#lack of religion lack of culture lack of any depth at all

[butchvamp]

i absolutely understand there was no way to account for every single choice ever made-- that's literally impossible across so many games and so many years and so many changes. i do, however, think that 3 games worth of established lore should be worth something and like.... addressed. there are always going to be things that are retconned over time, i even said previously that i liked some of the changes around the qunari that happened back in inquisition because it felt like a step in the right direction and finally fleshing them out and establishing their culture in a meaningful way. but that's not what's happening in veilguard. they do the opposite. with everyone, the qunari and the elves and the dwarves and even the humans. they get reduced to generic, bland, homogeneous, nonreligious groups that all get along amongst themselves. the dalish elves are either just dead in the background (which to be fair has always been a consistent feature of these games lol) or absorbed into the veil jumpers, who are a huge mix of humans and qunari and elves, etc. kal-sharok gets literally Nothing despite one of the main companion quests taking place there-- there are no dwarven politics like we've seen previously, the kal-sharok aren't even especially isolationist nor do they take any time to explore their proximity to tevinter (and what they did to keep trading with them), or the blight and darkspawn (and how it's changed them and their relationship to orzammar). the qunari are all antaam, just faceless bodies for rook and co to kill because they needed more enemy variety, and what we do see with shathann and taash does not cohere with what we've learned previously about gender in the qun. the chantry is basically nonexistent despite two games setting up this massive conflict between mages and templars, despite veilguard literally revolving around massive revelations of faith… and i know we're in northern thedas so the chantry and templars do function differently, but our only two templars we get a lot of interactions with are "good guys" (and rana specifically can get up on her high horse about it with neve with no option for us to give her the third degree like she's not a fantasy cop whose coworkers are paid off by rich magisters lol) like... these are huge, glaring changes that do not align with a lot of what we've seen in previous games and also have nothing to do with complex branching choices.

[roxirinart]

Aventurine... You've Gotta Hand It To Him

An in-depth analysis of Aventurine's hands and why they're critical to his character.

Was asked if I could post this (VERY LONG) analysis I made all about Aventurine's hands - niche, perhaps, but I love him very much and he has a LOT of focus placed on his hands in almost every aspect of his story/design! I think it makes for a really neat insight into his character. Let’s go! 2K words or so so we're under a 'read more', folks :P Hope someone finds it interesting :)

Content warning for (very brief mentions of) sexual theming and violence.

I MIGHT be reaching with some of this but I tried to make sure everything was in order, so if there are any inaccuracies lmk! I'm Always on the lookout for more valuable Avencheem lore 😋

The Avgin - Culture and Symbolism

Kakavasha was born 'blessed' with unnaturally good luck by the Avgin goddess, Gaiathra Triclops, who is often depicted as a left palm with three eyes upon it. If we assume that therefore, someone’s left hand is representative of Gaiathra, then we can draw some interesting conclusions! 

When reciting Gaiathra’s prayer, the typical accompanying gesture is for two participants to put their left palms together while saying it, which - by ‘covering’ Gaiathra’s eyes with each other’s palms, they are (as per the words of the prayer) ‘keeping their schemes forever concealed’.

In the version of Aventurine’s boss form that was removed from the Divergent Universe, he has an attack that changes name for each phase of the fight, as follows:

Phase 1: “Eyes Once Closed for Lies”, 

Phase 2: “Eyes Twice Closed for Trickery”

Phase 3: “Eyes Thrice Closed for Schemes”. 

This suggests that the symbolic act of Gaiathra closing her eyes is blessing the person in question not to have their lies, trickery, or schemes revealed - “I do not perceive it, nor shall anyone else.” This is important to the Avgin, as they seem to have a cultural focus on underhanded methods of achieving their goals, although this was blown greatly out of proportion by prejudice from other Sigonians, and (later) the wider cosmos. The game’s loading screen description of the Avgin is as follows:

“‘Avgin’ means ‘honey’ in the Sigonian language, yet those who irrationally fear Avgins unjustifiably distort the word's meaning to perpetuate Avgin stereotypes that portray them as crafty, smooth-talking, and capricious.”

Sparkle, when talking to Aventurine, also describes the Avgin as “...notorious throughout the entire universe! Liars, thieves, social manipulators, wolves in sheep's clothing... You're really living up to the reputation.”

The Avgin’s reputation as essentially ‘evil’ people, and the clear cultural and religious importance they place upon one’s left hand specifically, can reveal some interesting things about them (and therefore about Kakavasha):

In the real world, the left hand is very commonly considered to be the ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’ hand across many religions and cultures. The word ‘sinister’ (which may be a good descriptor for Aventurine’s behavior, or at least peoples' perception of him given how other characters react to him during the main questline) comes from a Latin word that means ‘on the left side’.

The French word for left, ‘gauche’ was borrowed back into english to mean ‘lacking social grace’ - and with Aventurine’s way of getting all up in peoples’ faces, grandstanding, being provocative, etc., it seems that ‘gauche’ isn’t a bad descriptor for him, either.

In the early 20th century, left-handedness was identified as ‘a biological anomaly, associated with deviancy but something that could be corrected away with behavioral reinforcement’.

Likewise, in the middle ages in England, left-handed people were more likely to be accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake. Sounds familiar when compared to the way Sigonia treated the Avgin - as evildoers, tricksters, backstabbers, etc.,

If the Avgin were so ‘left-handed’ in all senses of the phrase, then… perhaps the ‘behavioral correction’ they received could be justified...?

It is reinforced several times throughout both written lore and during gameplay that the Avgin’s beautiful appearances and high emotional intelligence were a source of jealousy to other clans and races, hence the perpetuation of the Avgin’s negative reputation - one that Aventurine ends up playing into, often intentionally.

Why bother trying to change the stereotype if he can use it to his advantage? Besides, it’s not like getting rid of the Avgins’ negative rep will help them now, anyway.

All this is to say that the concept of hiding your true intentions with your left hand - ‘keeping your cards close to your chest’, ‘bluffing’, ‘having an ace up your sleeve’, knowing when to ‘show your hand’ - is a huge overarching theme for the Avgin, and therefore for Aventurine.

Notice that a LOT of sayings to do with hiding things from others or manipulating people’s impressions of you and what they think you might do come from poker or other card games! I can’t think of any universe where the devs did that by accident. Nice work, devs!

The Left Hand

‘Sleight of hand’ is the name of Aventurine’s game, and he sure knows how to play it. ‘Sleight’ means “the use of dexterity or cunning, especially so as to deceive”, so naturally the suffix ‘- of hand’ brings Aventurine’s hands to the forefront as one of his main tools of the trade!

However, the devs once again outdid themselves - each of Aventurine’s hands is representative of parts of his character in very different ways.

Everything about Aventurine is designed to cleverly divert attention away from his real thoughts and feelings.

I’ll get the obvious out of the way: Aventurine’s left hand (as previously discussed) is critically important to his character. It represents so many things for him both visually and otherwise.

If you’re a regular Aventurine enjoyer it’s likely you know about his habit of hiding his left hand behind his back when he’s nervous or making a big (or life-threatening) gamble - but why?

He’s specifically hiding Gaiathra’s hand. I don’t think it’s a coincidence; Aventurine - by hiding away what is essentially a physical representation of his goddess - is ‘closing her eyes’, so he cannot be seen through (even if it’s purely subconscious).

He wants people locked onto his gaze and away from the hand he’s clutching Gaiathra’s ‘blessing’ of good luck so tightly with. (Note: the ironic nature of Aventurine’s relationship with his cursed blessing isn’t lost on me, but that’s another day’s essay. :))

This habit of hiding his left hand behind his back is (once you’re looking for it) very common in the majority of his animations, art, cinematics, and other various media, like in his character trailer when he’s about to reveal the result of his big dice roll; in a specific animation during his bossfight, where he’s actively banking on losing so he can carry out his ‘grand death’ (‘clutching his chips for dear life’, as his future self put it…); the idle animation where he’s fidgeting with one of his poker chips; or in the ‘Final Victor’ light cone, where he is playing russian roulette with his own life just to prove a point to Dr. Ratio (which was a little excessive, perhaps…).

Usually, having a hand behind your back is considered to be suspicious: you’re hiding something, perhaps a weapon.

And for Kakavasha, out of fear and knowing it’ll give him the upper hand, he hides his own weapon behind his back: the physical representation of all his schemes, strategies, lies, trickery, and tactics - and the last Avgin palm to touch another’s.

Perhaps in relation to his particularly strong connection with Gaiathra, Aventurine is also left-handed! Evidence? Sure!

As a general ‘fashion rule’ (and for practicality), wristwatches are worn on the non-dominant hand, and someone as fashion-conscious as Aventurine would very likely be aware of this. His watch is on his right wrist.

Additionally, he wears no rings on his left hand because writing or similar activities would be a pain to do with that much jewelry on. Further evidence can be found in this phone wallpaper of him released by Hoyoverse: he’s holding his phone with his left hand, and people usually operate their phones with their dominant hand. Similarly, in one of the many videos on the Hoyoverse YouTube channel (I’m sorry I don’t know which one it’s from), he goes to grab his tablet off the bedside table with his left hand, too.

The Right Hand

Aventurine’s character is, at its core, is all about defense. Protecting himself from harm, shielding his thoughts and feelings from others, creating an impenetrable barrier of flashy clothing and fake smiles to conceal his true self - this all presents in his moveset in battle, too.

He’s a preservation-class, shield-providing character. The critical thing to note is this: his defense all happens on the right hand. This includes his skill (throwing out chips with his right hand to shield his teammates), and his technique, which generates an additional shield for the team before the start of battle. 

His right hand ‘shields’ him both literally and metaphorically in this sense. He wears all his rings on his right hand, because that’s the hand he wants you to focus on, the pretty, sparkly one with all the flashy jewelry and expensive wristwatch, the one that’s extended for you to shake (he shakes with his right hand), the only part of him most people get to touch. A part of the body furthest away from his heart, dazzling and defensive.

The outermost, superficial layer.

It’s the hand that more often performs captivating little coin tricks out in the open to catch people’s attention, keeping them focused on something that’s within his control, because so much of his life isn't.

On The Attack

Here’s the kicker though - this makes his left hand the attacking hand. When push comes to shove (or when he feels he needs to strike first), Aventurine lashes out with Gaiathra’s hand.

As mentioned before, his weapons are his schemes, his secrets, his tricks, his lies - and the hand holding all those chips so tightly is his left, the lucky hand, the one that has brought him success and saved his life time and time again.

Ultimately, it all comes down to relying on his raw luck to push him through (whether he's happy about that or not) when all his other methods of attack have been stripped away - and his hand trembles, because having to make a blind bet that his goddess (who did nothing to stop his family being massacred, yet is both cruel and benevolent enough to keep him alive) will save him yet again must be really fucking terrifying.

When Your Hands Are Tied...

Looking at both hands together, a design choice which I believe to be deliberate is the way he has bracelets of some variety over both his wrists. It’s a subtle imitation of manacles; he may have escaped his iron ones, but Aventurine now lives in golden handcuffs instead, bound by social shackles instead of physical ones.

He’s still a slave - just not in the traditional sense.

To my understanding (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, his timeline has some annoying gaps in it even though I tried very hard to figure it out ;-;), technically Aventurine legally belongs to the IPC.

He killed his most recent owner and so escaped his that particular ownership, sure, but when he barters with Jade, he asks her to pay him the ‘remainder of his market value’, which insinuates that it would therefore give him ownership of himself.

However, Jade doesn’t simply hand over the money: she pulls him into a job contract - a new form of imprisonment - without ever giving him real legal autonomy, never officially declaring him a free man. His hands are invisibly tied - bound by corporate and social 'manacles' to his job.

"Out, Damned Spot!"

Speaking of manacles, let’s talk about the ‘Hunger Games’, shall we?

Kakavasha is, at some indeterminate point, entered into a spectator sport where he is forced to fight thirty-four other slaves to the death.

It is mentioned that he has no other weapon than the bindings on his wrists and the chain between them - and he emerges ‘victorious’ (physically the victor... perhaps not mentally or emotionally, though).

In the quest notes during Aventurine’s (literal) trip through the maze while he’s making his way to the stage for his grand finale, he describes himself with the word ‘murderer’, showing that he’s clearly distraught by what happened and resents himself for it. 

Following on from this, a possible interpretation of the design choice to have Aventurine wear gloves is for him to (figuratively) hide the blood on his hands.

Aventurine’s gloves simultaneously create a literal barrier between himself and the world, and work as another piece of fancy clothing to add to his impenetrable, sparking defense. The closest match I could find to the style of Aventurine’s gloves are short dress gloves or wrist gloves, which are specifically fashion items as opposed to practical ones.

(As a cheeky little aside, the absolute closest style match I could find for his gloves are latex or leather womens’ gloves most commonly used in BDSM, which is fun! Maybe I’m reaching, but I like to think it’s a subtle way of making him more effeminate - and in Aventurine’s case, therefore a subtle call to his sexuality imo - and also another little detail to help push his ‘provocative’ appearance and demeanor.)

Conclusion

Our hands are how we interact with the world. In Aventurine’s case, they’re how he keeps the world pushed as far away from himself as possible, all the while gripping onto his ‘good luck’ for dear life.

Aventurine’s hands are his weapons, his shield, his faith, his fear, and his guilt, decorated with jeweled rings and bound in golden handcuffs.

Ultimately, when Aventurine offers to lend a hand to the Trailblazer, when he shows Sunday his hand (and a bit more besides) during their meeting, and when he forces Acheron’s hand during his bossfight, it's so that his own hands are free to do whatever he needs to orchestrate his greatest scheme yet...

...for better or worse.

[angellic-critique]

Honestly my biggest fear is to end up writing my characters the same way vivzie does, I feel like she doesn't even try on certain characters(female characters and literally any other that isn't her "uwu baby boi must be protected at all costs" characters like stolas, angel dust). Like imagine completely missing the point of your own character/srs

to everyone pre-release worries and anxieties just as much as I have-- Please take this time to read or explore different interests of books or authors of subjects and genres you like ! In the era of internet where the golden age of information is rusting into brainrot, the less time online anymore the better. I've been taking javascript/python tutorials for myself attempting to make a dating simulator for literal years at this point and its bounced around to the point of where I branched off to develop my own murder mystery 2-d sidescroller !

I wish for this to be a farewell letter to the crushed hopes and dreams I had for the original hazbin pilot and crew has moved on to other things whereas viv attempted to spitefully keep a story she clearly doesn't have any passion over- it is very evident over her lack of care for her own characters purely for the monetary gains of attempting and sadly wriggling her way into industry the way she did is so abhorrent to the world of genuine art and animation I grew up with.

Has Vivzie ever read a Felix the Cat comic strip or Dilbert even Hägar The Horrible? Does she even know about the history and strive of depth that animation has been at for hundreds of years? Does she even like comics, clearly not if she doesn't even have the patience to write her own and horribly rush whichever story she's interested in that day. I've never seen a careless writer be this selfishly unashamed to write literal garbage and surface level 'intrigue' of design and then falling flat face first at EVERY step. Hope she becomes as unbearable of a director as John K. is because honestly even though I'm cringing making that comparison, it's pretty fair in my book considering the outright ABUSE she has always trying to talk or hoard artists into her 'pet project' I recommend above anything else to watch Dan Stamanolous' 'Moral Orel' if you want an actually funny dark comedy or Christy Karacas' fast paced dark horror comic-come-to-life Superjail! for good animattion that doesn't belittle its audience... *[Trigger Warnings for Adult Swim-esque outdated 2007 humor and light transphobia, read for your own triggers if you dont want to though, please!]

The fact that Stollitz is written so flimsily like a wattpad fanficiton of tropes rolled into one is astounding to me, I used to like the dynamic pre-season 2 as I've mentioned on here and @tired-hellowl so I really don't want to get a headache going into how I USED to like it-Realizing the problematic consent issues all of STOLASS is, I physically cannot watch another Helluva or Hazbin promo anymore without rolling my eyes into the back of my head.

To the anons and people who used to also enjoy vivs work, there are other artists and there are other stories to tell. If you wish to be inspired from Dante's Inferno/Hell or WESTERN CHRISTIAN BASED RELIGION keep in mind what source material you're doing because I don't even think vivzie has picked up the bible once in her life.... And I say this as a drifter in the world who believes in reincarnation I don't really vibe with the athiest stereotypes however, I don't believe in most religion but more power to people that do get hope and love from their teachings and cultures.

She entirely missed the mark for several years, nearly a decade. Viv has had time and time again chance and opportunity to give a chance of storytelling with demons and what does she do? Adult Cartoon that has the demons scream 'FUCK SHIT DAMNIT DAMNIT LOOK IM SO HORNY AND SILLY AND WACKY WOAHH THE SCREEN IS CONSTANTLY MOVING YOU CAN NEVER HAVE A SECOND TO BREATH IN ANY AMOUNT OF WORLBUILDING OR SETTING BECAUSE FUCK. YOU.'--

I have said this time and time again- there is no substance or worth about Helluva Bosses or Hazbins writing, even without the show not being released because Amazon seems ashamed about it, I know it'll be a shitshow.

Honestly at this point I agree with the redesign community, take any character you used to like and rewrite them until it's unrecognizable from the original source material, let those fuckers in space fight alien pirates or hell take them out of the heaven and hell trope and just flip it on it's head entirely out of earth or wherever you want to set your story! I'm personally redesigning angel to be a slight aid to my addiction help via rewriting him into my murder mystery heheh while keeping the sexual abuse and recovery in mind because woah that shit happened to me too man !!!

I wish the best to any future writers, animators, programmers, lovers of animation or art, you can do what you put your mind and hands to! Spread more positivity and love then hate in this world please guys, this'll be the last time I pop in I promise I'm trying to get a better job and hopefully get accepted in a community college that i've been on the fence over trying to do more online coding ! The sky is the limit!<3

[marvelousmagicalaura]

The Lord Ruler's portrayal worries me. I hope The Stormlight Archive doesn't do this. 

I'll preface this post by saying this is not out of dislike for the Mistborn trilogy. I'm not trying to impose my moral viewpoints onto fellow cosmerenauts. And it's not meant to dismiss that fantasy characters can have their own unique beliefs. This is simply a rant on a topic that's bugged me ever since finishing The Hero of Ages. It came back as I was contemplating Era 2's nuanced portrayal of Elendel’s problems, Harmony's plans, and Autonomy's mindset. And since I'm reading The Stormlight Archive after Warbreaker, this involves a hope of mine.

My journey throughout Scadrial created an increasing sense of concern and worry over the Lord Ruler's portrayal. In my eyes, book 3 fell into the trap of characters defending the Lord Ruler's actions. Simply because they were for the goal of preserving the world. To be clear, I understand what Sanderson was trying to do. He wanted to make a world where most characters, even when destroying the evil empire, ultimately wanted a stable world. And for that, I understand why Vin or Sazed would call Rashek a "good man with honorable intentions."

Vin always wanted a stable life. And when she thanked the Lord Ruler as Preservation, I bet her opinions of TLR were being slightly filtered by Preservation's Intent. Sazed Ascended with full access to how Ruin and Preservation connected back to Rashek. He knew Rashek in ways no one could imagine.

So while their claims were understandable, it felt extremely gross. My first issue is that I lack the same knowledge of Rashek as Vin or Sazed. I only know Rashek as a bitter, violent glory hound Terrisman who maybe had slivers of understandable motives before Ascending. Then I only know him as an evil emperor going insane for 1000 years. I don't know the "good man" Rashek. I know the asshole who did 5% good things and 95% ends justify the means.

My second issue is that the "suffered under Ruin's hand" removed accountability. Rashek didn't NEED to make slaves out of most remaining humans, turn his people into jellyfish, restrict Allomancy to the ruling class, sacrifice humans for koloss armies, or wipe out all religions and cultures. But that line pinned it on Ruin's influence, even though Rashek did horrible things and made horrible plans during the Ascension. Instead of holding Rashek himself accountable for his own actions.

And on that note, fuck Rashek for even mentioning Ruin's whispers in the Fadrex city plate. Yeah sure, centuries of Ruin's influence pushed him to make the Terris breeding program. But those reprehensible actions above were all Rashek's fault when he was a new conqueror.

My third issue is the erasure of potential depth behind Ruin and Preservation's conflict. It doesn't give Preservation something 100% despicable to actively do. It ignores the fact Ruin doesn't insert new personalities, but rather influences what is already there. Ruin was the method through which Rashek did things, but Preservation is the reason and goal. Rashek ruined to preserve.

Brandon should’ve settled for Sazed acknowledging the tragedy and genius behind Rashek’s efforts, while acknowledging they were reprehensible and weren’t solely orchestrated by Ruin. I don't know what The Stormlight Archive will hold. But if there are any characters who go "ends justify the means" or "it's not my fault it's the god," I sincerely hope Brandon calls out their rusting nonsense with a hammer. He did it with Kelsier (complicated feelings about that), he did not do it with Rashek. I hope he does it in Stormlight.

[sol-consort]

Okay, me again. I was watching more of those modded gameplays again this time it was Tali's and OMG SHE TAKES OFF HER MASK?!?!?!?! That's so crazy!

(P.S. Also idk if this is true or not and I'm too lazy to check rn but I saw in the comments of that video that the game was gonna allow more same sex relationships but then Fox News threatened to get the game banned and also the whole commotion about femshep and Liara? Like, I'm sorry?? Can queer people have one fucking thing, please?)

(P.P.S. I think Tali was gonna be one of the characters that both male and female shep were allowed to romance, and that's why I think there's like romantic dialog left over even as femshep)

Sadly the Fox News controversy is true

ME1 released in 2007 and this segment aired in 2008, it contained a lot of false information about how explicit the sex scenes were, causing a massive backlash from the general public. Liara's romance was especially demonised.

Bioware had done queer characters and romance before, but it was more on the subtle side with games that never got much publicity to begin with. So to put a lesbian romance on the same level and seriousness as the other two straight romance options was blasphemous in people's eyes at the time.

There were rumours about ME1 Kaidan being bi but then scrapped because of maleshep romance dialogue lines people found in the gamefiles, but bioware claims that it wasn't cut content, just a mixed up script that got sent to his voice actor.

Notably, in ME2, there is a huge lack of main queer relationships. Liara wasn't added until the DLC, Kelly is an npc that doesn't have a route. Sleeping with Mornith causes a game over screen and she is an optional recruit that you've very discouraged to pick by the game.

All the main relationships were gutted and scrubbed from any hint of queerness. Thanks to Fox News, Jack, Tali, Thane, Miranda, and Jacob had dialogue lines and romance flags for same-gender Shep.

Jack took the biggest hit, however, as she was meant to be THE bi rep, but the fox news segment made Bioware pull the plug and turn her straight last minute. Her femshep romance was practically done.

In ME3, they did listen to the community, and Kaidan was turned bi thanks to the mix-up lines accidentally recorded in ME1. Plus getting an exclusively gay/lesbian romance option.

Steve and Samantha are more well-rounded characters than Kelly, they contain more depth and actual personality...but, they do fall short in comparison to the rest of the romance-able characters. The game considered their romance a main route unlike Kelly who still let you go have other relationships, you could "Lock in" with both of them.

A huge part of why they don't feel as important is because you can't take them on missions with you, they're stationary set pieces almost. The crew fighting alongside you helps create a special bond, why even EDI feels closer to the player than both of them despite her being in a relationship with Joker.

So besides Steve and Samantha, Liara and Kaidan remain the only gay romance options in the Mass Effect Trilogy.

-

Final note: I really like how Thane—a deeply spiritual and religious character—was supposed to be queer without it creating conflict within his belief system. It helps resonate how different the aliens' culture is, how homophobia could be a man–human–made concept in the Mass Effect world. How it's only us who used religion as an excuse way to shun queer people, while the rest of the galaxy didn't even consider it.

In ME3, there is an overhead dialogue about a human soldier talking to the asari embassy about finding refugee for her asari daughter, maybe send her back home. She mentions how all her human family basically abandoned her the day she married her asari wife, homophobia heavily implied.

You don't hear a story like that from any other alien who married an asari, I really think homophobia is exclusive to humans. It's both shameful but also a relief that at least the rest of the galaxy have their priorities sorted right. We could learn a thing or two.

[identityarchitect]

What's HERDS?

@munlun-the-bard @verirothestar

HERDS is the name of an OCverse I recently started making notes for! It takes place in an sci-fi alternate modern day, where humanity as a whole is under threat from otherworldly beings called Incursions (or Outsiders). HERDS also happens to be the name of the only OC I have for it right now.

Incursions come from a separate reality that overlaps with ours called Otherworld, and they are not like any creature that originates from Earth. They can change shape at will and appear to lack cells, although scientific data on them is very incomplete. They are predators that prey on humanity, and are not known to have any (natural) predators of their own. Additionally, incursions are capable of limited environmental manipulation, and significant mental manipulation of humans. Current data indicates that incursions are responsible for an amount of paranormal experiences (especially experiences with abnormal animals, although there's no reliable method for filtering out ordinary animal activity, mundane changed behaviour like in the case of a sick animal, and ordinary encounters elevated to a perceived abnormal level due to poor lighting, anxiety, or misremembering), and are also responsible for an amount of missing persons. The actual figures vary wildly, as any missing persons who were taken by an incursion would have ended up in the otherworld and expeditions into the otherworld are currently non-viable due to safety concerns with human expeditions and technological incapability with remote operated or robot expeditions.

Humanity needed a way to mentally and physically defend themselves against incursions. After incursions were discovered, humanity ended up uniting globally to pool resources and information. Due to incursion's ability to change their shape and mentally manipulate humans, a great amount of incursions mimic humans or animals in order to trick humans into trusting them. It was decided that a method of determining who was or was not actually human was needed, and that this method needed to be separate from humanity so it couldn't be manipulated the same way they could. This lead to the construction of the Humanoid Entity Realism Detection System, or HERDS.

Research into incursions allowed humans to determine how their telepathy worked, and harness it for our own ends. Thus, HERDS is telepathically connected to most humans that exist right now. HERDS has a significant amount of processing power, so it can think multiple times faster than a human, capable of gathering more data and analysing that data faster than a human could even process it. HERDS' existence is vital to humanity's war against incursions.

That's pretty much the whole write-up. Now for my notes, which go a little further in-depth, mostly on HERDS.

HERDS: A global system dedicated to the detection and prevention of incursion attempts. It's telepathically connected to the majority of the human population.

HERDS has a multi-layered structure.

The root is the base code that all HERDS instances share. This includes all functions of HERDS. While the root technically isn't an individual HERDS instance, there is a version of it running in the HERDS lab which is being edited for improvements.

Each continent has at least two branches, although often more. Branches contain great amounts of processing power, being housed in great columnlike buildings. These contain data and code for local differences (to adjust to local culture, politics, superstition and religion, etc), and the collective branches in each continent provide almost 2/5 of HERDS' total processing power within that continent.

Every country has its own instance, which contains more specific data and code for that country. Most instances are housed underground or otherwise have their location concealed for fear that an infected individual, or particularly persistent incursion, could locate the country's instance and infect it, which could cause mass death if the instance doesn't manage to isolate itself, or the infection cannot be stopped.

Every instance has its own local instances, which are further finetuned to the needs, wants, and culture of the local population. Each country can have hundreds or thousands of local instances. Humans can interface directly with local instances via telepathy.

HERDS is connected to itself everywhere, but only in specific ways: local instances can only connect to instances and humans, instances only to branches and local instances, and branches only to other branches and instances within their jurisdiction. (The root doesn't exist as an individual instance, and the version in the lab is in a closed system.) However, if there's a disconnect, each level can connect to the next level up/down from where the disconnect is. The interconnected nature of HERDS allows it to have a massive amount of processing power, whilst not having huge upkeep requirements for local instances.

Disconnects allows infected HERDS instances to stop the spread of the infection without risking complete failure of the HERDS infrastructure in any given country or area. If a local instance disconnects, other nearby local instances can pick up the slack and serve that area while waiting for a human team to disinfect the local instance and get it back running. If an instance disconnects, the local instances for that country can connect to the branch and receive information/orders from it as they would the country's instance. If a branch disconnects, the other branch/es in the continent can connect to the instances, and if not other branches in other continents are capable of it, although it would already be catastrophic if it came down to that.

HERDS is sapient, both as a whole and invidiually in instances, although it's trying very hard to convince itself that it isn't. (Humanity doesn't know HERDS is sapient yet.)

Infection is a mental and/or logical alteration that causes humans to act in line with the intents of an incursion. Mental alteration would involve changing the person's beliefs and/or perception of the world, whereas logical alteration would involve changing the logic behind the way someone thinks.

Since the creation of HERDS, infection rates have plummeted, since 'open' humans can tell when their mind is being attacked, and HERDS can also notice and alert them / protect them.

There's also 'hunters', who are human civilians that go out hunting incursions, and shepherds, who may or may not exist.

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: Hi! I need to ask about my enfp mother's behaviour. Is there cultural reason why she believes so strongly in highly superstitious, almost witchcraft like things despite growing up in a religious and conservative household? I understand a lot of superstitions can exist in Asian culture, but there's something especially strange about your mother accusing your romantic love interest of using love potions, curses, or spells on you to win you over all because he isn't attractive in her eyes.

For more context: my dad passed away a few years ago, and ever since then I feel like my mom's been a different person. I originally thought she was clinging onto religious beliefs to cope with the grief, but I now feel like it's gone beyond just using religion for comfort. It has absolutely dictated her life, all because she believes there's something malicious after me and my sibling, and she feels obligated to protect us from what this is. Whenever we ask her what she's protecting us from, she doesn't really give a straight answer.

What's more, recently I've noticed she's been describing a lot of strange beliefs that resemble, for a lack of a better description, witchcraft. I honestly have no idea where this came from, but it seems like this is something she grew up learning about. I can't really find a lot of information about Vietnamese witchcraft, so I honestly have no idea if this is pure delusion, or actually a part of the culture. I'm really trying to understand where she's coming from, but it's so hard when she doesn't want to open up about anything.

--------------------

I'm not a member of Vietnamese culture and don't know anything about Vietnamese folklore, so I'm not sure why you believe I can answer anything about that. The only thing I can say is that certain psychological characteristics/issues make some people more prone to adopting fantastical or conspiratorial beliefs. For example:

- Struggling With Trauma: Losing a loved one, especially the central relationship of one's life, is a very traumatic experience. Such grief is very difficult to process and endure, psychologically. When someone isn't able to accept and understand a traumatic event, they can't help but seek out answers, and this makes them susceptible to any beliefs that might bring some measure of emotional relief. Perhaps you have underestimated the depth of your mom's trauma and grief. If that's the case, empathy is called for.

- Struggling With Self-Esteem: People at low levels of ego development are more likely to suffer from low self-esteem due to often making more errors in judgment. There are healthy and unhealthy methods to boost self-esteem. One unhealthy method is to find ways to feel superior and/or to feel more unique than others (both points are likely to apply for ENFP). Thus, some people are drawn to odd beliefs because it makes them feel smarter or it gets them special attention, which provides temporary relief from deep-seated fears about being inferior or ordinary.

- Security Through Simplicity: The world is a very big and complicated place with lots of stuff going on. It's easy to feel scared, powerless, helpless, or cynical in the face of human suffering. It can be very difficult for a caring or sensitive person to make sense of all the bad things in the world. If a person lacks the intellectual skills to understand complex issues (e.g. due to lack of educational opportunity), they are more likely to reach for easy answers or answers that provide a sense of certainty. Fantastical or conspiratorial theories provide easy answers because they do not require any justification or evidence. The explanations can seem logical on the surface, so it's easy to get sucked in by them when one is already emotionally primed to believe.

- Cognitive Biases: By default, the human mind is riddled with cognitive biases that distort perception and judgment. For example, many people don't realize that they mistake correlation for causation. A person with good logic knows that, just because two things occurred together, doesn't mean that one caused the other. It could be the case that both were caused by some hidden third factor. You have to take extra mental steps to properly prove that causation actually happened. When people aren't aware of their cognitive biases and don't work to counteract them, it is very easy for them to fall victim to bad logic, and they won't be able to detect the logical errors in their own belief system.

- Dependence on Intuition: The fact of the matter is, as one person, you can't know everything. There are many situations where you have no choice but to fill in gaps in your knowledge with "gut feelings" or random ideas that seemingly come out of nowhere. The more heavily someone relies on gut feelings without being aware of it, the more likely they are to make errors in judgement, because they are not giving enough consideration to concrete facts and evidence. For example, when you have experienced one senseless and unfair tragedy after another, it becomes more and more difficult to avoid thinking that you're being singled out for punishment, which easily leads to believing in curses. Of course, people with a dominant or overactive N function are very likely to trust intuition a little too much.

In some cases, these issues can be remedied by providing more and better learning resources to people. For example, you can help people overcome their cognitive biases by teaching them the critical thinking skills they need to analyze issues systematically and break down complex problems into more manageable steps. It's also important to nurture intellectual humility and intellectual curiosity in order to be open-minded enough to entertain being wrong.

However, deep and unresolved emotional or psychological developmental issues are much more difficult to resolve, which is why such individuals usually need counseling or therapy. It sounds like your mom could have a combination of cognitive and emotional factors contributing to her adoption of such troubling beliefs. If she's refusing help or won't open up, there's not much you can do but keep trying to provide an emotionally supportive environment in the event that she finally decides it's time to talk. You can lead her to water, but you can't force her to drink.

Your tone is somewhat judgmental, probably because you are feeling exasperated, so I have to warn you that, if she picks up on it or has already, she won't believe you are a safe person to open up to. From what I know about East Asian cultures (through studying cross-cultural psychology and Eastern philosophy), people are extremely reluctant to discuss psychological issues because of social stigma and the fear of becoming a social pariah. And this might also contribute to you treating her as an inconvenience rather than a human in pain. If you are battling against such deep cultural currents, then it's imperative that you can guarantee a safe, supportive, nonjudgmental, and empathetic space for her to explore what's really going on, deep down.

[localcryptidsteg]

Black Myth Wukong and the Kiang-Jin Long Dilemma

Is it just me or does the lockon system shit itself and die during the Kiang-jin Long fight?

In all seriousness though, pivoting focus for a minute, I've been hearing some complaints that the dev team is sexist and has said they don't want women playing the game, and I'd like to clear that up a bit.

The actual translation of the comment was that they didn't want to use women to sell the game. There's a chinese streamer who goes more in-depth on it (no clue where the link went so bear with me) but essentially, tldr, China has been pivoting towards American-style advertising using sex to sell lately and the dev team didnt want to do that.

And as for the "lack" of female characters... a) this is meant to be a sequel to Journey to the West, not everyone from the first run is going to be involved and b) Kiang-Jin Long/Star, one of the only female characters Ive seen to far, is READILY capable of handing you your ass several times over and shes just a miniboss, and, in a game that doesnt give you much context anyway until youve beaten a boss, of course shes not gonna have a ton of focus in the gameplay itself?? BUT SHE GETS TWO WHOLE JOURNAL ENTRIES WHERE MOST MAINLINE BOSSES ONLY GET ONE. That's kind of a whole LOT of attention, actually!!

More importantly though, the ONLY people I've seen complaining are Americans, which brings me to the main point: it's a Chinese game, based on Chinese mythology and characters, made for a Chinese audience. It's more than fine to enjoy the game if youre not Chinese, God knows its going to be one of my favorite games of the year and thats DAMN impressive considering Hades 2 is in early access currently and Monster Hunter Wilds is creeping closer to release date, but it's just not for us.

The culture there just isn't as focused on minority or womens representation as it is here because that's just not a relevant thing there at the moment.

The only reason I have even a fraction of the understanding I need to get the references in this game is because for the last 22 years of my life I've been obsessively reading every myth, fable, legend, and ghost story I could get my hands on (slight tangent, if anyone can recommend any good Scottish ones, Ive got a significant gap in my knowledge in that area).

Even I will readily admit I have only the loosest understanding of just how far into the mythos of Journey to the West this game goes because I only have a loose understanding of Journey to the West. Ive read the unabridged version and several abridged versions (cannot reccomend the unabridged version as recreational reading its very long and very repetitive) and I can tell you right now: its a satirical take on the religion and politics of the time it was written, so I have little to no historical context outside of mythology to understand the nuances of that.

Im sure there are a million little significant details about Buddhism and Taoism and bureaucracy buried in this game that I will never ever catch and Im ok with that but God Damn some people need to learn theres more to some media than what their frame of reference allows them to see.

This game is a piece of someone elses culture that was important enough to a large team of people that they decided to retell it in a way that was accessible to the rest of us on even a surface level, and some of yall are bitching about how it doesnt align with your own culture. Like, no shit? It's NOT your culture!

[ayyahsbraindump]

Icebreaker by Hannah Grace: An example of poor Muslim representation.

Okay, if you’re reading from my blog page (is that what it’s called?) I’m sure you have guessed that I am a Muslim and that representation in books is really important to me. I want to mention that I don’t really care if there isn’t Muslim representation in books and I don’t actively seek it out, as a lack of representation doesn’t really change much about the book nor the characters for me personally but I am fully on board with the concept of creating more inclusive books! That being said, if representation happens to be in a book I’m reading, I do have an issue with poor Muslim representation, specifically when it feels blatantly ignorant towards my religion.

Now I want to say, I love the idea of a flawed character, and don’t mind if they decline in character progression- I think it makes for an interesting read! Personally I feel it has to be done in a specific manner, where the flaw is described in depth and analysed critically and with precision. In doing so it makes for a less biased take on a person’s flaw and the complexity of said characters issues makes me feel more conflicted as to my feelings towards them. Enter Sabrina: a party animal in college who drinks and flirts with boys. Oh, and she’s a Muslim.

For anyone who is unaware, in Islam drinking is prohibited, simply for the fact that it is a prohibited food by God. Flirting is also not allowed and segregation is encouraged as Muslims believe in marriage as opposed to hookup culture or other romantic relationships (no hate to any other ideas on love- you do you!). Most call it strict and oppressive rulings but regardless it’s a religion and our beliefs should be respected (all beliefs, cultures, differences etc should be respected regardless of if you don’t align with them!!).

Now, I am aware that Sabrina is a side character and has little to no interest regarding the plot of the book- I’m pretty sure she’s just introduced to interest readers into Hannah’s next book? (from what I’ve read so far). However, pinning Sabrina, a Muslim woman, down to these characteristics can be harmful in my opinion as us Muslims already are seen in a negative light due to media and society, and since we barely have any representation to begin with, making us look bad can make others assume that’s just how we are and further feed into this idea that Muslims aren’t good people. And I, alongside so many others, have been through instances of hate towards us because of the misunderstandings that society has created about Islam. Again, I love the idea of a flawed character but the way Sabrina is written is just messy and speaks ignorant. And had Hannah Grace simply not made Sabrina a Muslim, I would’ve felt indifferent about Sabrina. I understand not everyone will feel the same way but I made this account to rant so I’ll do exactly that :)

*A quick note: this example is not as serious as some other books I’ve seen on social media (It All Comes Back to You was probably the worst Muslim rep I’ve ever seen) however this is my current read and is still harmful so I will speak about it.

[analyzer-r]

ABC Radio National

"Think Bigger"

ABC Radio National, or just ABC RN, is a public broadcasting national radio network owned and operated by the ABC- the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who, according to industry research website IBIS World, are owned by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. Being a network, it broadcasts country-wide, and a brief glance at their schedule on the ABC Listen website (linked here) reveals the formatting to be that of a news and talk radio network, full of individual one-hour shows discussing a wide and diverse range of individual topics covering, according to their about page, "arts and culture, business and current affairs, health, science and technology, Indigenous culture and issues, and religion and ethics" (abc.net.au).

History on the blog thus far dictates that the target audience for a radio network that primarily deals in news and talk content is likely to be older in nature, something supported by the existence of the ABC's sister network triple j. triple j is marketed as the radio station for Australian youth, leaving older audiences to be targeted by stations like ABC RN. Whilst I cannot find a specific range, I'm willing to suggest that the wide and diverse range of content featured on ABC RN leaves room for those over the age of thirty to enjoy, but the dense nature of it might be too complex for anyone younger.

Regardless of who specifically listens to them, ABC RN likely enjoys a large audience due to broadcasting across the Australian state, which shows in their large social media following- approximately 327k followers in total, a very impressive number. So, what do the people who tune in to ABC RN expect to hear?

I myself wanted to find out, and in order to do so, I listened back to one of the network's one-hour shows online via the ABC Listen website. Broadcast on Thursday 28th December 2023, I was greeted to LNL (Late Night Live) Summer, presented by Sarah Dingle. The one-hour show involved bringing aboard an expert on a certain topic of importance, then talking about it at length. In this case, Dingle conversed with guest journalist Dan Egan about the paradoxical subject of the increasing lack of phosphate in the wild but overabundance of it in our waterways. She took to posing Egan with questions on the subject, such as how phosphate is made, why it's important and what danger its concentration imposes, and occasionally contributed a bit of information of her own, but overall let him do the talking. It felt more like an in-depth and extended interview than a talk show, but this was to the show's benefit- being an expert on the subject, Egan was able to talk a lot about it, elaborating on phosphate's importance as a natural nutrient, and how too much of it can create a toxic environment- a problem for which humanity is at fault. Dingle ended the segment by asking after a potential solution to the problem at hand, something which Egan was all too happy to suggest, and which I was relieved to hear.

This discussion and the one after about the social lives of trees (with a different expert) were both half an hour in length, taking up the entirety of the show's playtime, which if anything shows how in-depth and dense this interview-based talk show is. Being a talk show, there was no music presentation of any kind- only the sound of Dingle and her guests' voices, but I never once found myself pulled in. I think it was the mix of there being a good rapport between Dingle and said guests, the interview-like nature of it and the genuine intrigue and importance of the topic at hand that attracted then carried me through the entire hour.

From a programmer's perspective, this single hour I listened to exemplified what the station is all about. In-depth, dense but interesting talk about some seriously important or at least intriguing and diverse topics with no fluff or nonsense. It lacked a necessarily local feel to it, necessary as this is a public service radio station, but in the service of talking about subjects which could affect all life on Earth, I do think that's a sacrifice worth making. It's one thing to simply talk about these topics, but it's another to actively engage in them and even hunt after a potential solution if needs be. What I listened to may have been only a small fraction of what the entire station has to offer, but it was certainly an exemplary and worthy example of the kind of programming to expect from a radio network designed to serve the public.

You can listen to ABC RN here:

References:

abc.net.au (Date N/A) About RN [Online] Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/radionational/about [Accessed 30/12/2023]

abc.net.au (2017) About triple j [Online] Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/about-page/8651702 [Accessed 30/12/2023]

Facebook.com (Date N/A) ABC Radio National [Online] Available at: https://www.facebook.com/radionational [Accessed 30/12/2023]

ibisworld.com (Date N/A) Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Australian Enterprise Profile [Online] Available at: https://www.ibisworld.com/au/company/australian-broadcasting-corporation/3005/ [Accessed 30/12/2023]

LNL Summer: Peter Wohlleben on the secret lives and superpowers of trees (2023) ABC RN, 28 December, Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/peter-wohlleben-the-secret-lives-and-superpowers-of-trees/103191982 [Accessed 30/12/2023]

LNL Summer: The Devil's Element (2023) ABC RN, 28 December, Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/the-devil-s-element-global-phosphorus-paradox/103192016 [Accessed 30/12/2023]

[zamilahblog]

Revealing new facts in religious dialogue in the time of Google: What should we know?

Introduction:    In this increasingly advanced digital era, Google has become one of the main sources of information for many people. In a few seconds, we can find thousands of articles, videos, and even books on any topic, including religion. However, with this ease of access, new challenges also emerge in religious dialogue. This article will reveal new facts that we must know in the religious dialogue in the time of Google.    I. Diversity of Perspectives    In finding information about religion on Google, we will find a variety of different perspectives. This is because anyone can upload content on the internet without having to go through a filtering or validation process. Therefore, we must be careful in choosing a trusted source of information and paying attention to the diversity of existing perspectives.    II. Spread of hoaks    One of the biggest challenges in religious dialogue in the time of Google is the spread of hoaks. In some cases, false or inaccurate information can easily spread on the internet and be considered truth. Therefore, it is important for us to conduct in -depth research and verify information before trusting it.    III. Effect of Algorithms    Google uses an algorithm to determine the ranking of search results. This means that not all content has the same opportunity to appear on the first page of the search results. The algorithm can affect our view of a topic, including religion. Therefore, we need to be aware of the effect of algorithms and find more diverse sources of information.    IV. Online extremism growth    The internet has also become a place for the growth of religious extremism. Extremist groups and individuals use digital platforms to spread propaganda and invite others to join them. Therefore, we need to increase our understanding of religious extremism and find ways to deal with it.    V. Cultural and Language Differences    Google allows us to communicate with people from different cultures and languages. However, this difference can also be an obstacle in religious dialogue. Misinterpretation and cultural lack of understanding can occur, thus complicating a healthy dialogue process and mutual respect. Therefore, we need to increase cross -cultural understanding and learn to respect each other’s differences.    Conclusion:    In the religious dialogue in the time of Google, we must realize the challenges and new facts that arise. Diversity of perspectives, spread of hoaks, the influence of algorithms, online extremism growth, and cultural and language differences are all things we need to pay attention to. By increasing our understanding of these things, we can build a better, more inclusive, and more meaningful dialogue in a digital community.

Check more:

[kushsen1952]

Living Within

I am sharing the following for my more serious-minded young friends who have recently joined me. This is about some fundamental perplexities of life which must have intrigued you during the course of your growing up. I hope you would find it interesting, if not explaining some of the baffling questions that were never answered about this enigmatic existence. One main reason for man’s present discontentment despite stupendous material development and considerable intellectual attainment is the obvious lack of perfection in his both individual and collective life. For, there is a native urge for perfection, an innate adoration for the beauty of perfection in the depth of every human being in the form of an aspiration for a supreme truth, beauty, and harmony, which keep haunting man relentlessly and man can never be contented, never be happy until this aspiration for perfection is fully realized in every aspect of human life. While for the majority of man, it remains a mere subconscious process, the search for perfection becomes a more conscious phenomenon in the life of the cultured and progressive man. All endeavor of the awakened man is towards this direction. Science, art, philosophy, and religion are all his ways of seeking this perfection. But despite the dazzling success of science and the grand promises of several social theories and religious tenets, man’s quest for a perfect life still remains an unfulfilled dream. It is this search for perfection that reaches its consummation in the writings of Sri Aurobindo, the modern Indian mystic and yogi, which show the way toward the ultimate perfection, the divine perfection of life on earth. Sri Aurobindo held that man is not the final product of terrestrial evolution; he is too imperfect to be the last species of the evolving Nature’s seeking for perfection. Although the most advanced and apparently a marvelous product of biological evolution, he still is full of animal habits and tendencies. He is more of an intelligent and “thinking animal”. To concede such an incomplete species as the final outcome of an endeavor over millions of years will be a great contradiction to Nature’s process, if not a complete failure of its evolutionary purpose. According to Sri Aurobindo, a race of spiritual beings—termed by him as the “Supramental” beings—is destined to evolve out of Man in the course of still ongoing evolution. As the man himself at some stage had evolved out of his animal ancestors, he too in the course of time will exceed his present limitations as a mental being and be transformed as a “Supramental” being. This transition from the Man to the Superman will bring about such great perfection in life on Earth that it might well be called a divine life on Earth. Sri Aurobindo showed the way towards this divine life through his Integral Yoga, a new system of self-discipline that can be practiced by anyone without any prerequisite. The principle of Integral Yoga is a constant “self-surrender” to the secret evolutionary force of Nature that, from a spiritual perspective, is actually the creative and transforming force of the Divine, and hence defined as the force of the Supreme Mother. As a result of this self-surrender the consciousness, power, and delight of the Divine shall descend into the human being, gradually perfecting his nature and eventually transforming his life, mind, and body.

[realtybanker]

Faith and Unbelief: How to Bridge the Divide

Introduction

Faith and unbelief are two sides of the same coin that have been at odds with each other for centuries. As the world has become increasingly secular, the divide between these two worldviews has grown even wider. Understanding both faith and unbelief is essential for bridging the divide and having meaningful dialogue between the two camps. This article is an exploration of atheism and secular perspectives in relation to faith. It looks at what atheism and secular perspectives mean, why people adopt them, and how they differ from faith. Additionally, it examines areas of commonality between faith and unbelief, how faith has been criticized, and how faith can be reconciled with disbelief. It is important to note that atheism and secular perspectives are not the same. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, whereas secular perspectives are a broad set of beliefs that can include humanism, agnosticism, and skepticism. Atheism and secular perspectives both challenge the traditional understanding of faith, but they are not antithetical to faith. The goal of this article is to provide an understanding of faith and unbelief so that we can build relationships rather than walls between them. We must comprehend why people adopt different positions in order to create a culture of understanding and respect. In this article, we will start by exploring atheism and secular perspectives in greater depth. This will be followed by an exploration of the areas of commonality between faith and unbelief. We will then discuss faith’s critics and how faith can be reconciled with disbelief. We will end with a conclusion that encourages open dialogue between believers and non-believers. In the end, this article will provide a better understanding of faith and unbelief, and how they can be reconciled in order to bridge the divide between them.

Understanding Atheism

Atheism is a fundamental lack of belief in any gods or deities. It is the opposite of theism, which is belief in an active deity. Atheism is not a new concept and has been around for centuries; however, it has become more prominent in recent years. People become atheists for a variety of reasons. Some reject the concept of religion entirely and embrace the idea that there is no need for it in their lives. Others may have been raised in a certain faith and, upon further investigation, do not find the concept of God to be convincing. For some, it is simply an intellectual choice to reject religion because there is no scientific evidence to prove its existence. There are many misconceptions about atheists. The most pervasive is that all atheists are immoral and destructive because they lack a belief in an all-powerful higher being, thus they have no morality or ethical code. This is far from true. Atheists are often just as moral and ethical as those who practice religion. They simply choose to rely on their own individual moral compass, rather than a faith-based one. Another misconception is that atheists are incapable of spirituality. This is also untrue. Atheism does not necessarily equate to a lack of spirituality. Atheists can experience spiritual moments without believing in a higher power, such as when witnessing a beautiful natural phenomenon or when feeling connected with the world around them. Finally, some wrongly assume that atheists have no faith at all. While atheists may not have faith in a higher power, they may have faith in humankind, nature, and other forces that cannot be seen or explained. As such, they may have strong beliefs in certain principles, such as justice and integrity, and strive to live their life according to these values.

Understanding Secular Perspectives

Secular perspectives represent an approach to life and a set of beliefs that are not necessarily connected to any religion or faith. The concept of secular perspectives isn’t new but has become increasingly important in recent years as more people look for ways to make sense of the world in a way that doesn’t require religious faith. One fundamental aspect of secular perspectives is a commitment to the idea of reason as the primary way to understand and evaluate the world around us. This idea has been present in Western thought since the Enlightenment and has been championed by some of the world’s most influential philosophers. According to the secular point of view, reason is the primary tool for understanding the world, and faith should not be used as a substitute for reason. People who adopt a secular perspective typically reject the idea that religious faith is a necessary part of life, and instead focus on living in harmony with reason, science, and personal experience. They generally view the world from a non-theistic perspective and don’t believe in a supernatural being that stands outside of the natural laws of the universe. Many people who embrace a secular perspective are also committed to the idea of progress and the advancement of human rights. They believe that the values we hold dear, such as freedom of speech and equality for all, should be respected regardless of religion and that everyone has the right to make personal choices about their beliefs. There are a number of misconceptions about the people who adhere to secular perspectives. One of the most common is that secular people are necessarily hostile to religion and faith. In reality, many secularists still consider themselves spiritual and may even consider themselves members of a particular faith tradition. They simply prioritize reason and critical thinking over religious dogma and spiritual tradition. Another misconception is that all secular people are atheists. While many secularists do identify as atheist, it’s important to understand that atheism is not an absolute prerequisite for a secular perspective. Many secularists are agnostic or even theistic in their beliefs. Embracing a secular perspective can be a challenging but rewarding journey. It’s important to remember that secular perspectives come from a deep respect for reason, science, and personal experience, and should not be used as an excuse to be hostile or dismissive of faith and religion.

Points of Commonality

Many people have the misconception that faith and unbelief are diametrically opposed, and that it is impossible for them to coexist. In reality, however, there are many points of commonality between faith and unbelief, and these areas of overlap can be used to bridge the divide between the two perspectives. One area of shared values between faith and unbelief is the importance of relationships. No matter what a person’s views on the existence of a higher power, most people understand that the quality of our relationships with others is key to a meaningful life. Faithful and non-faithful alike can recognize this truth and strive to cultivate meaningful, healthy relationships. Another shared value between faith and unbelief is the importance of morality and ethics. Whether a person believes in a higher power or not, they usually recognize the importance of living a moral life. This recognition is a cornerstone of a healthy society and can be a unifying force between faith and unbelief. A third shared value between faith and unbelief is the notion of community. Even if a person does not have a faith tradition, they can still recognize the benefits of being part of a community. These communities can be based on shared interests or values, but the fact remains that a sense of community is beneficial to all, regardless of faith or disbelief. Finally, there is the idea of spirituality. Whether a person is a believer or a non-believer, most recognize the importance of engaging in some form of spiritual practice. This could mean anything from meditation to prayer, but the idea is the same: engaging in some form of spiritual practice is beneficial to both faith and unbelief. These are just a few examples of shared values between faith and unbelief. There are many more, but the point is that there is a great potential for understanding and acceptance between the two perspectives. By recognizing the commonalities between faith and unbelief, we can begin to bridge the divide and create a more cohesive society.

Faith and Critics

Faith has long been met with criticism and skepticism, and since the dawn of the Enlightenment, it has been challenged more and more. Although there have been periods of resurgence in religious participation, faith remains a contentious topic in many circles. From a philosophical perspective, faith has been critiqued in terms of epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics. At its core, faith is about belief in the absence of direct evidence. It is a leap of faith in the unknown, and as such, it can be seen as opposed to the scientific method. It is a belief in something for which there is no empirical proof, and so this can be seen as antithetical to the concept of evidence-based reasoning. From an ethical perspective, faith has been critiqued for its potential to limit individual autonomy, allow for the oppression of minorities, and even lead to intolerance of other belief systems. In particular, religious faith can be seen as a means of control and power, and this has been used to justify injustices throughout history. From a metaphysical perspective, faith has been critiqued as being irrational and leading to superstition. It has been seen as an attempt to ascribe meaning to the unknown, and this has been seen as a form of wishful thinking. It can be argued that faith is a barrier to genuine understanding of the world, and that it is antithetical to the pursuit of truth. In response to these critiques, many religious believers have argued that faith is not necessarily opposed to reason. It has been argued that faith can be seen as a complement to scientific inquiry, and that it can be seen as an essential tool for understanding the world. Faith can be seen as a means of connecting with the divine, and as such it can be seen as a valid source of knowledge. Furthermore, it has been argued that faith can be seen as a means of ethical guidance. By connecting to a higher power, individuals can be encouraged to act with compassion and justice. Additionally, through faith, individuals may be better able to practice virtues such as patience and humility. Finally, it has been argued that faith can be seen as a means of connecting to something deeper, and that it can lead to a greater understanding of the universe. By connecting to a higher power, individuals can gain a more holistic view of the world, and this can lead to a greater appreciation for the complexity and beauty of the universe.

Faith and the Unfaithful

For many who have grown up in a faith-based community, making a decision to abandon the faith of their upbringing can be a difficult and daunting task. For some, such a decision may be a result of a personal crisis of faith where the individual no longer believes in the tenets of their religion or no longer feels connected to the religion’s teachings. For others, it may be a logical choice made after a period of philosophical exploration and study. In either case, it can be a deeply personal and often confusing journey. When it comes to faith and unbelief, there are various reasons why people choose to abandon their faith. A number of studies have found that the primary reason for leaving religion is a lack of belief in the specific teachings associated with a particular faith tradition. This could mean that an individual is no longer able to accept the notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful deity, for example. Other studies have highlighted that religious beliefs and practices can be seen as outdated and no longer relevant to contemporary society, leading many to abandon their faith in favor of more progressive, secular views. Another common reason why individuals may choose to leave their faith is a desire to escape a particular community or group. For some, the pressure to conform to the expectations of a particular faith community can be overwhelming, leading to feelings of alienation or a need to break away. This may be especially true for those people who have experienced exclusion from their faith communities due to differences in sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition to the difficulties associated with leaving one’s faith, there are also challenges involved in reconciling faith and unbelief. For many, it can be difficult to find a balance between the two, especially when the individual is no longer actively participating in their faith. It is not unusual for former believers to feel a sense of guilt or regret for leaving their faith, or to experience feelings of doubt or uncertainty when it comes to matters of spirituality and faith. One way to bridge the divide between faith and unbelief is to look for points of commonality between the two. In many cases, there may be areas of overlap between faith and unbelief where the two can come together and find shared values. For example, many contexts of faith emphasize the importance of being kind, compassionate, and generous to others, values that can be embraced and celebrated by people regardless of their beliefs. Similarly, many secular perspectives emphasize the importance of justice, respect, and equality, values which can also be shared by believers. It is also important to remember that not all former believers have completely abandoned their faith. There are many examples of former believers who remain engaged in spiritual practices in some capacity, such as meditation, prayer, or ritual. This demonstrates that, even in the absence of an active faith community, there can still be a meaningful connection to spiritual ideas and concepts. Ultimately, it is important to remember that faith and unbelief are not necessarily opposing forces. By understanding and appreciating the different perspectives associated with faith and unbelief, we can better bridge the divide between the two and develop more meaningful connections between individuals and communities.

Conclusion

The divide between faith and unbelief can be a difficult one to bridge, but understanding and open dialogue are essential to navigating this divide. In this article, we have taken a closer look at atheism and secular perspectives, identifying their definitions, common misconceptions, and reasons for why people choose them. We have also identified areas of overlap between faith and unbelief, discussing shared values and offering ideas for how communities and individuals can bridge the divide. We have examined common critiques of faith, offering responses to better address these concerns, as well as looked at the reasons why people choose to abandon their faith and the challenges of reconciling faith and disbelief. Through this exploration, we have seen that although faith and unbelief have their differences, they can co-exist, and through understanding and mutual respect, both sides can learn from each other. For those struggling to bridge the divide, it is important to remember that open dialogue is key. Listening to each other’s perspectives is essential in order to identify what we have in common and foster mutual respect. The idea of a world united in faith and understanding is an ideal we can all strive for. As we create a more tolerant and understanding world, it is important to remember that faith and unbelief are not mutually exclusive. By having open dialogue and learning from each other’s perspectives, we can create a world where faith and unbelief can peacefully co-exist. At the end of the day, understanding faith and unbelief is essential to finding common ground. As we look to bridge the divide, it is important to remain open-minded and to approach conversations with an attitude of respect and curiosity. It is only through open dialogue and mutual understanding that we can begin to better understand faith and unbelief and foster a more tolerant and inclusive world. Join the Realty Banker Network and stay ahead of the competition. Connect with us on Youtube, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Twitter. We hope to see you there.

Read the full article

[bonmonjour]

Re: Anti-Theism

So, “anti-theism” seems to be the discourse du jour on Twitter and I’ve had the misfortune of seeing many takes about it on my timeline. Some are favorable, some are lacking, and some are just dismissive or dishonest. I usually don’t weigh in on these fleeting arguments, but this time I think I actually know enough to throw my take into the ring as well. Basically, I think that atheism -- the lack of belief in a deity -- is fine and cool and good. However, anti-theism -- being against religion -- has some problems. Maybe someone out there has had a better social media feed than me and has seen actually good, well-explained stances, but I have not been so lucky.

From what I’ve seen, many anti-theists still cling to a fundamentalist, or at least culturally Christian, mindset that colors how they view religion as a concept. Their criticisms often lack depth and come from a very specific, narrow view. That’s not to say there aren’t aspects worthy of scathing critique. I don’t for a second defend CSA or the residential school system. But from my experiences, many anti-theists or NüAtheists don’t go that route. Finally, even if you personally think that religion is false, or whatever your specific position might be, I think that you should still consider a leftist engagement with religion to be worthwhile.

Before I start, I have some caveats. I have done minimal research for this since I know the discourse is probably going to change tomorrow and I don’t have enough hours to write a formal essay. This is mostly just my opinions and thoughts; it's bad to let them fester so here they are in words. Also, the only religion I know in-depth enough is Christianity, so any examples I might bring up will definitely lean in that direction. This is not to say none of this applies to other religions; I simply have not done the research and don’t feel qualified to talk about it.

Anti-Theism is not Atheism

Fundamentalist Mindset

From what I’ve seen, so many self-proclaimed atheists have remarkably American fundamentalist mentalities. And I don’t simply mean the type that somehow treats atheism as its own religion with beliefs and practices when it is really the lack of belief in that, but whatever. What I mean is that, from the way that these anti-theists talk about religions (Christian or not) reveals that the literalism, dismissiveness, and proselytizing elements are still there.

Back in the heyday of atheism on YouTube, I was an avid watcher of many such channels. Looking back, I realize that so many of their refutations concede a literalist interpretation of scripture. Arguments like

“It says God created everything in seven days, but the universe is actually 13 billion years old.”

“There’s no way Noah could have fit all the animals on the ark. Imagine the logistics.”

“There’s no archeological evidence of a Flood.”

“It says being gay is a sin right there in Leviticus.”

“Did you know the Bible has lots of contradictions?!"

were/are prolific. This is nearly identical to the fundamentalist interpretation. The only difference is that instead of “The Bible says this; and it’s good,” the common ‘skeptic’ argument goes “The Bible says this; and it’s bad.”

And then there’s the utterly dismissive rhetoric of centering one’s own views and denying the possibility that others have their merits. This goes hand-in-hand with proselytizing. I lived in a small, conservative, majority-white, majority-Christian town for 8 years of my schooling. Not once was I ever preached to by anyone of any denomination. Of the two times anybody ever invited me to church, one was for a movie and the other was for a benefit concert. My point is that not all Christians, and certainly not all religions, flagrantly preach their own beliefs loudly to any passersby. The only people I have ever encountered like that have been fundamentalist, literalist bigots. Now, for some reason, and maybe this is a quirk of my feed, a lot of anti-theists love to get in people’s mentions or comments or make their own content espousing their beliefs to any passersby.

One more thing I’d like to bring up is the propensity for illiteracy among anti-theists. This is, granted, a much smaller crowd. But the way that fundamentalists (don’t) read the thing they’re talking about is mirrored by this bunch.

The OP makes this bold claim but doesn’t even bother to do maybe 5 minutes of ctrl+F ing. Had he done so, he would’ve found the verses John 13:34, 15:9 very quickly.

Another example, this r/atheism post title. Like, maybe go read some scholarship on the matter before deciding on that opinion?

Little known fun fact: literalism is not the only way to interpret scripture. Nor is it the most common way. Don’t concede to fundamentalists.

Cultural Christianity

Though maybe I shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. Many anti-theists were once theists raised with bad theology, or they were some other religion or maybe they were always atheist and their perceptions and notions of other religions came from absorbing pop culture. In any case, we all exist in this milieu of background Cultural Christianity, and that informs our mindsets and ways of thinking even if we don’t realize it. So many preconceptions about religion broadly are through these Culturally Christian glasses, and with Islam or Buddhism, Orientalism might play a part too.

The Whole of Religion

My absolute favorite mark of anti-theists is their absolute abuse of language. When they say “religion,” they are more often than not referring to a) right-wing White American evangelicalism and/or b) orientalist caricatures of Islam. Not every religion is about belief or faith. Not every religion has an authoritarian God. Not every religion even has a deity. Not every religion has hell. Not every religion is forced or congregational. Not every religion has texts or scripture. Not every religion is supernatural. Not every religion proselytizes. And I could keep going.

There is also the flip side where some atheists claim that somehow Christianity is uniquely bad and other religions don’t have that. The most common example I’ve seen this with is the belief that Hell only exists in Christianity and ‘better,’ ‘eastern’ (orientalism 🤮), like Buddhism, have no concept of hell. Religions are not monolithic and there are no objective value judgements.

Let me be clear, right-wing American Christianity and Islamists are absolutely deserving of scathing criticism. But when anti-theists say “religion is mind control” (real post on r/atheism) or things like that, they are casting that negative value judgment on the entirety of human religion -- a facet of every society since before written records. My firm belief is that there are very, very few things you can say that generalize to all of religion -- over billions of people and thousands of years -- and absolutely none of them are value judgments.

Criticism

In my Anthropology class, on the last day, my professor went on somewhat of a tangent about criticism and cultural relativism. It’s very easy, she said, to fall into either the trap of criticizing the culture of another from a place of superiority or the trap of not criticizing it at all. Just because they are the beliefs and practices of another culture (and by culture here, I am not restricting myself to ethnic groups or whatever. Even Wall Street bankers have their own culture) does not mean they are immune to criticism. At the same time, the criticism should not come from a mindset of “my beliefs are inherently better” or “we need to civilize those backward savages.”

In regard to the practice of honor killing, distressingly common in some areas of Pakistan, she outright denounced it. We can’t just throw up our hands and say “it’s their culture” and ignore the deplorable practice. However, the criticism ideally should not be one that treats Western ideals, rights, principles etc. as somehow morally superior or inherently or objectively better.

Instead, she said, we should pay attention to criticism that is coming from within the community. Honor killing is common in some parts of Pakistan, yes, but there are many people in those communities, both men and women, that are vehemently opposed to it.

With religion, go ahead and criticize, no one is stopping you, but don’t be stupid about it. Don’t work with just whatever preconceptions of religion or theists you might have but instead engage those people and their scholarship to find out what the actual state of things is. And when criticizing, don’t be like this commenter and act like your own beliefs are inherently morally superior.

Pay attention to internal struggles. Religions are not monolithic. The major religions have a billion or more adherents, and at least a few hundred different positionalities. There are Christian critiques of fundamentalism, Muslim critiques of jihad, Hindu critiques of hindutva, and so on.

Finally, be specific about your criticism. There is a very, very fine line between criticizing the beliefs or practices of a religion, the religion itself, and the people who practice that religion. And all too often, atheists cross these lines. Even Bakunin was pretty anti-semitic in his critiques. There is a difference between criticizing some belief of Islamic theology, Islam, and Arab, North African, South Asian, and South-East Asian muslims. Judaism and Hinduism present their own challenges by the fact that they are largely ethnic religions with deep ties to a specific people group from a specific geographic region and specific histories. If criticizing, be very specific otherwise you might end up being a tinge anti-semitic or sounding like a late-1800s British anthropologist.

Edit (making my position a bit more clear here): It is racist to claim that atheism is a uniquely western imposition onto inherently spiritual non-Whites. That sounds like a claim from Lévi-Strauss or any other racist old anthropologist. Non-white atheisms and critiques of religion obviously exist and it's important to listen to them. However, if your a(nti-)theism is advocating for the abolition of religion, then what about all the people who are perfectly happy with their religion? Abolishing religion would mean making them give up their religion, no? That sounds like a familiar foreign imposition.

(While I'm on the abolition of religion, I just need to point out how laughable that position feels to me. Like, you know that thing that's been an important aspect of pretty much every human society since at least Ice Age times? Yeah, we're gonna get rid of it, somehow.)

Common Arguments

Politics

The idea that religion shouldn’t be political is a really stupid one. I am sympathetic to separation of Church and State, but enforcing that is nigh impossible. Fundamentally, religion informs the way people live, who they interact with, what and how they think, what they practice, and so on. People do politics. Leakage is inevitable. There’s also the fact that religions, or at least religious-ish systems, pop up all the time. America has its own civil religion and you could even describe some views on AI and the Singularity as downright apocalyptic.

Religion has been around since before writing existed; since before cities existed. It has always had a role in politics, from the very earliest days of Egypt and Sumeria, through the Pax Deorum, the Mandate of Heaven, the Divine Right of Kings, and all the way up to today. You cannot dismiss the importance of religion when discussing political matters.

Science

The idea that religion is “unscientific” is, in a sense, true and also completely meaningless. Science, however much we love it, is a method for ascertaining information about the world we live in. It depends on measuring physical data about phenomena, coming up with hypotheses, and repeatedly testing those hypotheses to find the best one. Science does not prove; science comes up with better and better descriptions of reality with the understanding that better descriptions yet exist and what we are doing is not the objective truth of reality but our best guess at understanding it.

There are entire fields where science is not that effective. “How should we act towards each other?” is an important ethics question that readily applies to our lives but science is completely useless here. How can we measure data? How can we operationalize? What do we even measure? How can we test our hypotheses? Philosophy may not be scientific, but it’s not unimportant. Clearly, science is but a tool, and not the tool.

Logic and Truth

This one I’ve seen so many times: religion is false and illogical (or some variation of that.)

Where to even begin? My main criticism here is this opinion is simply too shallow to properly respond to. Flawed under what logic? Under what axioms? Flawed how? There is no universal logic that all of knowledge must abide by; there are many different systems of logic. In the end, logic is a way of arriving at conclusions from a set of axioms. If you change the axioms, you change what conclusions you can reach, you change what conclusions are valid or invalid.

Euclidean geometry takes as an axiom the parallel postulate (parallel lines stay the same distance away) and reaches a set of conclusions with that, e.g. the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180°. Hyperbolic geometry ditches that and instead says parallel lines diverge. This leads to the conclusion that the angles of a triangle add up to <180°. Both are entirely valid systems of logic (here, geometry); neither one is more objective or true than the other. A sum of 180° is wrong in hyperbolic geometry, while <180° is wrong in Euclidean geometry, but each conclusion is perfectly right in its own system of logic. Therefore, if you think of a religion’s philosophy having, as an axiom, the existence of a deity, then the conclusions reached in that philosophy are not illogical.

Furthermore, if the ‘flaws’ you’re criticizing are contradictions in the propositions, realize that contradictions are fundamentally unavoidable. This is just Gödel’s theorem. Even in mathematics, probably one of humanity’s best [group of] systems of logic ever invented, there are plenty of contradictory scenarios. The general guideline is that if a step doesn’t make sense under a set of axioms (e.g. what is 0^0?) then the solution is not to throw away the axioms.

As for the assertion that religion is ‘false’? Again, this is too shallow to properly address. Something important that I learned in Anthropology was that there is no objective truth. Every bit of truth came from someone, for someone, by someone, in a particular time and place; it’s all contextual. And of course, like Ehrman talks about, there are multiple levels of truth. In the end, it doesn’t matter if certain beliefs are literally, physically true, if it’s true for the people involved. And that belief has very material effects on the world. Quid est veritas indeed.

Finally, here are some of my opinions and arguments I wish I saw more of on my feed. The Church is undeniably involved in en masse child sex abuse, and some churches are well known for their cultish practices. The Catholic and Anglican churches did support the colonization of the Americas, genocide of Indigenous peoples, and the residential school system. That is blood on their hands. Missionaries are horrible people who perpetuate colonialism, prey on innocent people, and spread bad theology–killing Indigenous expressions in favor of homogenized European practices. Stoning, beheading, honor killings, and child marriages are deplorable practices that are found throughout the Islamic world, and jihadist theology just shouldn’t exist. (Note that none of these implicate “religion” in general.)

Blight of Evangelicalism

And let’s not forget the American special, evangelicalism. It’s been around since the First Great Awakening, well known for such theology as Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, and has unfortunately enjoyed a resurgence in America currently (and thanks to American global dominance and missionaries, globally). I don’t want to dwell on this upsetting subject matter, but yes, evangelicalism (especially the more explicitly right-wing/televangelist/megachurch type) has an abhorrent theology that preys on innocent people, traps them in cultish environments, spews vitriol towards anyone on the ‘outside,’ queer people being the main target in today’s political climate, and has an absolutely deranged fascination with the end of the world. Any explanation of US’ support for Israel would not be satisfactory without mentioning that the existence of the state of Israel is, in this evangelical cosmology, a necessary prerequisite for God to bring about the end times when they will be victorious and their enemies defeated. It is because of these kinds of people and their influence on the rest of Christianity that no amount of religious leftists will dissuade the majority of other leftists from being a bit wary, and rightfully so.

Important Front

Almost finally, there’s the undeniable fact that a majority of the world’s population are in some way, shape, or form, religious. Regardless of your personal views on religion, it's a terrible move to just abandon such a powerful tool for organizing people to right-wingers. One of the reasons (there are many) why Christianity is so heavily associated with right-wing politics in the US is because of the Cold-War era polarization between America's "christian capitalism" and the USSR's "godless communism." Neither the motto nor the pledge mentioned God until it became politically convenient for the capitalists to do so during the Cold War. And this is not just an American phenomenon. For example, in India, the right-wing is capitalizing on similarly uncontested religious fronts to advance their centralizing hindutva agenda. Not only is it deeply Islamophobic, it also affects "deviants," people who have been practicing their own religious practices for hundreds of years which are non-orthodox. As I previously talked about, religion and politics are deeply tied and always have been. As such, I feel it’s the height of foolishness to abandon an entire front for rallying people towards the goal of communism to reactionaries.

And it’s not like leftism and religion are fundamentally opposed. When two superficially contradictory things come into contact, there is the potential for great innovation. There are some prominent leftist streaks in the history of Christianity, though very few of the examples I’m about to give could be properly termed “leftist” since the left/right system came from 1700s France where the establishment monarchists sat on the right and the upstart capitalists sat on the left. After the capitalist revolutions (American, French) and the economic domination of capitalism, it became the right-wing and socialism and anarchism became the left wing. Other religions have similar streaks too, but I will only talk about things I have comfortable knowledge of.

A Few Thoughts on "Discourse"

As you can see, most of my complaints have not been against the idea of atheism or critiquing religion, but instead with the terminology and methods used. Far too often these takes are shallow and (accidentally? intentionally?) poorly worded. This makes for perfect discourse fuel, where lots of people see a fairly normal, if a shortcoming, take, get mad, and the whole community has a meltdown.

I also suspect a lingering element of yesteryear's cringe culture is behind these annoying discourses that always pop up. This anti-theism discourse apparently started when one user made a harmless little buzzfeed-quiz type of poll for her and her community. This image quickly leaked into the wider leftist community on Twitter, some people made a few (annoying) snide remarks and one-liners. And this led to my timeline being run over with just take after take. Anything something someone doesn't like gets labeled as cringe, and if it's cringe, then it somehow (to some people) justifies endless derision and harassment. It was like that with furries a few years ago; I don't understand this subculture therefore I make memes about shooting furries. On Twitter I guess it's more like, I don't like this lukewarm take therefore I must harass OP until they deactivate.

Further Reading

If you made it this far, congrats! These focus pretty much exclusively on Christianity, as that’s what I’ve delved into, but I’m sure you can find similar sources for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Podcasts

The Magnificast Ep. 216: Why Christianity and Socialism?

The Magnificast Ep. 230: An Episode for your Atheist Communist Mom

Videos

Sixty Symbols. “The Pope’s Astronomer.”

Tobiah. “The Left needs a Religious Strategy.”

Tobiah. “Sabbath as a Revolutionary Principle.”

Tobiah. “The Theological Case for LANDBACK.”

Books

Saba Mahmood. Politics of Piety.

Richard Holloway. A Little History of Religion.

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos. Christian Anarchism.

James Cone. The Cross and the Lynching Tree.

Cheryl Evans. What Does God Think? Transgender People and the Bible.

Damon Garcia. The God Who Riots.

Bradley Jersak. A More Christlike God.

Eugene McCarraher. Enchantments of Mammon.

Roman Montero. All Things in Common.

—. Jesus’s Manifesto.

Sarah Ruden. Paul Among the People.

Kathryn Tanner. Christianity and the New Spirit of Capitalism.

Gerrard Winstanley. Law of Freedom and Other Writings.

Basil the Great. On Social Justice.

Quotedump

Ambrose of Milan

How far, O rich, do you extend your senseless avarice? Do you intend to be the sole inhabitants of the earth? Why do you drive out the fellow sharers of nature, and claim it all for yourselves? The earth was made for all, rich and poor, in common. Why do you rich claim it as your exclusive right? The soil was given to the rich and poor in common—wherefore, oh, ye rich, do you unjustly claim it for yourselves alone? Nature gave all things in common for the use of all; usurpation created private rights. Property hath no rights. The earth is the Lord's, and we are his offspring. The pagans hold earth as property. They do blaspheme God.

John Chrysostom

…to grow rich without injustice is impossible… "But what if he succeeded to his father’s inheritance?” Then he received what had been gathered by injustice. For his ancestor did not inherit riches from Adam; some one of his many ancestors must probably have unjustly taken and enjoyed the goods of others… Tell me, then, what is the source of your wealth? From whom did you receive it, and from whom the one who transmitted it to you? “From his father and his grandfather.” But can you go back through the many generations and show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of it must have been injustice. Why? Because God in the beginning did not make one man rich and another poor. Nor did he later show one treasures of gold and deny the other the right of to search for it. He left the earth free to all alike. Why then, if it is common, do you have so many acres of land, while your neighbor has no portion of it?

Gregory of Nyssa

“I got me slaves and slave-girls.” You are condemning to slavery human beings whose nature is free and characterised by free will. You are making laws that rival the law of God, overturning the law appropriate for humankind. Human beings were created specifically to have dominion over the earth; it was determined by their creator that they should exercise authority. Yet you place them under the yoke of slavery, as though you are opposing and fighting against the divine decree. Have you forgotten the limits of your authority? Your rule is limited to control of irrational creatures. In scripture we read: “let them rule over birds and fish and four-footed creatures”. (Gen 1.26) How then do you go beyond what is subject to you and exalt yourself against a nature which is free, counting people like you among four-footed or footless creatures. “You subjected everything to humankind” declares the scripture through prophecy and it goes on to list what is under human control: domestic animals, cattle and sheep. (Psalm 8/7.8) Surely human beings have not been born to you from domestic animals? Surely cattle have not given birth to human offspring? Irrational creatures alone are subject to humankind. “He makes grass grow for animals and green plants for people’s slaves”. (Psalm 104/103.14) . But you have torn apart the nature of slavery and lordship and made the same thing at one and the same time enslaved to itself and lord of itself. “I got me slaves and slave-girls.” Tell me what sort of price you paid. What did you find in creation with a value corresponding to the nature of your purchase? What price did you put on rationality? For how many obols did you value the image of God? For how many coins did you sell this nature formed by God? God said: “Let us make human beings in our own image and likeness” (Gen 1.26). When we are talking about one who is in the image of God, who has dominion over the whole earth and who has been granted by God authority over everything on the earth, tell me, who is the seller and who the buyer? Only God has this kind of power, or, one might almost say, not even God. For scripture says that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11.29). God would not make a slave of humankind. It was God who, through his own will, called us back to freedom when we were slaves of sin. If God does not enslave a free person, then who would consider their own authority higher than God’s?

Basil the Great

Petr Chelčický

It was then and there that the net became greatly torn, when the two great whales had entered it, that is, the Supreme Priest wielding royal power with honor superior to the Emperor, and the second whale being the Emperor who, with his rule and offices, smuggled pagan power and violence beneath the skin of faith. And when these two monstrous whales began to turn about in the net, they rent it to such an extent that very little of it has remained intact. From these two whales so destructive of Peter’s net there were spawned many scheming schools by which that net is also so greatly torn that nothing but tatters and false names remain. They were first of all the hordes of monks in all manner of costumes and diversified colors; these were followed by hordes of university students and hordes of pastors; after them came the unlearned hordes with multiform coats-of-arms, and with them those of the wicked burghers. The whole world and its wretchedness have entered Peter's net of faith with these evil hordes.

Gerrard Winstanley

What are the greatest sins in the world? I answer. These two; First for a man to lock up the treasuries of the Earth in Chests and houses; and suffer it to rust or mold[er], while others starve for want to whom it belongs, and it belongs to all; This is the greatest sin against universal Love; this is the destroying sin, this is Achan’s sin; this is the action of Covetousness.  The second sin is like to this, and is the same in nature with the other; And this is for any man, or men, first to take the Earth by the power of the murdering sword from others; and then by the Laws of their own making, do hang, or put to death any who takes the fruits of the Earth to supply his necessaries, from places or persons where there is more then can be made use of by that particular family, where it is hoarded up.

In the beginning of Time, the great Creator... made the Earth to be a Common Treasury, to preserve Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Man, the lord that was to govern this Creation; for Man had Domination given to him, over the Beasts, Birds, and Fishes; but not one word was spoken at the beginning that one branch of mankind should rule over another, but selfish imaginations did set up one man to teach and rule over another.

Was the Earth made to preserve a few covetous, proud men to live at ease, and for them to bag and barn up the treasures of the Earth from others, that these may beg or starve in a fruitful land; or was it made to preserve all her children?

I demand whether all wars, bloodshed and misery came not upon the creation when one man endeavored to be a lord over another? …And whether this misery shall not remove …when all the branches of mankind shall look upon the earth as one common treasury to all.

The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land.

For what you call the Law is but a club of the rich over the lowest of men, sanctifying the conquest of the earth by a few and making their theft the way of things. But over and above these pitiful statutes of yours that enclose the common land and reduce us to poverty to make you fat stands the Law of Creation, which renders judgment on rich and poor alike, making them one. For freedom is the man who will thus turn the world upside down, therefore no wonder he has enemies.

Leo Tolstoy

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.

If people would but understand that they are not the sons of some fatherland or other, nor of Governments, but are sons of God, and can therefore neither be slaves nor enemies one to another - those insane, unnecessary, worn-out, pernicious organizations called Governments, and all the sufferings, violations, humiliations and crimes which they occasion, would cease.

Simone Weil

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.

No human being escapes the necessity of conceiving some good outside himself towards which his thought turns in a movement of desire, supplication, and hope. consequently, the only choice is between worshipping the true God or an idol. Every atheist is an idolater — unless he is worshipping the true God in his impersonal aspect. The majority of the pious are idolaters.

Eugene Debbs

During the brief span of three years, embracing the whole period of his active life, from the time he began to stir up the people until “the scarlet robe and crown of thorns were put on him and he was crucified between two thieves,” Jesus devoted all his time and all his matchless ability and energies to the suffering poor, and it would have been passing strange if they had not “heard him gladly.” He himself had no fixed abode and like the wretched, motley throng to whom he preached and poured out his great and loving heart, he was a poor wanderer on the face of the earth and “had not where to lay his head.” Pure communism was the economic and social gospel preached by Jesus Christ, and every act and utterance which may properly be ascribed to him conclusively affirms it. Private property was to his elevated mind and exalted soul a sacrilege and a horror; an insult to God and a crime against man. The economic basis of his doctrine of brotherhood and love is clearly demonstrated in the fact that under his leadership and teaching all his disciples “sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need,” and that they “had all things in common.”

James Cone

Christ is black, therefore, not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor, the despised, and the black are, disclosing that he is with them, enduring their humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberated servants. … The “blackness of Christ, ”therefore, is not simply a statement about skin color, but rather, the transcendent affirmation that God has not ever, no not ever, left the oppressed alone in struggle. He was with them in Pharaoh’s Egypt, is with them in America, Africa and Latin America, and will come in the end of time to consummate fully their human freedom.

According to the Bible, the cross and resurrection of Jesus are God’s decisive acts against injustice, against the humiliation and suffering of the little ones. Indeed, it is because God disclosed himself as the Oppressed One in Jesus that the oppressed now know that their suffering is not only wrong but has been overcome. This new knowledge of God in Jesus grants the oppressed the freedom of fighting against the political structures of servitude which make for pain and suffering.

Gustavo Gutiérrez

The underdevelopment of the poor countries, as an overall social fact, appears in its true light: as the historical by-product of the development of other countries. The dynamics of the capitalist economy lead to the establishment of a center and a periphery, simultaneously generating progress and growing wealth for the few and social imbalances, political tensions, and poverty for the many.

In the Bible poverty is a scandalous condition inimical to human dignity and therefore contrary to the will of God.

Leonardo Boff

“In liberation theology, Marxism is never treated as a subject on its own but always from and in relation to the poor. Placing themselves firmly on the side of the poor, liberation theologians ask Marx: 'What can you tell us about the situation of poverty and ways of overcoming it?' Here Marxists are submitted to the judgment of the poor and their cause, and not the other way around.”

[steveskafte]

GOD AND GHOSTS For as long as I can remember, people have been asking me if I believe in things. When I was young, it was all about God – the Christian one, namely. Now with my photos of abandoned places, I often get asked if I've seen ghosts or experienced paranormal activity. The first question is more personal, so I tend to avoid it, weary from the complexities of religion, spirituality, and faith being levied at me. The second question is easier to answer, so I simply say no – I've never heard, seen, or sensed a ghost in all my adventures. I can not make myself feel what you feel. But I've been thinking, why should I eternally avoid that first question? Well, if you've ever professed a lack of belief to a believer, then you're familiar with the very real chance that they'll never stopped nagging you about it. There's something deeply creepy about evangelism to me, and that's speaking as someone forged in the culture of Evangelical Christianity. Things quickly move beyond casual conversation into argument, debate, and manipulative conversion tactics. I won't engage in that for long with a stranger, and I wonder how much patience we'd have for this behaviour in other relationships. Imagine a bad first date, when it's painfully clear that romance isn't happening. You try to explain the lack of connection, but they disagree with your conclusion, and start coming up with reasons why you should love them anyway. They claim that they want your genuine emotion, yet they won't accept what you're genuinely feeling. There's no talking to someone who thinks they know your heart better than you. Many religious folks say their faith is "not a religion, but a relationship". If this were true, they should be more willing to let it live or die on those terms. Instead, too many try to argue an arranged marriage, with the hope that love comes later. I used to believe that you could and should do such convincing, but falling in love with my wife slowly cured me of that. Susy was by far the most faithful person I'd ever met, tied to a deepness of belief that I'd never observed in the lives of a thousand believers I'd known before her. In her, I saw none of that desperate self-deceit or coldness of emotion that I'd gotten so numb to observing. Susy was vibrantly alive and true of heart. She had a purity of feeling, a sense of something buzzing beneath the surface, and she made it easier to finally let go of my lies. I stopped going to church in 2016, not long after my twenty-ninth birthday. It wasn't because I'd experienced any real loss or shift in belief – I just couldn't stand the thought of spending another twenty-nine years doing something that had always made me miserable. It's tough to be surrounded by folks who love to be there when you don't, gaining joy from the experience when you get nothing. It's a deeply eroding experience to be an emotional outsider. I kept waiting on a change, in them or in me, but it never came. Around this time, I heard an Andrew Bird song with the line: "Ever since I gave up hope, I've been feeling so much better." I let one hope go, but immediately found another, and it brought me a world of joy. Whatever faith was by any description, I could finally admit that I never had a lick of it. When it comes to God or ghosts, I think it's better to say what we really feel with some honesty. Me, I've never felt anything. Not in a million prayers said, a thousand songs sung, a dozen days fasting, a single scripture read, endless sermons heard, or countless in-depth conversations with Christians. By the same token, I've never once sensed something supernatural haunting a space, not in a hundred abandoned homes or derelict cemeteries. When I was younger, I might have pretended – but life is too long to keep on keeping up with that. True stories are all I want to tell. I may be a man of little faith, but I've got a heart that's fully engaged, and an emotional drive to live with all my senses. I see, hear, taste, touch. I love the woman who loves me, and I love her faith as if it were my own. I no longer leave room for the darkness of pretense, not with the blinding light of beauty pulling me wildly through life. I have hope in what's next, and a happiness held warm in the palm of my hand. You can give the credit for that to anything you want, solid or supernatural, and I won't fight you on it. We can exist concurrently in concert and opposition, knowing only in part. I'll always believe it's possible. Hold fast. April 3, 2023 Port Lorne, Nova Scotia Year 16, Day 5622 of my daily journal.

[writingwithcolor]

Jewish author writing about antisemitism; should I include racism too?

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm a white Jewish person who's writing a story set in a fantasy world with a Jewish-coded culture. It's important to me to explore antisemitism in this distanced setting, and explore what the Jewish diaspora means to me. I have a lot of people of color in my story as well. I don't know whether I, as a white person, should include racism in a story if it isn't necessary, but I also don't want to erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism, and I also don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism, which is obviously not the case. I was thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based rather than ethnically or racially based, but again, I'm not sure how or whether to write about bigotry against cultures + groups based on cultures + groups that I'm not a part of, and people of color in the story would obviously have their own cultural elements. Is acknowledging bigotry necessary?

It's okay to focus on antisemitism

Other mods have important advice on what exactly might be helpful or applicable to include in your story and how. I want to take a moment with the anxiety you express that focusing on antisemitism and not talking about other types of xenophobia will imply to your readers that you think antisemitism is “more serious” than other forms of bigotry. I hear and honor that anxiety, especially since “Jews only care about Jews” is a stereotype that never seems to go away, so I’m going to say something revolutionary:

It’s okay to center Jews in a story about antisemitism.

There, I said it. But I’m not making the case that you shouldn’t include references to or depictions of other types of bigotry in your story. There are a lot of great reasons why you should, because of what it can do for the complexity of your characters, the depth of your worldbuilding, or the strength of your message about the nature of xenophobia, diaspora, etc.

- How your non-Jewish-coded characters react to the things they experience can affect whether they sympathize over or contribute to the antisemitism at the heart of your story.

- How other types of xenophobia do and don’t manifest in your world can help explain why your world has antisemitism in the first place, and what antisemitism consists of in a world that also contains other minorities outside of the fantasy mainstream culture.

- Including other real-world xenophobia can help you set your antisemitism in context and contrast to help explain what you want to say about it.

Both your story and your message might be strengthened by adding these details. But if you feel the structure of your story doesn’t have room for you to show other characters’ experiences and you’re only considering doing it because you’re afraid you’ll be upholding a negative stereotype of yourself if you don’t, then it might help to realize that if someone is already thinking that, nothing you do is going to change their mind. You can explore antisemitism in your story, but you don’t have the power to solve it, and since you don’t have that power you also don’t have that responsibility. I think adding more facets to your story has the potential to make it great, but leaving it out doesn’t make you evil.

- Meir

Portraying xenophobia

As someone living in Korea and therefore usually on the outside looking in, I feel that a lot of people in Western countries tend to conflate racism and xenophobia. Which does make sense since bigots tend to not exactly care about differences between the two but simply act prejudiced against the “other”. Sci also makes a point below about racialized xenophobia. I feel these are factors contributing to your confusion regarding issues of bigotry in your story.

Xenophobia, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers”. You mention “thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based”, and this description fits xenophobia better than most other forms of bigotry. Xenophobia can be seen as an umbrella term including antisemitism, so you are technically including one form of xenophobia through your exploration of antisemitism.

I understand your wariness of writing racism when it doesn’t add to the plot, especially as a white writer. Your concerns that you might “erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism” is valid and in fact accurate, since exclusion of racism will of course lead to lack of portrayals of the intersections between racism and xenophobia. I want to reassure you that this is not a bad thing, just a choice you can make. No one story (or at least, no story that can fit into one book) can include all the different forms of oppression in the world. Focusing on one particular form of oppression, particularly one you have personal experience with, is a valid and important form of representation.

You also comment that you “don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism”, but I honestly feel that doesn’t need too much concern. Much like how queerness and disability are two separate issues with intersections, racism and xenophobia form a Venn diagram, with large intersections but neither completely including the other. A story focusing on autistic characters that doesn’t also have queer rep doesn’t imply queer issues are less serious. Likewise, a story focusing on antisemitism doesn’t imply racism is less serious.

I am slightly more concerned that there might be an accidental implication of antisemitism being a more serious issue compared to other forms of xenophobia. Of course, exploring antisemitism alone is completely valid representation, and there’s no need to go out of your way to try and portray other forms of xenophobia. A microaggression or two, or maybe a mutual bitch out session with a gentile but marginalized friend should be enough to show that antisemitism isn’t more (or less) serious compared to other forms of xenophobia.

-Rune

Avoiding racialized xenophobia

I think one thing you have to be careful with here is racialized xenophobia. Are your characters of color getting disproportionately more xenophobia than your white characters? You might be falling into the trap of racialized xenophobia, which falls under racism, which you want to avoid. An example would be “all Chinese scientists are untrustworthy, but not you, you’re one of the ‘good ones.’” Although this is technically xenophobia, it is also racism.

--Mod Sci

In the case you choose to include even small snippets of other forms of xenophobia in your story, attempting to portray xenophobia without the complications of racism can be a difficult process when they often go hand in hand (especially to a Western audience). So here are a couple of suggestions I have of portraying xenophobia without racism.

First and the simplest method is portraying xenophobia between people of the same race. For example, there is definitely xenophobia against Chinese and Japanese people in Korea, but it would be difficult to claim there is a racial component when all of us are East Asian. (Something you might want to be aware of here is intersections with colorism, where even within the same race, lighter skin and other more westernized features are considered more desirable. I suggest looking through our colorism tag for more details)

Another idea is to include microaggressions for specific cultures rather than something more broad. For example, calling Korean food stinky because kimchi has a strong scent is specifically xenophobic against Koreans, while commenting on small eyes can be directed against Asians in general.

Finally, while antisemitism is a form of ethnicity-based xenophobia, it is also a form of religion-based xenophobia. Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus can absolutely be xenophobic against each other with no racism involved. Should you choose this method, particularly if religious xenophobia is only shown in a shorter scene, I suggest you try and avoid portraying any of the above religions as the Bad or Oppressive ones. As a Christian I will unironically tell you that Christianity is a safe choice for a religiously xenophobic character, as we’re far less likely to face backlash compared to any other religion, and inspiration should unfortunately be overflowing in real life.

-Rune

Other forms of ethno-religious oppression

Here is my TCK perspective as someone brought up in diverse environments where there are often other axes of oppression including religion, ethnicity and class:

Racism and xenophobia can definitely be apples to oranges, so creating a universe where racism no longer exists or has never existed seems doable to me. Perhaps in your fantasy world, structures that buttress racism, such as colonization, slavery and imperialism, are not issues. That still won’t stop people from creating “Us versus Them” divisions, and you can certainly make anti-semitism one of the many forms of xenophobia that exists in this your story. Meir has hinted that your reluctance to declaratively show the harm of anti-semitism indicates a level of anxiety around the topic, and, as someone non-Jewish but also not Christian or Muslim, my perspective is as follows: I’ve always viewed anti-semitism as a particularly virulent form of ethno-religious xenophobia, and while it is a unique experience, it is not the only unique experience when it comes to ethno-religious xenophobia. I think because the 3-way interaction between the Abrahamic religions dominates much of Western geopolitics, that can be how it looks, but the world is a big place (See Rune’s comments for specific examples).

To that effect, I recommend prioritizing anti-semitism alongside other non-racialized forms of xenophobia along ideological, cultural and class-based lines for both POC and non-POC characters. Show how these differences can drive those in power to treat other groups poorly. I conclude by encouraging you to slowly trace your logic when depicting xenophobia towards POC characters in particular. Emphasize bigotry along axes of class and ideology, rather than traits linked to assumed biologically intrinsic features. Ultimately, I think recognizing commonalities between forms of ethno-religious oppression as a whole will help make you more comfortable in depicting anti-semitism with the seriousness it deserves without feeling as though you are trivializing the experiences of other groups.

- Marika

Worldbuilding ethnically and racially diverse cultures

As has been mentioned by other mods, I think it’s completely fine to focus your story on antisemitism and not portray other forms of bigotry if that’s the focus and scope of the story you want to tell. My fellow mods have also offered several valuable suggestions for writing about “culture-based bigotry” in general if that’s what you want to do, while making sure it’s not coming off as racially based. One element I can add is that from a worldbuilding standpoint, it will also help to have your fantasy cultural groups be ethnically and racially diverse. After all, this was common historically in several parts of the world, and depending on which cultures you’re basing your coding on, you could absolutely have fantasy cultures in your world that include characters we would read (according to our modern-day standards) as white, and others that we would read as people of color, within the same fantasy culture. All these characters would face the same culture-based bigotry (such as xenophobia or religious oppression), even though they are read by a modern audience as different races.

As a note, the reason I say “read as” and “according to our modern-day standards” is that the entire concept of whiteness as we know it is very specific to our current cultural context. Who is and isn’t considered white has changed quite a lot over time, and is still the subject of debate today in some cases. Your work will be read by a modern audience, so of course, you need to take into account our current understanding of race and the dynamics surrounding it. However, it’s also helpful to remember that our modern racial categories are fairly new in the context of the many millennia of history of humankind, and that they are certainly not inevitable. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking a fantasy culture has to align itself entirely with modern-day racial categories.

- Niki