter if you are writing medieval fantasy, stoneage fantasy, or some sort of science fiction. I know that a lot of atheists hate the idea that a scifi world has religion, but... Look, human brains are wired to believe in the paranormal. That is simply how we are. And even those atheists, that believe themselves super rational, do believe in some weird stuff that is about as scientific as any religions. (Evolutionary Psychology would be such an example.)

What the people will believe in will differ from their circumstance and the world they life in, but there is gonna be religion of some sort. Because we do need some higher power to blame, we need the rituals of it, and we need the community aspect of it.

Ironically I personally am still very much convinced that IRL even in a world like the Forgotten Realms, people would still make up new gods they would pray to, even with a whole pantheon of very, very real gods that exist. (Which is really sad, that this gets so rarely explored.)

However, how this worship looks like is very different. Yes, the Abrahamitic religions in general do at least have in common that they semi-regularily meet in some sort of big building to pray to their god together. Though how much the people are expected to go into that temple to pray is actually quite different between those religions and the subgroups of those religions.

Other religions do not have this though. Some do not have those really big buildings, and often enough only a select few are even allowed into the big buildings - or those might only be accessible during some holidays.

Instead a lot of polytheistic religions make a big deal of having smaller shrines dedicated to some of the gods. Often folks will have their own little shrine at home where they will pray daily. Alternatively there are some religions where there might be a tiny shrine outside that people will go to to pray to.

Funnily enough that is also something I have realized Americans often don't quite get: Yeah, this was a thing in Christianity, too. In Europe you will still find those tiny shrines to certain saints (because technically speaking Christianity still works as a polytheistic religion, only that we have only one god, but a lot of saints that take over the portfolios of the polytheistic gods). I am disabled, and even in the area I can reach on foot I know of two hidden shrines. One of them is to Mary, and one... I am honestly not sure, as the masonry is too withered to say who was venerated there. Usually those shrines are bieng kept in a somewhat okay condition by old people, but yeah...

Of course, while with historically inspired fantasy settings make this easy (even though people still hate their research), things get a bit harder with science fiction.

Again, the atheist idea is often: "When we develop further scientifically, we will no longer need religion!" But I am sorry, folks. This is not how the human brain works. We see weird coincidences and will go: "What paranormal power was responsible for it?" We can now talk about why the human brain has developed this way. We are evolved to find patterns, and we are evolved (because social animal and such) to try and understand the will others have - so far that we will read will in nature. It is simply how our brains work.

So, what will scifi cultures believe in? I don't know. Depends on your worldbuilding. Maybe they believe in the ghost in the machine, maybe there si some other religions there. You can actually go very wild with it. But you need to unthink the normativity of Christianity to do that. And that is... what I see too little off.

#worldbuilding #fantasy worldbuilding #science fiction #scifi worldbuilding #religion #fantasy religion #forgotten realms #dungeons & dragons #dnd #writing #fantasy writer

321 notes · View notes

literaryvein-reblogs · 4 months ago

Text

Worldbuilding Worksheets

Worksheets & Templates Geography; World History; City; Fictional Plant

GEOGRAPHY

Major…

Geographical features:

Geographical events:

Climate / flora zones:

Landscapes:

Resources:

Boundaries:

Routes:

Questions to consider…

How does the geography change over time?

What lies outside the boundaries of the world?

Are there unexplained geographical phenomena?

How does geography affect transport?

Are there cycles of change?

How do people interact with the landscape?

How do their activities alter the landscape?

How well are people adapted to the landscape?

How do people study and record their world's geography?

How well do people know the geography of their world?

What are some misconceptions about their landscapes?

Does the landscape provide enough resources?

How does the landscape change people?

Are there unreachable or unexplored places?

How do people feel about the landscape?

How does geography inform science?

How does geography inform art?

Settlement:

Resources:

Features:

Borders:

Geographical Features:

How was it formed?

When was it formed?

How do people use it?

Draw a map of your world (or settlement).

Doodle of a landscape.

WORLD HISTORY

Major...

Eras:

Cultures:

Wars/Cultures:

Events:

Movements:

Disasters:

Leaders:

Alliances:

Polarisations:

Advances:

Regressions:

Discernible Patterns:

Questions to consider...

How is history recorded?

How far back do records date?

Is any history lost and forgotten?

How biased are different cultures' historical accounts?

Is historical knowledge available to everyone?

How seriously do cultures take the study of history?

What are some points of contention?

Are there "natural" historical records?

What is considered the purpose of recording or studying history?

CITY

What is the city’s name?

What defines the settlement as a city?

Who lives here and what are they called?

Why do they live here?

What do the inhabitants do?

What are the city’s resources?

What resources need to be imported?

What is the main source of income?

Where is the city?

Who are its closest neighbours?

Why was the city built here?

How large is the city?

What do the dwellings look like?

Why do they look the way they do?

Are there threats to the city?

If yes, how has the city adapted?

What is the prevalent architectural style?

Who are the city leaders?

Who are the outsiders?

Where do they live?

Is there crime?

If yes, what do the criminals want?

Is there a large rich-poor gap?

How are the thoroughfares arranged?

Where do the inhabitants work?

What are the modes of travel?

How has transportation shaped the city?

Is it easy to leave & re-enter the city?

Are there many foreigners?

How are religions and rites accommodated?

What are the main districts?

What other factors might have affected the city’s development?

What are its landmarks?

What is the air like?

Does the city create its own microclimate?

How is the city regarded by its inhabitants?

How is the city regarded by outsiders?

How old is the city?

Have parts been redeveloped?

Has the city been planned?

How are resources distributed?

How are dwellings laid out?

What materials are used in construction?

What flora and fauna live in the city?

What is characteristic of the citizens?

How does the city reflect the tastes of its inhabitants?

Is the city famous for anything?

What is the city’s emblem / mascot / coat of arms?

What language is spoken?

Do the citizens have a distinct dialect / accent?

FICTIONAL PLANT

Who or what planted this plant?

What does this plant see or sense?

How does this plant get on with its neighbours?

How is this plant adapting to its environment?

What is at the root of this plant?

Who was this plant’s last visitor?

Where are this plant’s parents or progeny?

How did this plant look when it was younger?

Follow this plant through the seasons.

If this plant could talk, what would it tell you?

What makes this plant unique?

Look up the botanical description of this plant.

What makes this plant perfect?

What makes this plant imperfect?

What is this plant’s greatest desire?

What is this plant’s greatest fear?

How does this plant defend itself?

How does this plant deal with adversity?

What will happen after this plant dies?

What is this plant’s favourite memory?

What does this plant think about itself?

How does this plant move?

What do you feel when you touch this plant?

What can this plant sense that you can’t?

How is this plant like you?

What can you learn from this plant?

Source Writing References: Worldbuilding ⚜ Plot ⚜ Character

163 notes · View notes

journeytothewestresearch · 4 months ago

Note

As someone who’s Chinese w/ a degree in social science + (art) history regarding East Asia I’m always super intrigued and interested to how others interpret changes in new titles on older religious texts- but I will ask in particular if you have any personal ties to Buddhism/Taoism/Confucianism (and Chinese culture) when you find yourself interpreting BM:W’s change in allegorical use of Buddhism as contemporary political adherence! BM:W’s religious and soul mechanics follows their previous game without much overt linking between the two.

Overthrowing Gods in East Asian media is a very common trope in videos specifically due to player involvement (contrast to books where you are separate as the audience) and often is used as an allegory for the system/recent events we exist in. In such it does shift a lot from the original text in base but I think it’s not supposed to relay the same allegory due to the time period in which the writers exist! Wukong’s story changing to him still being chained by the principles that envelop life is far more relatable to late-stage capitalist environments viewers and artists exist in- as such he fulfils the contemporary variant of his original role in JTTW!

I think the change in purpose the Buddhist mythos serves in this game is decisive by nature due to inherent bias present in the original text as a religious piece, and such is core to the allegory. However I don’t think BM:W is supposed to relay that allegory, I think it is supposed to branch off on its own as an alternate contemporary extension of the foundation JTTW set out (plus with the 2 DLC’s on the way, there is plenty of time to extend the universe in game to validate a shift in religious purpose compared to the cut 7 chapters planned during development). And such i think attributing it to the CCP can be a bit of a touchy statement (especially if one doesn’t have long standing ties to East Asian culture or Regional religious practice!) and can accidentally play into sinophobic phrasing and attitudes.

Buddhism as a practice and way of life has a very different presence in writers centuries ago compared to now, as well as how we use religion in audience-involved stories. And such I find it an interesting shift regarding a game made with an international and widely multi-religious audience (that isn’t consuming it as a psycho-socio poem compared to a much smaller and more culturally homogenous readerbase. I think the friction caused by thematic changes is more due to how the game relays the physical journey so closely with reusing characters and having to shift them according to the foundational changes- if it was closer to other written “sequels” that created characters connected to the original cast through descending from them etc, the changes wouldn’t grate on completed arcs or how we compare the experience to wukong’s parallel one

No, I do not have any direct personal cultural connection to Buddhism, Daoism, or Confucianism. I live in Asia, though, and beyond my research of JTTW, I do study religion here (with more of an emphasis on folk religion as it pertains to the Great Sage). My negative view of Black Myth: Wukong is colored by my deep love for the original story. In general, I don't like adaptations.

Thank you for your explanation of the game.

#Asks #Journey to the West #JTTW #Sun Wukong #Monkey King #Black Myth: Wukong #Black Myth Wukong #Chinese religion #Buddhism #Taoism #Daoism

159 notes · View notes