#i just see a lot of internet christians doing this 'actually christianity is true no matter how terrible christians are sorry sweaty'

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

the body of Christ has many parts and I imagine that all kinds of apologetic and evangelical techniques are required to win various souls but I do wonder how many people are finding themselves brought into the fold by being caught on a technicality

like who are the people being bullied into Christianity because they are guilty of logical fallacies, surely there are a few

[rimurutempest]

I watched all of modern Doctor Who and these were my favorite episodes.

If you told me back in 2015 that I'd watch the entirety of modern Doctor Who, I'd probably think you're a liar. But, a cute girl wanted to watch Doctor Who with me, and how do you tell a cute girl “No?” Being that of the Superwholock trinity, Doctor Who the least upsetting of the three, I figured “Why not?” I mean, it's enjoyed by thousands and thousands of people, surely it has merit for existing, right?

And, it does! There are many great episodes that I really enjoyed (not to mention a lot of schlock I hated). I even enjoy some of the old serials and that 1996 movie is pretty fun (so very 90s). I can't claim to have seen all of Doctor Who, there is a lot of old stuff I'm probably never going to know even exists, not to mention all the spin offs and audio dramas, there's no way I can get through it all. But, I have seen the modern run, starting with Christopher Eccleston all the way to Ncuti Gatwa in Empire of Death.

Annnnd, anyone that knows me knows I love to rank and review episodic tv shows. So, with that said, here are my 15 favorite episodes of modern Doctor Who:

15 - Dalek (S01, E06)

It is probably unsurprising to any Doctor Who fan to see this episode on the list. The Eccleston era was my introduction to Doctor Who (as I'm sure it was for a lot of people) and this episode was my introduction to the famous villain, the Daleks. It's really a wild way to be introduced to the Daleks when you think about it, the Doctor and his companion Rose end up in an underground museum of alien artifacts out in Nevada and find the man that runs it has a Dalek in captivity. Upon learning of the Dalek's existence, the Doctor goes on a campaign to kill it with extreme prejudice until Rose yells at him about how he's being this horrendous person – which makes the doctor have a “Maybe I'm the baddie” moment and it resolves peacefully. Genuinely is really a good episode about moving on and realizing that we all have good and evil in us. A true standout of the early modern run of the show.

14 - The Impossible Planet & The Satan's Pit (S02, E08&E09)

There's a spectrum when it comes to Doctor Who, there are episodes that are gorgeous and smart and well thought out, then there are episodes that are just absolutely ridiculous. If Dalek explores the prejudice that can be enacted by those we see as “good,” then this duo of episodes is “what if the Christian devil was real and he was in space.” This is such an unbelievable hit of stupid bullshit, but it's delivered so very well. The first episode is loaded with mystery and adventure and unknown horror, while the second episode introduces the goofy concept in whole but still somehow grounds it enough that it still feels like a real plot with real stakes. It's the acting. The actors really sell this one to you. Space Satan is not what I expected when getting into this show but hey, it works and I like it.

13 - Blink (S03, E10)

I'm going to be honest with you, I feel like the internet really hypes up the Weeping Angels to a point that when you finally encounter them you're like, “Oh that's all?” Every episode of Doctor Who with the Weeping Angels feels underwhelming, silly, dumb, boring, with one exception: the original. I will not try to convince you that Blink lives up to the hype that the fandom has built for it, but if you can watch it without the Superwholock kind of bullshit in your head, what you'll find is actually a pretty good story. One of the best of the show. If the angels existed for this one episode and nothing else, they may have stood as the best antagonist of the show, but they got overused. I'm not going to explain the episode, I'll end up overhyping it more, just watch it.

12 - A Town Called Mercy (S07, E03)

I never see anyone really talk about this episode and it makes me wonder if maybe I'm alone in thinking it's great, which if so, oh well. I like westerns. The long and short of this is the Doctor and his companions, Amy and Rory, arrive in the old west to find a town with electricity too early and an alien cyborg gunslinger hanging outside of town hunting the town physician who turns out to be an alien that committed some horrific space crimes. The episode feels like a fun, loving homage to the western genre while once again exploring those aforementioned qualities of good people can be bad and vice versa. It's a fantastic little romp for the cast and these are the kinds of episodes that made the show fun to watch.

11 - Midnight (S04, E10)

Does this count as a bottle episode? The one thing I have to give the cast of Doctor Who is that when they decide it's time to really act, they act very, very well. This episode is completely carried by the acting of David Tennant and his supporting cast. In this episode, the Doctor's companion Donna sits one out while the Doctor takes a shuttle bus to go see a waterfall, until some unknown alien starts taking over people's bodies. This is a very, very well done episode that shows that you don't need elaborate set dressing or endless action to make good television, you just need good actors.

10 - The Devil's Chord (S14, E02)

I realize this might be controversial to say, but Ncuti Gatwa is my favorite actor to portray the Doctor. He's a fantastic actor and the energy he brings the role is so different and wonderful. When it comes to media, people typically don't like to hear you praise the modern bits over the older stuff, but this most recent run of Doctor Who with Gatwa is consistently more interesting and enjoyable than any other season of Doctor Who (that's probably Davies doing).

That all said, The Devil's Chord is a wild episode. I previously said that Doctor Who has a spectrum, from really great story telling to really goofy. If Midnight is the great story telling, then The Devil's Chord is the goofy. In this episode the Doctor and Ruby must face off against Maestro, the God of Music, who wishes to take all music from the world. The energy of this episode is wild, with Ncuti Gatwa's take on the Doctor going up against the insanely wild trickster character Maestro, who is portrayed by the trans actor Jinkx Monsoon. If you've fallen off of late Doctor Who, or you are completely new to it, please give this new season a watch (and don't let the Beatles jump scare at the beginning stop you, I swear there's no Beatles music!).

09 - The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances (S01, E09&E10)

If you're starting your Doctor Who watch at the beginning of the modern series, this will probably be the first episode that strikes a real chord with you (well, other than Dalek that is). This was the show's first real attempt at telling a horror story, one that is sort of zombie adjacent. This bizarre World War Two story with a child in a gas mask morphing people's bodies and existences into more versions of himself is one of the more original stories in the entire Doctor Who series, no one but Eccleston and Billie Piper could have sold this so well. Not to mention the introduction of Jack Harkness! (We'll uh...we'll ignore the actors conduct for this...)

08 - Planet of the Ood (S04, E03)

This is not the first time we meet the Ood, they were in the aforementioned Impossible Planet episodes, however this is when the Doctor finally does what he should have from the very start. The Ood are essentially a slave race, and in Planet of the Ood, they finally start to act out and revolt. The Doctor, as unpolitical as he has always been according to some people, decides “Yeah! Slaves are wrong!” and starts working with Ood Sigma (who becomes a recurring character kind of) in freeing the Ood. This episode also has one of the sickest, most awesome, kinda horrific effects in all of Doctor Who. Above all else, this episode is just very beautifully shot and well made. One of the highlights of the entire series.

07 - The Day of the Doctor (50th Anniversary Special)

Exploring the Doctor's mind during the Time War is such a cool concept. It's a thing the Doctor keeps referring to as this horrific, life changing thing for him, and getting even a glimpse into it is guaranteed an amazing time. Featuring both David Tennant and Matt Smith, while bringing on John Hurt of all people because Eccleston wouldn't reprise his role, the acting talent in this special is incredible and genuinely so wonderful to watch. At the end of the day, it's a really, really good Doctor Who romp and deserves any praise it gets.

06 - The Waters of Mars (2009 Autumn Special)

Pic from the BBC. Theirs looks better than anything I could get.

Hey look! It's the Hugo award winning special! And I only put it at number six!

Everything about this special is so fucking cool. The set designs, the costumes, the fucking monster itself, everything in this is so cool. You know how people always joke about horror needing to be wet? Well this is wet horror. David Tennant puts in so much effort here, struggling with what he wants to and what he has to do, the Doctor is really pushed to some stressful limits here that has such a fantastic end to it. Even if you disagree with where I placed it on this list, there is no doubt that The Waters of Mars is among the best stories Doctor Who has ever put out.

05 - The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon (S06, E01&E02)

This is one that's probably going to get some pushback. I am an X-Files fan, it's my favorite show, love it when it's great and I love it when it's trashy. This two part season opening is the most X-files like the show ever gets, and I am so into it. The opening mystery of the episode sets up a really cool overarching concept for the season (don't ask if it's resolved well, please don't ask that) while introducing us to one of the coolest enemies Doctor Who ever made (please don't ask if they stay that way, please don't ask that). Everything about this is so fun and interesting and I hope others come out of it feeling the same way.

04 - Voyage of the Damned (2007 Christmas Special)

Pic from IMDB.

DOCTOR WHO TITANIC IS VERY GOOD!! Sorry for yelling. For a long while this sat as my absolute favorite episode of Doctor Who. Journeying alone on a rare occasion, the Doctor finds himself spending Christmas aboard the space Titanic (I am not kidding, they named it the Titanic!) and as the name of the ship would imply, tragedy strikes. This story is really wonderful, we get to see the Doctor try his hardest to save people and show love and kindness to so many people, not to mention having a group of characters instead of one companion to explore. I especially love the Van Hoff couple, who are two fat and poor people who won tickets to come aboard what is a wealthy cruise. Everyone around them is rather classist and fatphobic to them, but of all they characters in the special, they exhibit real happiness and love and their devotion to one another is genuinely so wonderful.

As I said, this one stood as my favorite episode for a long time. And, you don't really need to see any previous episodes to watch it, so please go watch it. It's a fun time.

03 - The Giggle (60th Anniversary Special)

I don't know what the wider fandom's thoughts on the 60th Anniversary Specials are, so I don't know if this is a controversial take or not. But, The Giggle highlights everything that is great about Doctor Who. It tips its scales back into the goofy part of the spectrum, but that goofiness is ultimately what makes this such a fun and interesting special. When thinking of actors like Neil Patrick Harris, who are so big and popular and well known celebrities, you forget that the popularity came from the fact they're good at their craft, and if The Giggle did anything for me, it was reminding me that yes, Neil Patrick Harris is an outstanding actor. And, getting put with a returning David Tennant and Catherine Tate really just solidified this special as some of the best acting the series has to offer.

The scene where the Toymaker forces the Doctor and Donna to watch a puppet show about the fates of the Doctor's companions is one of the best meta commentaries the show ever did about itself. The introduction of Ncuti Gatwa is pulled off in a fantastic way. And, the ending is so heartwarming that it makes makes me happy they brought Tennant's Doctor and Donna back.

02 - Heaven Sent (S09, E11)

I previously said that Ncuti Gatwa stands as my favorite Doctor. But, before the Gatwa episodes were out, my favorite was Peter Capaldi. Though Capaldi was given some of the worst scripts of the series (Jodie Whittaker probably got the worst of the worst), he brought such a different interpretation to the Doctor. David Tennant and Matt Smith's Doctors, despite their differences, were largely the same characters. Capaldi's had more of that Eccleston-esque attitude and charm, while bringing this gravitas that makes the silly moments feel real emotionally.

Which brings me to Heaven Sent, which might be the pinnacle of acting in the series. When people think of the best Doctor Who episodes, they probably expect big action and lots of adventure, but to me, the most interesting parts of Doctor Who are when we explore the Doctor as a character. What makes him tick, what makes him who he is, why is he here doing this – exploration of the Doctor and his motives is spectacular, especially when done right. Heaven Sent follows the Capaldi Doctor, after the death of his companion, imprisoned in a castle where he must reveal all his secrets. The torture and sorrow that Capaldi is able to show on his face is both horrifying and spectacular, really showing that he is an outstanding actor. There is no other piece of television like Heaven Sent.

01 - Vincent and the Doctor (S05, E10)

I don't think this is a surprise to anyone. I'm sure everyone has seen the gifs go around of the Doctor taking Vincent van Gogh to the future to see how his work is revered and loved and how moving that scene is. What I don't think most people know is how after that scene, after Vincent has been put back in his own time, the museum doesn't change. There are no new paintings. Amy, the Doctor's companion, then must learn that love and praise alone do not cure mental illness.

This episode has a haze of melancholy. The Doctor may change history plenty of times, but he doesn't often change real events. So, from the very beginning, you know van Gogh's fate, and you know it won't be changed. I actually liked this episode' portrayal of mental illness, it really is something that affects our lives, and makes it hard (if not impossible) to fit into society. How people with mental illness are often outcast, harassed, and treated like subhumans. But, this episode also shows happiness, hope, and love. And, that people do love you, no matter what you may think.

And, I think that makes it the best episode of modern Doctor Who.

Tumblr has decided that adding my full episode rankings would make this post too long. So, I will be adding them in a second reblog (check notes if you want to see!)

[luceafarul-de-dimineata]

Do you have any headcannons for the paradise lost gang? I'm dying for more of my healers.

Paradise Lost is my favorite set of character, of course I have hcs about them. My beloved disfunctional sitcom family that's somehow a hospital <3

Paradise Lost hcs

Everyone in Paradise Lost is on something. There's no way Morax can be so chill without some weed in his system

The only Paradise Lost citizen that graduated high-school was Bathin and he left

Lucifer was born in his 30s, he was born with a doctorate in every major

Becoming a citizen in Paradise Lost is almost impossible. Both Lucifer and Gamigin need to give you a vibe check and you have to learn healing magic.

Since Paradise Lost was founded after Lilith's disapearance, there are no native Paradise Lost citizens, the closest being Gamigin and Jjok

During Sundays where nobody in Paradise Lost works, each of the nobles has to come up with a fun family activity.

Be it board-games, movie marathons, walks through the forest, anything, they have to all do it together during Sunday

Lucifer has a picture of God or Jesus in every room of his castle because he is a true Orthodox Christian

Even though Lucifer has his own room in his own castle, he preferes sleeping in Gamigin's bed with him. He likes cuddling with the young dragon

Marbas is allowed untied whenever he's not dealing with patients, but he sometimes keeps the restraints on even when he's off duty

Lucifer sees everyone else as being beneath him, but he cares for them like they were children or pets

Lucifer never goes to meetings with the other kings because he doesn't like how often they happen and how little is actually done with them.

Morax has a facebook account where he posts low quality edits of him and the other people in Paradise Lost. They always get one like and it's from Lucifer.

Marbas has a brick phone because it's the only one he can't break with his bare hands. He sometimes calls his 'friends' from other regions with it, but he has no phone attiquit. He would call someone and just ask them for stuff with no hello, no small talk, no nothing

Buer is the best with phones in the whole country. He also didn't pass 5th grade tech lessons about how to make a folder on Windows. He has what used to be the latest phone model when he left Tartaros, but he only uses it to call patients.

Gamigin doesn't have a phone and Lucifer prohibited him from touching the internet. But Lucifer does give Gamigin his phone to play on during breaks or stuff

Lucifer has a fancy phone that he only uses to like Morax's posts on facebook and ignore the mail the kings give him

Depending on the type of meeting and the availability of his staff he will either take Gamigin or Morax with him during diplomatic travels.

He takes Gamigin most of the time, but if the subject is mainly about the atrocities of war he brings Morax. Morax is an airhead with no self preservation, he's used to seing people dying left and right in gruesome manners, but Lucifer would prefere to protect Gamigin from the sort of trauma

Everyone in Paradise Lost is devoted to Lucifer, but Gamigin fluctuates between "wow, he's so cool, I need to impress him" and "my king can beat your king in a fist fight"

Gamigin's also the noble that Lucifer spoils the most. He lets Gamigin do basicly what he wants around the country and he even lets him touch his angelic body.

Whenever there's a long ride from Paradise Lost to a different country, Lucifer sits Gamigin on his lap and let's him sleep there. If anyone speaks louder than a whisper, Lucifer will glare them down.

Gamigin is the favorite kid and by a lot

It's bordering on platonic yandere, but we'll keep it light for this post (unless you want some darker stuff, feel free to ask 👀)

I've said this before and I'll say it again: there is no official uniform in Paradise Lost, Marbas just hates Buer in particular (and he wants to rip the clothes off him)

Lucifer has a photo album of all the memories he had with his brothers. There are some photos with Gabriel, Michael and Raphael in there as well

[sophieinwonderland]

The trusted medical articles about DID are confidential and aren’t on google, only doctors have access to them. You shouldn’t trust in the info you’re actually believing such as tulpas and some DID symptoms.

"You can't trust anything you see on Google because all the real information is super top secret and confidential."

How do sysmeds keep coming up with these increasingly absurd takes?

So yes, some trustworthy peer reviewed works are locked tightly behind paywalls. And this makes finding a lot of information a pain sometimes. But there are workarounds to this. I downloaded a PDF copy of Transgender Mental Health, the book published by the American Psychiatric Association that references how you can be plural without trauma or a disorder, from a dropbox link.

Other paywalled papers can be access through Sci-Hub, although various governments are trying to get that shutdown.

But a lot of trustworthy peer reviewed information from professionals is also available on the internet for free, such as Varieties of Tulpa Experiences, which was peer reviewed and published in a book by Oxford University Press. (Which yes, is a very reputable source.)

And its author is a psychiatry professor at McGill University. The idea that this isn't a valid source because you can find it on Google is stupid.

Moreover, if this was true that all the information on DID and plurality was confidential and only available to doctors, it would create a situation in science akin to the Christian Church pre-reformation, where knowledge of the Bible was essentially restricted to priests, and lay people could only learn through the priests.

Thank the gods that a lot of science doesn't work that way, and even if some is locked behind paywalls, there is a lot that is free and open to the public!

I've been researching and learning more about plurality for three years, and Google Scholar has been an incredible resource on this journey, as has Sci-Hub for when I have ran across an article I just couldn't otherwise access.

There is plenty of trustworthy research out here on the internet that you can access for free if you know how!

[cellarspider]

30/30 One last thing.

(Previous) | (Index) | ⛬

⛬

We have come to the end of Prometheus. But depending on how you’re feeling about death of the author right now, it’s not. Not quite yet.

Because Ridley Scott had some things to say after Prometheus came out.

Two months after the movie's release, Ridley Scott gave an interview. Its original home has succumbed to link rot, but it’s still available in a couple places, in the Internet Archive and within the corporate acquisition mass that is Fandango, featuring a weird note of brand revisionism in the relabeling of the interviewer’s affiliation.

Now. Let’s begin by saying this: A movie is a movie. The things around a movie are not the movie. This seems obvious, but it’s to say that a single creative work can be viewed entirely free of outside context, and in most cases it’s best to assume that it will. If a director comes out later and tells people what their intent was, then that’s not part of the movie.

…But it can still sit in your brain for years, leaping out to ambush unsuspecting passers-by.

So! This interview. Ohhh, this interview. I’d forgotten most of it, because the final lines of it just knocked the top of my head clean off, so we’ll be discovering bits of this together.

We start from the end of the movie, with the interviewer asking about the openness of the ending to a sequel. Scott, among other things, said:

“I’d love to explore where the hell [Dr. Shaw] goes next and what does she do when she gets there, because if it is paradise, paradise can not be what you think it is. Paradise has a connotation of being extremely sinister and ominous.”

This came across well in the movie, though it was festooned with the random bit of organic bigotry from Shaw toward David. A short answer won’t capture everything, so I still have no idea if Scott intended for that to be so brayingly insensitive, this is the guy who was fine with Joel Edgerton as Ramses II. In any case, Paradise might be ominous, but Shaw’s not bringing along ideas that will improve it by any means.

This isn’t really the film we eventually got from Alien: Covenant. Is that bad? Honestly, I don’t know that either. Shaw as a character did not have a lot of depth in this movie. Noomi Rapace ended up playing her hurt very well by the end of it, but if that’s your standard of quality in horror acting, then Josh Stewart’s leading role in the grungy Saw-adjacent movie The Collector (2009) will serve you well.

I think they could have built something out of her character, but they didn’t. David is definitely the stand-out character from Prometheus, and they do at least focus on him quite a lot. But I’ve yet to watch Covenant, partly because the structure of it does not interest me. Also, because I’ve heard about what David does when he shows up on the new planet, and bad things happening to crowds are one thing that can make my brain wig out something awful.

Speaking of the Engineers, Scott speaks about their character:

“they’re such aggressive f**kers … and who wouldn’t describe them that way, considering their brilliance in making dreadful devices and weapons that would make our chemical warfare look ridiculous? So I always had it in there that the God-like creature that you will see actually is not so nice, and is certainly not God.” 

Again, we find ourselves at the casual gnosticism of the movie, in which the Engineers are kind of the demiurge in this context. Some christian-influenced people assume that if there is a true god, it must be omnibenevolent, and find the violent and threatening behavior depicted in the Old Testament to be at odds with their understanding of divinity. A lack of benevolence is seen as a sign that the figure depicted must be something else, something that may think that it is a god, but it is not truly, regardless of its role as a creator. Hence, the gnostic idea of the demiurge.

But Scott also seems to confirm my suspicion that he’s not aware he’s recreating gnostic cosmogony through Prometheus, because he doesn’t reach for any of the older sources or the language around him. He instead invokes a rather surface reading of Paradise Lost:

“ In a funny kind of way, if you look at the Engineers, they’re tall and elegant … they are dark angels. If you look at [John Milton’s] Paradise Lost, the guys who have the best time in the story are the dark angels, not God. He goes to all the best nightclubs, he’s better looking, and he gets all of the birds. [Laughs]”

Setting aside the fact that Paradise Lost ends with all the fallen angels having a bad time because God’s turned them into snakes, I will give Scott the tiniest bit of credit, there’s a bit of my brain that saw this and thought “this is a strong start”:

Scott eventually continues on the Engineers, and the sacrifice scene at the start:

“That could be anywhere. That could be a planet anywhere. All he’s doing is acting as a gardener in space. And the plant life, in fact, is the disintegration of himself.  If you parallel that idea with other sacrificial elements in history – which are clearly illustrated with the Mayans and the Incas – he would live for one year as a prince, and at the end of that year, he would be taken and donated to the gods in hopes of improving what might happen next year, be it with crops or weather, etcetera.”

Scott is misremembering some things here, which is understandable given the off-the-cuff nature of the remark, but it’s still worth correcting. This is a misattribution of Aztec rituals that would involve the sacrifice of a “teixiptla” representative of a god (such as Xipe Totec, Tezcatlipoca, etc). The Inca didn’t carry out this ritual–they did engage in a human sacrifice ritual called qhapaq hucha, but its form and function was not the same. The Classical Maya also engaged in different human sacrifice rituals, but there was also an emphasis on non-fatal self-administered bloodletting–Maya nobility in particular were often depicted shedding their own blood for this purpose.

This also, to my memory, conflates stories of european human sacrifice rituals, where crop failures are sometimes linked to the sacrifice of kings, such as Dómaldr in the Ynglinga saga, and noted in the placement and treatment of certain bog bodies. The Aztecs did sacrifice to the god Tláloc for crop for good harvests, but the rituals involved were quite different.

It should be noted, of course, that Tláloc was later syncretized with the Christian god during the Spanish conquest, likely as a result of conceptually linking Tláloc’s sacrifices to the demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. And, y’know, that conquest was concurrent with the Spanish Inquisition, and the wider religious belief that a heretical witch army was being organized by Satan to stand against God to forestall the Second Coming of Christ, with crop failures being the most feared result of their rituals.

I’ve added all these details not because I want to say Scott is bad for misattributing this stuff, people make mistakes. I have several hours’ access to the internet, Scott did not. However, it is worth noting: How we frame an idea can say a lot about how we conceive of it. Variations on these behaviors are found throughout history, and across cultures. Sacrifices and martyrs are powerful symbols still invoked in western culture today. There’s a potential wandering back and forth between appreciation and exoticization that Scott’s engaging in.

Then Scott says something that made me get up from my chair to find a book to shake at my computer.

“I always think about how often we attribute what has happened to either our invention or memory. A lot of ideas evolve from past histories, but when you look so far back, you wonder, Really? Is there really a connection there?”

Yes.

Yes there is. Ancient peoples weren’t stupid. Ancient peoples didn’t even necessarily have less information to work with than any one modern human, they just had different information that kept them alive and finding solutions to their problems, be it “I need to find food�� or “how do I meaningfully participate in my culture’s artistic and governmental traditions, and should they even be followed at all?”

If you want a great and thorough examination of that, check out the book I gesticulated with.

Highly recommended. Graeber was an anthropologist and Wengrow is an archaeologist, and the two of them together are a force to be reckoned with. There are definitely subjects covered in this book that I’ve seen from different angles before, and I feel like their interpretation pulls in more context than I’d gotten previously. Especially pertinent to this, the first part of The Dawn of Everything is spent examining the origins of modern western thought on “primitive” cultures and their character and capacity, and then digging into what evidence we actually have on the subject.

But the movie does not, fundamentally, engage with cultures outside of westernized, christian thinking. Not to any serious extent, anyway. It has a certain worldview, and that’s fine. That can be explored intelligently, although we’ve seen that I think it squanders that chance. It’s fundamentally a christian-centric movie.

And despite Scott’s protestations in the interview that they toned it down, quite a few readers have already guessed how far Scott originally intended to go on that.

“But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, “Lets’ send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it.” Guess what? They crucified him.”

Yes. Jesus of Nazareth was actually Jesus of Space.

This is why the movie says the Engineer corpse died about 2000 years ago. This is why they decided to destroy humanity. 

Presumably the original quote on the cross was “Father, forgive them, for they know not that we’ve got deadly black goo.” Engineer 23:34, I guess.

Now that the screams in the audience have hopefully settled down, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH.

Alright. So, this is bad. Let’s break down why, beyond the obvious questions about “why does nobody ever draw Jesus as bald, huge, and ripped.”

There’s a fake script circulating that actually has a decent interpretation of this: a human kid got zwooped up to be taught the ways of the Engineers, and sent back as an emissary. Why? Dunno. Also apparently the gospels that mention Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt with the baby Jesus were off the mark by a few lightyears.

This is laughable to christians, because “what if Jesus was an alien” is the sort of thing that twelve year olds come up with. It’s offensive if it’s taken seriously, because it says their literal god was actually a mortal critter from outer space. Ha! Your god is not all-powerful, or all-good. He’s not even All-Might.

But you know what’s almost worse? It implies that, sure, Christianity isn’t the inspired word of a deity. It also implies some level of exclusive factual accuracy to Jesus’ teachings, not shared with other religions. Jesus was a celestial emissary, endowed with the teachings that could save humanity, and his death doomed the Earth to the Last Judgment.

The Torah is insufficient, and all Rabbinic literature was produced following the rejection of the true way to salvation. The enlightenment of the Buddha counted for nothing, the Dao is not the way, Vishnu cannot defend or restore dharma, the Prophet Muhammad is only so valid as his acknowledgment of the Prophet Īsā ibn Maryam. 

All other faiths are superfluous under this premise. If people had just listened to Jesus and accepted him as their savior, everything would’ve been fine!

This is the one point of alien contact with western canon in the entire setting, after the deep prehistory of Skye. Every other literate culture that was contacted got the Engineers’ message wrong. Or they didn’t listen. Only christians got it right.

That’s incalculably bad. That’s not even counting the fact that the wall o’ artifacts that Shaw and Holloway presented included a notable oversight: the only two artifacts further from Europe than the Middle East are chronologically impossible, based on the movie’s own timeline. It implies the rest of the world was thrown in as an afterthought.

This whole Jesus thing is a piece, a big, jagged piece of why this movie drives me so far up the wall that I’m now residing on the ceiling. It’s not, as far as I can tell, actively malicious. It’s just dumb. It wasn’t thought through the way it should’ve been. If they wanted to do a movie like this, they should’ve gone all-in. Really dig into the implications of what they’ve done. 

And the movie seems wholly ignorant of it. There are basic questions presented to the audience, but there’s no deeper consideration that could make this respectful to anybody.

So, what are we left with?

A mess. A beautiful, stunted, confused mess that was poorly served by its script and lack of conviction.

The movie turned away from asking big questions, and focused instead on traditional horror. A genre that works best with good characterization to drive audience investment, but then it cut out most of the characterization, and what it left was scattershot. It gave us a flashback of Shaw’s childhood before we’d even really met her to understand why it was meaningful for her. The movie then failed to add any emotional weight to her.

The movie failed to give us characters with emotional weight or intelligence. It gave us a single, compelling character in David, driven largely by Michael Fassbender’s delivery and physical performance. It gave us a tactile, carefully constructed setting that was beautiful and often an accomplishment in filmmaking craft, but these spaces remained emotionally empty without a story that gave them meaning. It gave us the potential of something new, and then retreated to imitate the old.

I went into the theater in 2012 looking forward to a good film. I suppose this one has stuck with me more than a good film would have, but its primary value is as a flawed thing to critique, to learn from, and to put tooth marks on when the frustration gets to be too much.

Prometheus got one sort-of sequel in Alien: Covenant (2017), and it seems to have been abandoned. The first trailer for Alien: Romulus just came out the day I’m writing this, and it looks like it’s going to be just a monster movie.

If you want a good, modern Alien, play or watch Alien: Isolation (2014). Apparently its content was recut into a web series in 2019, though I can’t speak to the quality of that. For now, I’m done with the series. I’m not going to be rushing out to see anything new, because I don’t think it’s doing anything new. Prometheus could’ve been a chance to do that, but it failed.

Still. Writing this was fun, I will admit. My weird little obsession with this movie turned into a month and a half of writing and prepping this thing, totaling–Jesus E. Christ, over 82,000 words. I wish it could’ve been about something that hid more intellectual heft or careful thought than Prometheus did, but hey! There’s always next time.

And there will in all likelihood be a next time, as I’ve already started on another document. It won’t be for quite a while, though. This was a lot of fun, but a lot of work as well. I’ll be taking a break, and only releasing more stuff once I have it fully written ahead of time, as opposed to how I handled this one.

Thank you, brave readers, for making it this far. 

⛬

(Previous) | (Index) | ⛬

⛬

Citations for alt-text rambles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%932024_Sundhn%C3%BAkur_eruptions#Eruptions

https://tubitv.com/movies/314320/the-collector 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dettifoss 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Magliabechiano 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollund_Man 

https://youtu.be/nT2ueyFrVgk 

https://www.deviantart.com/pretty--kittie/art/Prometheus-Engineer-407316113 

https://nebula.tv/videos/hellofutureme-is-netflixs-avatar-any-good 

Overflow Ramble 1

Hey, does anyone else remember Stephen Speilberg’s War of the Worlds (2005)? I saw that in the theater, and I cannot watch that thing again. Yes, I was younger, but the overall content of that movie absolutely shredded my nerves to pieces. Even though I’d grown up knowing the full H G Wells story and reading things like The Tripods book series as a kid, Spielberg managed to make a movie that felt so viscerally unpleasant to me that it gave me nightmares for years.

My main theory is this: You know in movies that the protagonist is almost certainly going to survive what happens, doubly so in War of the Worlds because it was goddamn Tom Cruise. But my brain did not treat Tom Cruise as my viewpoint character. Something in me says “well, I’m not Tom Cruise, I’m one of those other people around him, and they’re all gonna die horribly.” 

This tends to happen with me in disaster films and similar stuff like that. I have to be real certain I want to be there if I watch a kaiju movie, for example. I can do Godzilla (2014), but I’m not so sure about Godzilla Minus One (2023). Shin Godzilla (2016) is off the table.

Horror movies have to hit a balance of giving people a rickety feeling of potential safety they want to preserve, rather than letting them feel too safe or too screwed. Too far either way and you lose people, either to apathy or just pure bad vibes. The paradox of enjoyable horror is that it can’t scare you too much.

Overflow Ramble 2

I personally don’t think the tone of Fede Álvarez’s horror fits with what I’m looking for in an Alien movie. The xenomorph life cycle worked best and most subversively when it was deliberately targeted, to take the sexual/reproductive menace usually placed on female characters in horror and forced it onto a male character instead. Álvarez has historically played that trope straight instead. From a horror perspective, that’s boring to me. The xenomorphs also appear to be aggressive monsters here rather than animals, more like Aliens than Alien. Not my favorite interpretation.

And to be honest, when I saw the trailer, my first thought was “Oh, it’s Sevastopol Station.” The setting looks exactly like Alien: Isolation, and there’s not a chance the movie’s going to outshine Isolation. That game’s only narrative sin was a bit of slow pacing toward the ending. Romulus’ trailer makes me think it’s going to go too far in the other direction.

⛬

(Previous) | (Index) | ⛬

⛬

[nothorses]

As an atheist who frequently despairs at the way progressive tumblr talks about us, I've loved reading your recent posts on the subject. You've articulated some stuff that bugged me but I could never quite describe, like how people think of atheism as some broken remnant of christianity rather than a valid worldview on its own.

But there's one thing you've emphasized repeatedly that I just don't think I can agree with: the idea that other people being confidently convinced of their beliefs means that we should act less confident of ours. Yes, I recognize that most religious people are at least as confident in their faiths as I am in my non-belief. But people are confidently wrong all the time, about all kinds of stuff. When anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, climate change deniers, homeopaths, astrologers, or psychics are confidently wrong, we don't take it as a reminder to humble ourselves in the face of disagreement, especially when it comes time to make decisions based on the facts at issue. Sure, we usually don't preach about it to strangers, maybe we decide it's not worth losing a relationship over, maybe we don't bring it up at thanksgiving, but we don't throw our hands up and declare it a tie because both sides wrote down an answer.

Like, let's be clear, this is a question of fact, just like any pseudoscience or conspiracy theory. The supernatural does not exist. Humankind has spent the entirety of our species' history looking for it, we would all desperately like for any of it to be real, and if there was anything there to find, we would've found something by now.

So why does the fact that a lot of people are confidently wrong about that mean that the ones who aren't have to act less confident than everyone else?

It's not that we need to be "less confident" in our beliefs; I have seen people argue that you can't prove a negative or whatever, there's stuff we don't understand yet, so we can't actually claim atheism is Definitely Correct. and like. I fundamentally disagree with that, actually. it's not something I want to get in arguments on tumblr about (can you fucking imagine) but I think the logical conclusion of "you can't prove a negative" is not "therefore, anything you can't prove isn't true is equally as valid". it's that demanding people to prove a negative is unreasonable, and the onus of proof in fact falls on the people claiming a positive.

this is also how things work when someone on tumblr claims I'm a sex freak who hates women and is also a TERF: it's not my responsibility to prove that whatever unhinged accusations some rando on the internet comes up with aren't true. it's their responsibility to prove that they are.

but here's the thing: it's not about who's right, here. that doesn't actually matter.

there are two things you need to consider here:

1. How likely this person is to listen to you

2. Whether the thing they believe actually has a notable impact on anyone else.

Anti-vaxxers believe something that directly and adversely impacts other people. Climate change deniers also do. Flat-earthers conceivably could be harmless, but the roots and execution of that ideology lead to a lot of harmful, antisemitic conspiracy theories that do harm to real life people.

But like, I don't care if Cindy from class thinks astrology is real. I don't actually have to worry about that unless she starts trying to discriminate against people based on their star signs (looking at you, white queer 20-somethings looking for roommates in Seattle).

I don't care if my mom thinks teatree oil is gonna help her... idk, whatever she thinks teatree oil does. She also takes the meds she needs and sees a doctor about stuff, and the addition of teatree oil isn't hurting her. I worry even less about adult strangers making medical decisions for themselves; that's their business, and their choice. I'll take issue with it if they deprive anyone else of necessary medical care on that basis.

#1 is harder to consider, I think. A lot of us want it to be the case that others will listen to us, and a lot of us want to believe that if our arguments are good enough and we're good enough at it, we can get through to anyone.

That's a fantasy. A very silly, very egotistical fantasy likely to drive you to frustration, and ultimately to isolation. The fact of the matter is that it's rarely about you; people decide to listen or not, and there's nothing you can do about it if they decide not to listen. Pushing the issue doesn't change that.

When people accuse me of unhinged shit on tumblr, I don't take it upon myself to prove a negative. I might address those claims in some way, and remind people to get proof of the positive first, but only if it gets to be enough of an issue that I feel I need to. Ultimately, I know the people making those claims don't care, and aren't listening; the only reason I address them at all is if they have an adverse impact on me or others.

People who believe in things we don't believe exist... well, first, they often do believe they have proof. That's just not a basis you're gonna win an argument about that on. And, also, they have no intention of listening to you- and that's fine. As long as their beliefs aren't causing them to hurt others, nobody needs to worry about it. And if they do, we can worry about the impact and the things directly relating to it instead of trying to convince every religious person with flaws to just stop being religious.

Some atheists are assholes because of what they believe. That's not a fact we can ignore, either.

At the end of the day, the goal is just to share space with others. We don't need everyone to agree with us, we don't need everyone to believe the same things, and it's a good idea, in fact, to look at those other beliefs/religions/etc. and see value in them- the value they add to the lives of those who are a part of them, and the value they add to others' through those people.

At a certain point, it doesn't matter if something is Objectively True. Oftentimes we don't know, or can't know- but that doesn't matter either. The obsession with objective truth is very much a white Western one, and it's done a lot of harm to people- entire cultures, even.

You can't be an econ major looking at this through the lens of hard numbers; you need to factor in human life, compassion, and context. It's not about who's right; it's about being a good person.

[houjicha]

So I'm finally about to watch Brokeback Mountain for the first time, and I kind of want to record my feelings before I do. I still have lingering associations that will probably be erased once I've seen it, and it's important to me to see how long they've hung on.

This movie came out when I was in my early teens, when I was still deep in the conservative bubble. I was starting to be allowed to watch and listen to more media, but I had been sufficiently brainwashed to the point that I actively sought out hyper-conservative opinions on any "unsafe" (=not made by Christians or per the Hays Code) media.

I was in the part of Christianity that believed in the invisible war, that there was a whole army of spirits waiting to destroy us from within and without.

So a queer story gaining the momentum and acceptance it did was terrifying. It was a sign that our defenses were eroding and the enemy was closing in. Our "freedom" was shrinking and soon we'd have to make the choice between martyrdom or faith, the lake of fire or the guillotine etc. At least for me, a young teenager, and my mother.

I realize all that probably sounds very funny to say about The Gay Cowboy Movie, but genuinely, my instinctive reaction to the name of this film is still aversion. Even for years afterwards, people saying Heath Ledger was great or something, my brain would almost tense up. Someone mentioning it in a positive light would give me a "this person is Unsafe" reaction, even though I knew that wasn't true.

On another level, the 2000s were just. real homophobic. Real bad. So on the other side of conservatism (as opposed to the Utter Belief and Easily Exploited Devotion side where I lived), you had a ton of garden-variety jokes about it. So there was also a sense that The Gay Cowboy Movie was ew, cringe. This movie is sooo full of itself and for what, these weirdos and their ~tragic romance~? Ugh, Oscar bait gets worse and worse. Heath Ledger is a great actor (thanks to Actual Cool Movie The Dark Knight), but like...tee-hee, poor guy had to put his talents to use in Brokeback Mountain. The title alone was a punchline in itself, and referencing it in any way would get people to laugh. So that "cringe" reaction is in me, too. I've written the title a few times in this post, and that's enough to trigger it.

Now, I feel like the zeitgeist among a lot of queer people on the internet is that we are past sad gay dramas about repression and internalized homophobia or whatever, which, fair. Although it also intensifies that feeling of "cringe."

If this wasn't such a prestigious movie that does seem to have stood the test of time, I would probably be fighting through even more internal barriers. Even so, as the first shot appears, my brain tried to ask me, "Ugh, are you REALLY watching Brokeback Mountain?" Which is why I have to say, "yes, motherfucker, actually I am."

So I have no idea if I'll like this movie. I probably will; I, personally, am still very fond of sad stories full of repression. I've also found that when I work at these little knots in my heart, they do eventually unravel so thoroughly that I lose touch with the memory of what it felt like to have them.

Anyway, that's why I wanted to record what I was feeling, right now, with the movie paused less than a minute in. Because I really wonder if the me a year or two from now will even remember what this feels like.

[aragarna]

Zorro or Good Omens

For the ask game my dear!

Hello there, my dear old Valley! :)

Sorry it's taken me so long to answer. I *will* answer with a gifset as the "make me choose" game is supposed to be, but that might take even more time because aaaah life. Anyway. So here is why it took me so long:

I actually had to think about that one super hard. It's such a difficult choice to make LOL probably because both shows have characters that resonate quite deeply with me, but regarding different parts of me.

Zorro: I really like the character of Diego, who dedicates his life to help others, is always very considerate and caring and is passionate about trying to make the world a better place. The definition of a Good Guy. I *wish* I had a tenth of his courage and he reminds me to look after others, when it's so easy to get caught up in our own life. So he's someone I understand and look up to.

I guess there's also the struggle to live up to the society's expectations, to his family's expectations, the inability to tell people who he really is. Not that I have a secret identity, but we all, to some degree, wear a mask, hide our true nature and try to live up to people's expectations.

Also the fencing. ;-)

Good Omens: For neither of them you specified which version, but for GO I'll specifically pick the TV show, as I think it resonates a bit more with me. Mostly because it expands Aziraphale and Crowley's characters, and their relationship. As a romantic asexual, I don't often feel represented in fictions. I do get love, I do understand love stories, but I don't get the sex part. Attraction, to me, doesn't translate in wanting to sleep with someone. And given that almost 100% of romances in fiction end in sex, well, there's always a part of those stories that remain foreing. But Aziraphale and Crowley, it's not like that. And I know lots of people do like to add a sex component to the story, but that bit of canon that angels and demons don't have sexual organs (unless they make an effort) is actually important to me. The way I read and feel Aziraphale and Crowley's attraction, it's not physical. They just enjoy each other company. They enjoy that feeling of being together, discussing together, seeing the world different through the other's eyes. They like the world better with the other in it. But they don't sleep together. It's been clearly said that after S1 they carved their own bit of a existence for themselves. They have their phone calls and dates, and Crowley comes to the bookshop, etc... So they *are* in a relationship. It's just not sexual (and I really hope Neil will keep it that way, cause it's important to me)

Also, there's the whole Good vs. Evil, more theological discussion that the show handles really well. I love how it's making fun of all the contradictions of the Bible and the Christian religion. But also how being Good in a complicated world is *hard*. Being Good sometimes requests courage and questioning one's own believes. And standing up to your boss.

And it's hilarious, when it's not heartbreaking. It's silly, in a very absurd British way.

So, there, this is what went all through my head. because of the difference in popularity, I feel like Zorro is more personal. Everyone loves GO. It's all over the internet. There's like a new fic every 20 min or something (actual stats I've seen floating around). So for some reason, it makes me feel depossessed of it. While the Zorro fandom is me and 5 people, 3 of which prefer the 1990 show. But on the other hand, Zorro is an old thing (1919!), and it says a rather "classic" story (he's the spiritual father of all the superheroes, after all), while GO is much more unique and modern. It's an important piece of fiction.

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

What were your top 10 favorite interactions on Tumblr?

(Thanks!)

1. When necarion-blog made a version of my long post in real LaTeX:

Let me explain to you some things about College

\begin{enumerate}

{\item[{\bf 0} there are no classes

1. This is because everyone in college is secretly a slacker

2. this is not true

3. 0 points}]

2. The first time I talked to one of my non-online friends after reading Floornight. I explained one of the characters to them (it was Arjun), and they asked me "are you saying the character is a nekobo?" and it took a moment for me to realize that, yes, he was a nekobo. It was just a very weird moment

3. Meeting all my internet friends at the same time IRL

4. The NAB chatlog from March 8, 2013

4(a). You know, that one

5. That time my cousin sent me an email expressing confusion about whether the phrase "Prince Namor" referred to a person, and I had to explain that it referred to a character from the Marvel universe. He asked me how that character could be a prince given that he was from the sea, and I had to explain the concept of "title" to him. That was really fun

6. The party where I told a story about how I had licked the ground a lot as a kid because the "ground was a flavor" and a friend told me I should check out "the show with the blue horse" ("My Little Pony")

7. The first time I learned that the person I had a crush on since the summer before 7th grade was "into me" (she gave me a Valentine's Day card at school)

8. My godfather and I had been having a long, frustrating conversation about theology in which he kept bringing up the arguments of William Lane Craig and I kept saying "but there are other Christian philosophers" and he kept saying "I don't know who they are, who are they?" and I mentioned Richard Swinburne (not a Catholic, but an influential Christian philosopher) and asked if that name sounded familiar. He said it didn't, and I said "OK, how about John Hick" and he said "ok, that sounds familiar, it sounds like a drug"

9. Noticing that I could not feel my left hand when I looked at it and my first reaction was to check to see if I was actually in contact with it, and determining that in fact I was (I had gone numb during a nap)

10. The time I took a 10-minute walk and decided that a specific hole in the ground was really cool and decided to document this by creating a Google account and a Google+ account both named "ThePitOfAwesome," of which the only content would be a picture of this hole and a post about how cool it was

10(a). I was about to post to Google+ until I realized that this would make me expose my actual identity to the world and decided it was for the best that I did not do this

10(b). I deleted this Google+ account yesterday because I was worried I would forget about it and later find out I had posted a picture of ThePitOfAwesome to my actual Facebook account

11. I got a new prescription for glasses this year and this morning was the first time I got to wear my new glasses to go outside and when I got up from the dinner table my dad asked if I wanted some water and I said "Yes, I'd like the water" (as opposed to "I'd like water") and my dad's response was "You know, you're talking like someone with glasses on now, it's so obvious" and my mom's response was "Well, duh"

12. When I was 6 or 7, I was playing with my little brother in the living room and I said something was "kind of green" and my dad said "that's just a stupid thing to say, no color is just 'kind of green.' 'Kind of green' doesn't exist" and I remember being really angry and saying something about how I would prove him wrong but realizing that I couldn't, because you couldn't have a color which was 50% green, 50% yellow, etc. The next day he finally caved and said "fine, greenish yellow does exist, whatever"

[whoneedssexed]

Is it true that homeschooling in the U.S. is typically done for religious reasons, that's it's not regulated at all and that the children are at a disadvantage, or that they can be abused more easily? I hear about it but when looking it up all I see is stuff for COVID homeschooling reasons.

That it's typically for religious reasons? Not sure about that, especially depending on how one might define as "religious". Some people may talk about how the Christian g-d is their reasoning for pulling their kids out, but nothing they teach has anything to do with Christianity and more to do with conspiracy theories.

That it's not regulated? Unfortunately, this one is true. There are very few regulations, nobody's required to teach their children accurate information, or any information at all. There are a few regulations that basically make it so that the children/families aren't defying any compulsory education laws and the kids are accounted for, but each state is different in how this mandatory reporting works.

This is of course very dependent on what each state wants, but for the most part in the country there's very few defined rules. Here's a link that quickly goes over some of the legalities in homeschooling, and which states actually put effort towards educating children in the home.

That they are at a disadvantage? It can be true, yes, especially for the many parents who choose to "unschool" or otherwise remove schooling from their children entirely. While some have a much more structured approach on this, a lot of people have taken this to mean not even trying to educate their children. You can partly thank the internet for this, in my opinion, as it allows these types of knuckleheads to spread nonsense like that (think facebook mom type of groups).

There's also arguments made that homeschooling limits a child's social development, as they are around a lot less people and peers their age, and don't experience the typical interactions of the world.

This isn't always the case, however, as some homeschooling is done through actual programs offered by education experts, and classes kids can attend at their leisure. This allows them more socialization and to stay up to date, while also giving them the space and freedom to get what they need out of it.

So when it comes to disadvantages, it is heavily case by case.

That they are more likely to be abused? Well, it really depends on how you define abuse in this sense.

Of course, some people absolutely can and will argue that refusing to teach things like basic math or reading skills is abusive, or that forcing kids to believe your theories of the world is abusive, let alone that "withholding socialization" from them can be seen as abusive as well.

But some families abuse in ways that there are no gray areas about, such as families that intentionally leave their girls in the dark because they do not believe women have rights, or that use their older children to enforce punishment and be free babysitters under the guise of "homeschooling". These are pretty clearly abusive.

There was an uptick in abuse cases when children had to stay home as a result of the pandemic. The problem with these stats is that there are so many factors going into them that it's hard to say for certain any specific thing that makes the abuse more likely. Particularly big contributors include the stress of trying to juggle everything added with the fact that just being around someone more often increases the likelihood of abuse. These are two things that homeschooling can fall prey to.

So again, it's really a case-by-case thing.

The major problem is there isn't, and never was, a one-size-fits-all solution on education. That's why a lot of parents choose to homeschool - because their children are not succeeding in a formal public classroom as a result of needing something different than what is being presented to them. This is what a lot of parents with kids who have disabilities have to wrestle and contend with. In the same vein the lack of regulation of education can allow all the negative aspects to flourish. We see the same thing in public schools.

I'm not sure how things are run in other countries, maybe they have figured out something we haven't (which is very likely, considering the amount of things we are so far behind in).

But for the most part, what you've heard is true, it's just not always true for all homeschooled kids.

mod BP

[nowoyas]

Oh, bless your heart. Since you're a minor, I'll make sure to talk to you using really simple words so you understand! I'm sorry that I'm not answering your ask directly. See, I have a strict policy of blocking minors who approach me in a sexual context! A "policy" is like a rule someone sets that they make really really sure to follow, and "context" is the stuff surrounding a thing! Furthermore, "sexual" means... well, ask your mommy and daddy about that one after church, okay? I'm sure you came from a very loving Christian family who will be happy to teach you what their god says about sex. I can tell from the values you're approaching me with that you've been taught super normal ideas about what's healthy and unhealthy in interacting with other people!

See, when you approach—that means to "walk up to", in a physical or metaphorical sense—oh, do you know what metaphorical means? It's something that isn't actually happening.—when you approach someone with sexual content, you have to get their consent. That's when you ask them if they're okay with something first! It's a big idea, I know, but it's really important, okay? When you don't have that, and you do a thing related to that big scary "sex" thing anyway, that's called "sexual harassment". One sound at a time, now! But, since you're just a child, I'll assume you didn't know! I still had to report you, though.

I don't think you sent me this in good faith. I think you were trying to be mean and upset me. It's okay! A lot of people on the internet do that. It can be really easy to forget that all these little words on the screen are from real people! But I'll forgive you. Sometimes it's hard to feel real in a big scary world.

But let's look at why you're trying to be mean. I can learn a lot about what a person is trying to do from two sentences! See, a lot of people on the internet are looking for someone to be mean to. It makes them feel big and important in a world where we are small and unimportant. It can even make them feel like they're doing something good in the world! Sometimes, people pick other people with certain traits to be mean to, so they don't have to think too hard about who the "right" person to be mean to is, and sometimes, they do this in really specific ways! When they see a trans person—that's someone whose gender doesn't match the one the doctor said was theirs—a lot of times they like to be mean by saying that trans person does bad sex stuff, especially with younger people, and they really like to do so when it isn't true!

But you weren't trying to be mean like that, were you? I think you were trying to be mean because you think sex is bad, and you think all the people on the big wide internet should go out of their way to hide it from younger people, so anyone who doesn't do that is one of the people you get to be mean to!

But here's the problem, sweetie: one of the things you have to learn to do on the internet is set your own boundaries. I know it's a big word, so I'll explain! "Setting boundaries" is when you decide what you're comfortable with, like sitting on a big, fluffy couch, or wearing a cozy sweater! It's also when you decide what you're not comfortable with, like stepping on an ouchy Lego or eating yucky vegetables :( Then, you do things to make sure you don't do the things you're not comfortable with! This means reading the labels on things, like the big bolded "warnings" section at the top of a story someone wrote and deciding whether you're a big kid enough to read it or not! If you're not sure, you can always show it to your mommy and ask her if it's okay. I can't set your boundaries for you. I can only set them for me, and I can only make people follow them in specific ways.

I don't want kids talking to me about stuff that has sex in it, even if I wrote it. I'm an adult, which is a kind of REALLY big kid, and it makes me uncomfortable. So when a kid like you talks to me about it, I use the "block" button to make sure it doesn't happen again! Sometimes, I even use it when someone on the internet is a meanie for no reason. It's a really good tool to help you set firm boundaries!

But I can't stop kids and mean people from reading stories I wrote. I just can't. Even if I write on them a label—like "minors dni", it doesn't stop them! That label only does something if a person reads it and decides to listen to it. And if I use that cool block button, that also doesn't stop them! So if I try to get ahead by reading the information people write about themselves and block them if I wouldn't be comfortable with them reading my story, it doesn't actually stop them from reading it! All it does is make it so they can't talk to me, and it's really easy to do things to talk to me anyway! Not only that, but lots of kids fib about how old they are so they seem cool and mature. Can you think of anyone who fibs about how many years they are? I bet you can. So I don't write a label telling people who can and can't read my stories, and I don't try to block them ahead of time.

The truth is, a lot of people think those labels need to exist to protect children! And I agree that little kids need protecting. But some of the older kids aren't quite REALLY big kids yet, and already learned about sex. I'm still not comfortable talking to them about it, but they also aren't seeing a new thing with my stories. There's actually no good reason to try to stop these older kids, either! It's much safer for big kids to build a healthy relationship with the idea of sex in an environment where other people can't hurt them.

But what about the younger kids who don't know yet? Those younger kids have parents who have the very big job of making sure they grow up safe and healthy! I wouldn't want to do that job. It's big and scary and hard. Luckily, it isn't my job! I don't have to do anything to help those kids grow up safe and healthy, because their parents have the responsibility of teaching them to set healthy boundaries with themselves and how they spend their time. It's a much bigger responsibility than picking up your toys! I can help with those responsibilities by making it really really obvious what's in the stories I share with people, so they know whether or not they might be uncomfortable reading it, and I do that! But when you're an adult, you have lots of big responsibilities, like "job" and even more chores, so I don't have time to help other people with their responsibilities! That's why I let parents do the important job of teaching all their kids about how to be safe on the internet.

I know it can be confusing and scary. I'm sorry if you needed to cry after learning about what sex or that other Big Kids already know about it. I won't tell anyone, I promise. And I'm really really sorry if your mommy and daddy scared you into thinking sex was a bad thing. It made you, and it's okay to enjoy it in healthy, appropriate ways with people who know what it means and consent! Sometimes, people who say they're Christian spread a lot of big hurtful ideas about things because they think it makes them good, and sometimes, we let those root way down deep like a dandelion! It looks pretty, but it's crowding out all the nice flowers that are also trying to grow. It'll be real hard when you try to pull it out, but you're a big kid, and I bet you're really strong! Grab it with both hands now and pull until the other good things can grow in your heart again, okay, sweetie?

[mask131]

Shit... Well I just learned that the problem of youth's radicalization when it comes to Islam and to school is even worse than before.

So, if you don't know about the issue - France currently has a big "Muslim fanatics" problem. Started out with the various terrorist attacks by Muslims fanatics, but now the problem is that more and more teenagers, children and young adults are being enrolled and converted by extreme Muslim communities. Not your regular practicioners of Islam, we are talking closed-up, almost sectarian communities (the kind that only agrees to sell faceless dolls to little girls), and extremely violent and fanatical Internet influencers - of course all tied to the intense hate of foreign terrorist organizations.

And this whole Islam radicalization problem mostly comes up with school - public school of course, because private school is a whole another domain. Because public schools, due to being an organism of the French state, have to enact the laicity rule, ensuring the strict secularism of school - aka, it should be a neutral party when it comes to religious debates and positions. But given a lot and lot of teenagers today are being enroled into extreme forms of religion, more and more problem arose.

[As a side note, just from me and my personal observations, a part of these problems is tied to a change of paradigm when it comes to youth's mindset in France. For a very, very long time, French youth lived by the principle of laicity as established in France and won over centuries of battles against religious fanaticism and religious involvment in governments - Christian religion it was back then. As such, laicity was (and still is by the law), the idea that the organisms of the state (government, public school, public hospitals) must not be part, show support or show preferences for any given religion, and rather should present itself as a secular organization that treats all people as citizens of France instead of member of a specific religion. It is a form of "equality by neutrality", "everybody's in the same bag", since religion is not supposed to be a public matter but a private one - religion belongs to private and domestic domains, and to religious buildings and areas, it does not belong to public systems or state-affiliated organizations.

But recently, thanks to the growing influence from the English-speaking world through media and the Internet, today's youth is used to a new concept of laicity and "respect of religion" that is the very reverse of French laicity, but is more the norm if countries like the USA or England. Aka: everybody should be able to freely and openly represent and talk about and bring their religion to every area in their life, including their public work or state business, out of the principle that religion shouldn't be shunned upon. It is another form of religious equality and another way of seeing things, which is partially explained by the fact countries like England or the USA actually have a religious government (Christian) and thus need to be able to justify having religion involved in state business, unlike France which has a secular government from which religion has been banned since a very long time...

And due to today's youth being influenced by country models that do the very reverse of what the French law and system were made for, a true rift is forming itself, a crack in which a lot of the problems we have today slip into. They see models of schools in media where teachers can appear as openly Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist, and where respecting this is seen as normal because you have to respect people's personal freedom... But they live in a country where teachers in school are supposed to not show their personal religion at their workplace precisely to ensure the kids' personal freedom, because they are not supposed to give a biased view when it comes to the matters they teach. Of course, this is going to cause a big confusion. But I digress anyway back to the subject]

So... Sorry for the digression above but this problem is at the same time very simple and very complex.

As I said, due to a strong presence of radicalization of Muslim beliefs (or the presence of pseudo-Muslims who are just religious fanaticals who don't know shit about the history of Islam, you know the equivalent of those insane Christians who keep quoting the Bible without having read one in their life), more and more incidents are happening in schools of France. The most famous ones are of course the murder of teachers - mostly the Samuel Patti beheading and the Dominique Bernard stabbings. And there was also the public scandal caused around the strong imposition of the state rule that religious clothes are supposed to be banned from schools...

But beyond these massive incidents, there is an overall ambiance of fear, and unease in the school world, with a rise of physical and verbal aggressions of teachers, a rise of death threats online, leading to a lot of teachers censoring themselves or avoid specific subjects to avoid causing an outrage... The problem being that we are talking about History teachers, and Geography teachers, and teachers dealing with social or religious topics. Teachers meant to give a complete and neutral education to children so they can form their own opinion and be learned about the world.

And if you think "Okay, but that's just about hot social topics or divisive historical events", oh no! Things are getting worse and worse.

The recent invention of these people being attacks against music classes. In France, you have music classes where children and teens are forced to learn about the types of musical instruments, the notes, and they are taught to sing. This is usually a most dreaded class because if you are not talented for singing you are forced to perform a friendless karaoke in front of your whole class and you can't escape it. I was there. Well, now there is a lot of youth who are objecting to having music class and refuse to be taught about musical instruments or to hear in class pieces of music... because music is "haram". And so these children, by religious decision, banish music from their world. That's how far the religious-fanatic mindset is taking over youth. (And that's not just Islam. Islam is the most prominent and talked about and dangerous one currently - thanks to being tied to terrorist threats and public schools - but there is also a rise of Christian radicaliation in France, though it happens behind doors in private schools mostly and they keep themselves quiet]

And if you truly want to see how bad the situation is getting, there was this incident that happened recently. A picture, a painting, was shown during an art class in school. This painting:

It is a 17th century painting of Diana and Acteon. Your typical painting you see pop up in art manuals, or that children are usually sent to see in museums.

But when the teacher showed this in school, many students were outraged, and turned away from the image, and said the teacher was being islamophobic and disrespecting their religion, and threatened her. Because... this is a painting of naked, white ladies. And for them, it committed a hate-crime against their religion. Well I say "theirs" but I am not even sure all of the offendees were actually Muslim...

... Have I said that this happened in middle-school? Not high school, not university. Middle-school.

So... yeah, France currently has a big religion problem.

[adampage]

Hello! I had seen your post about Britt Baker a while back, and I wanted to respond to it back then, but I didn't have time to do so. But I have some time now. So, here goes and I'll try not to make it too long.

First, I really don't think Britt is this horrible, bad person that people have made her out to be. Especially when there are people in locker room who are actually problematic and have a history not so good behavior. I do feel the hate she gets and the things people say about her online is unfair and uncalled for. Even if people aren't fans of her for whatever reason, it's still wrong to spread rumors and malicious gossip. That's never okay, no matter who the person is. And as we saw in the episode, she confirmed that none of those things people say about her is true. When Saraya first showed up to AEW, there were rumors her and Britt don't like each other and get along. And again, the episode pretty much squashed that rumor. And I do believe she does genuinely care about the women's division and wants to help the other girls out. Just like the other girls, she does work hard and she's proven herself worthy of being the face of the women's division.

Going back to the rumors and gossip a moment, a wrestling podcast once spread rumors about her cheating on Adam with Christian Cage, and this was during the time that Adam was still out and Britt was by his side the whole time. Even though she never responded to this or addressed it on social media, I'm sure that still had to be upsetting for her and that it hurt her no doubt. I know we only know what Britt and Adam show us, but nothing that I've seen with them suggests that she would ever do such a thing to him. We've seen that she is a good woman and that she's loyal and is willing to stand by him through thick and thin. When I saw her go out to celebrate with him tonight, I just thought it was a beautiful thing to see. It's clear that they do love each other and are happy. There's no reason to think otherwise.

Onto the issue with Thunder Rosa, considering that there were recently reports about Thunder Rosa having a meeting with the women and apologizing to them and admitting to the sandbagging and stiff working, it leads me to think that there was some truth to what Britt and the other girls were saying. Or at least that it wasn't a one-sided issue or as black and white as it was made to be. The meeting was said to have gone very well and the women have settled their issues with Thunder Rosa.

Overall, I feel that shows like All Access are a good reminder that wrestlers are real people who go through same stuff us regular folks do in the workplace, that no one is perfect, and not everyone is gonna like each other or get along all the time. And we shouldn't believe everything we hear or read on the internet, unless the wrestler in question confirms it for themselves. There's always going to be disagreements and some kind of issue about something. And that things aren't always one-sided or simply black and white. It doesn't mean that anyone in particular is a bad person.

Sorry if this was too long. I tried not to make it too long, but that was the only way I could explain it best.

thanks for the info, anon. i get that you're trying to defend her but my opinion really doesn't matter regardless. I'll put this on my blog so you know I saw it but whether it's true or not, seeing three white women put down a woman of color doesn't look good in this day and age. it wasn't nice to see that for me personally, someone who relates to thunder rosa because i am also a latin woman.

i don't doubt that the issue has shades of grey, but i feel i have a right to say that on my own blog because that's how i feel about it.

my feelings toward britt have always been complicated, because we are all complicated people. sometimes i like her a lot, like when i see how she behaves around cole, and sometimes i don't. that's just the way things are. sorry if that offends you.

[strikersin]

I appreciate that so many women and girls have transitioned to men and boys and that, at least on the online spectrum of things, have taken the idea of fetishizing gay men and turned it into a sign of being a gay man. The conundrum has solved itself, except at least to me, it's still poorly understood.

I'm glad that people are finding comfort and rallying about things, but it doesn't make sense to me. I think that women have been proven to show a trend of being interested in gay men, and no matter how much I love the stories, or want to be something more than what I am... that doesn't translate to making me a gay man, what if we don't have any of the same experiences...? I have no direct connection to the aids crisis, no loved ones related to this history, I have no real desire to be connected to the scene: I would probably cringe myself out of existence trying to fit in between bears and otters, not out of any lack of love for them, but how could I fit?

... and maybe then, that's how a lot of gay men and men in general come to feel. How can he fit in, how can his shape possibly be accepted...?

The thing about the noted lack of interest in women or being a woman (specifically in the FTM Internet zone) is that it's a marked feature of modern culture. Women don't even like other women. There's no real sense of community unless you build one. That's something to think about, because even as a man, you can't escape women. Actually, as we were saying as feminists, once you become a man, your duty to consider women is even more than before.

But how can we do that if we can't consider ourselves? It's so confusing... of course, different people have different narratives. It's like (this small group) has bypassed an obstacle that wasn't really an obstacle...

Fetishizing gay men, what I have come to understand this to mean to our Internet subculture, often looks like religiously christian girls and women engaging with fanmade content of gay men (and these women do not identify with being transgender) while dehumanising them as actual people, or to say that they would deny them human rights if offered the choice while simultaneously "fangirling" over the concept because... it's proven that girls like gay men.

If your self hatred turns into love because you've radically altered your sense of self...

Well, that's what everyone trying to turn their lives around hopes to do, right?

If you're getting away from the concepts that once binded you... but how? How? Why?

I can't escape from being a girl anymore than I can... and why would I have wanted to be a boy aa a child, it's not true that they're treated much better, it just depends...

...

...

How can you claim to be something you have no knowledge of? When you gain the knowledge, but you have no experience? Or is that what it feels like?

...

It sounds awesome. It looks like fun.

I still can't escape.

I guess that's the point in my narrative.

Hm.

How I see myself ranges. In the future and as of now. I don't really want to try that hard. It's enough work to be me. God, that's enough.

Take my hand, I think is what I wanted to hear. You're not alone.

So all these things about egg cracking (and how long of a process that can take) makes me think of her. I shouldn't write it, but how much of her transmasculine body would be so desirable. Of course, she is already desirable. And... I shouldn't say it, but this transition won't happen, in any case. Unless...

And is it that I can't find freedom for myself unless she has, or has she already and I am utterly mistaken? It would be fun. What's the point of that? Maybe.

I've seen it in my dreams. It's so annoying...

I'm so annoyed and sad by it... I think I can't help but place that on the shoulders of those that still explore their gender and sex. It's really annoying.

I'm just going to be a different person for a while. Which in my next idea taken from the Internet that I am assuredly just... posing for. But, you know, hey, I was right about autism years before, when it wasn't able to be recognized yet. I was right about my sexuality, if... if I didn't understand it at the same time, and still have prejudice against. You know? I'm so scared to like women. I would be such an insufferable partner in the 50s, except that I'm so awesome. I'm somewhat insufferable now, just...

But you know, I would have been an insufferable gay man in the 80s. I would have left my partner with aids weeks before he died, of course I couldn't have known, I would have loved him and left out of fear and wanting more and regretted it for ever. And hated myself for the while. And so what?

It's such a complicated soul and existence... not to anyone else, of course, except that I MAKE NO SENSE... but to me, the mystery is...

...

Such insufferable things. I used to be fun, you know? Connected with my passion. Now I just want to kill myself for failing to do more in my past. But it's gone, gone, gone, right? There's no more to do. Right? My passion hurts like an empty... swirling vortex of nondescript dark and purple viscera. I want to DIE! but then what? To face the people that I have ultimately let down, what, again? Take me, take me, take me to the void, and let those who would weep, weep. And misremember. Because the memory is always omitting. And that's why I had to destroy the memory of me, to replace it with something bad, something you wouldn't forgive, because then death is the ultimate catharsis...

Right? That's what you'd want, right? I can't believe he did that to me, but at least he's dead. At least it's over, so that it doesn't hurt twice, but once, badly and confusedly. Then it's not about you but what happened to you and that it's gone now, forever. That I would have, would have, written letters, this was never your fault... I should have done that, but I lived. There wasn't even time to die.

But the sun is still so, gradually so, warming and the air is kind... and sublime... and I'm so lucky and grateful for my brother, who is both of these things. The sun and the air, and the warmth of it all, and most importantly, my brother. And he's gay, well no, he's not really gay. And he's dead... well, yes, but... he's everything that moves in this universe, and he is the stillness between all things. He is just... One. He is my one. My gayass brother and me.

What would he think? I know. You're thinking about this too much. I'm trying to find the conclusion for myself. And I'll never know it until I get there. So what...?

Just don't have labels, dude. And get it out of your system.

I want a beer! It's not concluded until it's the end...! And right now, whatever for, I have to be a woman. Whatever for...

Whatever for...

And even if my wife were to have our child, would I have to... and even when men on testosterone get pregnant, would I have to...

But. Yes. No, it's silly to think. That I could be anymore like you, anymore than just two human beings, anyway. And how could I ever be the kind of man I wanted? How. Could. I. Be? But no one would accept it already.

Words are starting to not make sense, my dyslexia is getting... profoundly difficult. Now.

At least I can be that kind of woman...? That...? I don't know what I want. But I do it. Or someone does. I just want to be with my brother. Goodnight, oh, goodnight... people and places. I see you, and I'll dream with you...

And I won't die, but how could I ever apologize, now? How could I...? Without the penalty of death?

Sorry, that I will not support for anyone else, that penalty. Not you. Live differently.

Ugh. Goodbye.

[wh3ntheshitgoesd0wn]

ya'll i've been more identifying with the independent party most of my life but i did not see until recently how fucking scary the democratic party is... like they had me on their side thinking they were like so good and all that... nah

like i really avoided politics when i was younger nd hated all of it, but now i've recently i've actually done my research into some of this stuff because i believe it's my responsibility to vote, and those who want to control us would love to convince us not to vote. i'm in my mid twenties and haven't voted before because i felt overwhelmed by the options, and that none of them were good... well i am seeing the truth a lot clearer now that i've taken a genuine interest in what's going on around me politically, and all I can say is I am so grateful for the Lord and saviour showing me the truth.

Before I was well... just very scared. I leaned more toward spirituality more than Christianity (which was my upbringing), because i didn't quite understand how God operated, and being the rebellious teen that I was, I went to explore and look for answers not from the Bible but the Internet. Which I'm grateful for the free-will to do that, and look for answers to my questions in the way that makes sense to me. But just within the last month or so I've realized that a lot of the beliefs that people hold in the spirituality community lead to some pretty terrifying circumstances if their ideas were true. Seriously-- scared to the point of my body shaking uncontrollably.

After much postulating though I came to the realization that Jeshuah's plan brought me comfort when I was scared. His story is one of love and forgiveness. And God is just.

I've now surrendered to God's plan, knowing it is perfect, and I feel much safer knowing that God's sovereignty protects us all from chaos. My trust is in the Lord, and I pray that everyone who is scared and wondering, will also find peace and rest in our Saviour's arms, and trust in Him, as I do now.

[ferny-berny]

there's a first for everything

I’m finally doing it. I’m writing my first blog post!

For a long time now, I couldn’t tell you if it’s been months or years because I guess I’ve always wanted to share my thoughts with the world, I’ve wanted to make a blog. When I was younger the idea of being a youtuber was super cool, but I always told myself that I should only post online if I had something genuinely interesting and original to contribute. That’s a lot of pressure to put on a kid who clearly just had a desire to be creative. It honestly stopped me from doing a lot of things, but I can proudly say I have a very clean digital footprint :p

Always a passive scroller, never a poster. 

Growing up as a child with unsupervised access to the internet, media consumption was my number one hobby. Too old to be an iPad baby, but too young to know what life was like before Google existed; the sweet spot, really. Maybe I’m biased, but the internet I grew up on is not the one that lives today. It’s really a reflection of the collective mind, all the misinformation and lack of critical thinking… don’t get me started. The internet I grew up with was an option - available, but not necessary. None of us were taking it too seriously because, honestly, they hadn’t figured out how to make money on there yet. Even making money on a site like eBay felt like a fun little game, but maybe that’s the childhood nostalgia warping reality. 

You get my point though - it used to be fun and now it’s not. At least not for me. It’s just doomscroll, laugh at tweet, post cute pic, repeat. It really can’t be normal to be going through as many emotions as you do when you scroll down the timeline. Amygdala going crazyyyy.

I know that this is just a string of tangents so far, but I promise I’m going somewhere with this -

The internet can be fun again! It’s special because it’s a place to connect and share. As fun as it is to watch my shows and listen to my little playlists, the thing that really feeds me is being able to talk about it with someone. I am a certified yapper, like my roommate says.

Funny thing though: as I close out this chapter of my life, I am also done with what feels like the research stage of it. The time I spent simply sitting back and observing the world is very important to me. It wasn’t all happy, but it taught me a lot. I am raising my hand in the classroom of life (hahaha). I would like to participate now. 

There’s a lot left to explore, I’m only 23 after all. Which if you’re younger may feel old, but even if that were true, it’s cool to age. You couldn’t pay me to be ~young~ again. Who knew it could hurt so much to be in the dark? The growing pains still come and go, but are much easier to bear nowadays. I have at least found the switch to see things more clearly. 

A big realization was that I don’t want to waste any more time. It took me a while to come to terms with my anxiety, but one of the things that I had to accept was that thinking about anything too hard will make me not want to do it. Like this. This is being written on a google doc because I can’t figure out what to name the actual blog. But that just cannot be the reason I don’t do it. There won’t always be more time.

This past year has been a big one for me. It was my final year in college. I’m a super senior, so I got an extra year and it honestly ended up working out, but until about last week it didn’t register that I won’t be a college student forever. After this I’ll never have another finals week, study sesh in the library, or a casual chat at the english department… no more dumplings from the dumpling cart, pizza from Christian’s (at 2am after a night out), or basil fried rice from my favorite Thai place on campus. It just started setting in that my weeks are, in fact, counted. That maybe there won’t be a next time for certain things; that museum visit that I’ve pushed off since moving down here could simply not happen if I don’t carve out the time to actually do it because it is ending. Things do end, (un)fortunately. I thought it never would. 

Yada yada, I’m getting sappy. And we don’t know each other yet.

The point is: you won’t always have all the time in the world. I get it now. So I want a place to talk about it. That and music, social issues, self-care, pop culture, books, movies, etc.

I want my voice to be heard. I’ll admit it’s a little scary to speak up, but I have so many thoughts that I’m going to try and just post it before I find a reason not to. I hope you join in because I hate talking to myself :)