#maybe they're agnostic

[spacebubblehomebase]

I will always love the idea that the Batfam all have different religions and yet can coexist with each other peacefully... At least in that regard. So many others cannot say the same.

Though it's probably also because they fight about every other thing that religion is far down the list of things to be worrying about.

More of my boy catholic Jason Todd.

Damian: Shouldn't you be at church?

Jason: Nah, I have a couple more sins to add up the list

Alfred: Pardon?

Jason: Nothing.

---

Penguin: Why don't finish this ridiculous charade? Aren't you're going to hell anyway?

Jason: Aren't you're getting your ass sended back to Arkham ever shitty crime you commit anyway and yet here we fucking are.

---

Damian petting the Batcow:

Jason: What she got?

Damian: She's sick.

Jason: Give me her name, I'll put her in my prayers.

Damian:

Damian: You seriously think God going to magically cure her?

Jason: No dumbass. It's saint– (pause) DICK WHO WAS THE SAINT THAT CURE ANIMALS AGAIN?

Dick (from the kitchen): SAINT FRANCIS

Jason: Saint Francis it's goings to magically cure her.

Damian: That's stupid.

Jason: You want the prayer or not.

Damian narrowing his eyes, immediately: Batcow.

[bonkalore]

Hi. I used to follow you long time ago. I was thinking about the songs you and your mom shared. It's weird. The songs people make for God are stupid simple. But they're supposed to be like that. God uses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise and the weak things to shame the strong. When I actually started seeking him myself I realized how beautiful and strange he is. He's better than I could've ever guessed and wants to give you every good thing. I'm sorry people make it hard to see.

I think you completely missed the point of the post and why the songs were shared and I'm not sure I want to bother explaining it to you. I won't get into religion much here, but while it's well and good if you find joy in it, but I don't see any love from the God preached to me and I don't think I ever did. I'm tired of my mom and other people trying to tell me of "God's love" when I grew up in that environment and only see a very jealous and hateful God who created humans to watch them fail. He himself described in the Christian bible makes it hard to see, and the people who spread bigotry don't help. I don't plan to argue this with anyone and anymore of it will result in a block. I don't want any part of it anymore. If that God exists, I think he sucks and should be begging for our forgiveness.

[rugessnome]

Unsuspecting city. Or city-park chronicler: hmmm I wonder if I could make a web domain about metroparks? Columbus, Ohio/Franklin County: Hi! I will be calling my park system Metro Parks and using the domain name metroparks dot net Unsuspecting park enthusiast: ...okay but that leaves some other options— Dayton, Ohio/Montgomery County: Hey! Yeah, okay yes my park system is CALLED Five Rivers Metroparks (it actually makes sense even if it doesn't make you think Dayton) but you can find it at metroparks dot org!! 😃 Unsuspecting park enthusiast or system: ... Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio: it's okay. we had to put our park systems online specifying the city! clevelandmetroparks dot com. metroparkstoledo dot com. 🙂 Detroit+Ann Arbor area: Hi Ohio. we will be using metroparks dot com thank you very much for noting this down 👍 Unsuspecting park enthusiast or system: ...well. if I can't do a url about metro parks, maybe I could still do it about how great parks are? nobody: Hamilton County, Ohio (contains Cincinnati): We are Great Parks of Hamilton County, distinct from City of Cincinnati Parks despite co-managing a couple of properties, and we are happy to let you know that you can find us at greatparks dot org! ... Butler County, Ohio (adjacent): yo, I know YOU aren't necessarily in Butler County but learn about our parks anyway at yourmetroparks dot net! ✌️

[lord-save-me]

Love how my indecisiveness crossed into my spirituality, like is there a God? Idk maybe

[enkays-den]

Enkay Watches the Imp and Skizz Podcast #127 (featuring @joehills)

First of all, if you are not watching Joe Hills on either youtube or twitch, DO IT!!!! He's streaming pretty much every day and the conversations are always so interesting and he has the best little windows into the workings of Hermitcraft. Folks will pop by and have super interesting conversations with him! He's one of my favorite hermits and I think his unique way of experiencing minecraft, life, and hermitcraft is something that deserves more eyes on it, because I know people are sleeping on him.

First off, THIS is how you show up to the Imp and Skizz Podcast! Classy, on brand, and unique!

I love Impulse's little nest of pillows, he's so cozy nestled in there, holding his mandated amount of water like a security blanket

I love that the reason they wanted Joe on was to talk about the coup SPOILERS: they never even touch on it

joe's dad being a logician makes so much sense tbh

"a creationist universe where god wants you dead and i play minecraft like a greek hero idiot" is such an amazing way to talk about super hostile maps

HOW IS IT THAT JOE AND SKIZZ BOTH HAVE EDGAR ALLEN POE ANECDOTES OFF THE DOME

Joe having his wedding taking place during the recess of a vehicular manslaughter trial feels so strange and yet so Joe

JOE HILLS FULL NAME DROP?????

"YOU'VE GOTTA BE JOE KING" okay he mentioned on stream that there was a joke that maybe two people would get and I will proudly claim to be one of the two.

"fighting to become an artist" is so validating to Skizz's journey so far. It's gonna be his year anniversary of being a hermit soon and im gonna get emotional about his path this last year

Joe WOULD put on the Scottish Parliament sessions as background noise, love that

"I don't trust any platform with my art. I'm the one that makes the art and the audience is the one that appreciates my art" "I need to be as platform/brand agnostic as possible" "next time Amazon does something terrible to the unions" 👏👏👏

CHEERS REFERENCE, SKIZZ'S SITCOM BRAIN IS ACTIVATED

talking about his streams like a bar and like,,,,, he's so smart about the role of creators and fandom and i just appreciate joe so much

it's funny that they're shocked about the relationships can be formed within fandoms when like,,,,, that's how they met tango

((also if we talk regularly and read this i love you guys <3))

skizz, the worst chat reader ever i love you

i need hermitcraft standup. please. custom texture snowballs as tomatoes or flowers to throw

thinking about a younger skizz using a tape recorder to record his 'genius ideas' and quotes he likes and annoying the crap out of his friends

YES JOE AND SKIZZ TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF COMEDY AND THE STRUCTURE, THEY'RE SUCH AN INTELLECTUAL DUO

I'm glad that we got to hear Joe's JFK impression

COURT CASE TALK!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Bdubs will only let Doc win if it's funnier for doc to win, because that's how guilty doc was"

Joe quoting Sun Tsu and then going on the stand and said "Your Honor, Your Highness, my client is a baby" in an asymetric star trek dress, that's the Joe Hills Difference

"DELICIOUS" skizz i love how schadenfreude you are

"FIVE DIAMONDS PER F TIER BOOK???" impulse my favorite wet cat

"I'll make one sale every two months" and also implying that the shopping district has property taxes

the delivery on "two. some people say four" was SLICK

TUMBLR MCYT SEXYMAN POLL MENTION

"tumblr defines sexyman to mean 'most bizarre, cryptid, creepy thing' " not wrong there.

"well scar is obviously going to win the sexyman competition"

"once i found out that it's for weird, cryptid energy, I knew "oh nevermind I'm gonna win this"

joe hills is my favorite weird guy and he deserved to win

cleo as our nonbinary icon placing third place in the tumblr sexyman poll

All in all, fantastic podcast, and not long enough imo. I hope Joe gets to be there in person one day like he originally envisioned, and there's just an untapped well of information that could go into future podcasts

Reminder that you should subscribe and follow Joe!

BONUS, edited by me, please credit if you use it, I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE you to use it (original screencap under cut):

[bonefall]

Splashtail and Atheism

Hello. I am an Atheist and I call Splashstar an Atheist because he is based on widespread bigoted depictions of godless people like myself. There have now been several posts about this written as if they're trying to "correct a misconception," and I am tired of vagueposts completely missing the point of the criticism to get caught up on arguing semantics.

The misanthropic, god-hating "Atheist" character in Christian propaganda, which I feel Splashstar has some alarming similarities with, does not come from the writer's correctable "misconception" of irreligious labels. It is born from a hatred of nonbelievers.

Specifically, my point that Splashtail is a mashup of two popular anti-secular tropes common in religious media;

The assertion that there's no such thing as a "real" nonbeliever, and that Atheists are just "rebelling" against God because we're mad at him, want to do bad things without guilt, or have "lost our way."

The belief that morality itself stems from faith in a higher moral being, asserting that the irreligious are "evil" in contrast to the faithful.

Even passing familiarity with the arguments of Christian apologia seen in Chick Tracts, Pureflix films, PragerU videos, and so on, will have put these tropes in front of you. They are false and harmful, and they target Atheists.

For more on this, TVTropes has an entire article dedicated to the Hollywood Atheist and its sub-tropes. Note how many of these Curlfeather and Splashtail fall into, regardless of if you're arguing that they are "real atheists" or not.

Those that hate us do not care about semantic labels. To them, we are without God, A-Theistic, and they do not actually care what is at the core of your beliefs if it contradicts their narrative.

But, even worse, the "Splashtail Can't Be An Atheist" crowd isn't even totally correct on the semantics they're trying to have a pedant battle about.

Most atheistic organizations and online atheists define Atheism as "one who does not believe in God" and attempt to push a sliding scale of "agnosticism" on how hard of a "maybe" you're feeling about your lack of faith. In the sliding agnostic scale, Agnostic Atheists are a "probably no god" and Gnostic Atheists are a "definitely no god." Others describe that scale as "hard" and "soft" Atheism-- but there is NOT universal agreement on that definition.

There other definitions of an "Atheist," and even those who reject the "agnostic scale" completely (I am one of them). "Atheism" was historically the catch-all term for what we might now call "Irreligious," and more.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy explores its many meanings, and proposes that what defines an Atheist is an active choice to distance oneself from faith; "Someone who rejects the premise of gods either based on lack of belief, or meaninglessness of the question." Matt Dillahunty, a prominent educator and activist, intentionally refers to himself as an Atheist when others (including religious people!) have tried to pressure him into using the label Agnostic, for reasons he covers in great depth. Historically, "atheist" simply meant anyone who denied the gods or acted impiously, evolving into use as a broad label for irreligious practices around the 1500s, until attempts to narrow it to "nonbelievers in deities" in the 1800s.

By EoP's expanded definition alone, Splashstar qualifies as an Atheist. The rejection does not have to come from a belief that Theism is false, but that the question is meaningless. He doesn't have to "believe" in StarClan any more than you have to "believe" in a total stranger. He rejects faith in it and lives without their influence.

But even more than that, "atheist" is a broad, stigmatized term with a history you can't erase. Hundreds of combinations of philosophies, spiritual beliefs, and logical positions have been called "Atheism."

"Atheist" can refer to Agnostics (those who aren't sure if there is a god or not), Antitheists (opposition to the belief in and/or worship of gods), Igtheists (those that feel that "god" is such a nebulous term that the question of belief is meaningless), Apatheists (people who just don't care), practitioners of Non-Deistic religions (such as Humanistic Judaism and some sects of Buddhism), and even heretics who spoke against religion like Diagoras of Melos (gay guy who chopped up a statue of hercules and used it to bake beans. king.)

In a fantasy universe where gods are provably, visibly real, the term "Atheist" is going to look a lot more like those historic and expansive uses.

Unless you want to argue that "atheism" by the narrow, popular definition of "believing in deities" can't exist in such a setting. So, arguing that Cloudtail stopped being an Atheist when he saw demons in OotS, in spite of this not affecting his spiritual practices. Or, dancing around using one uniting term, you could specifically say Curlfeather is a Misotheist, Splashstar is an Antitheist or Agnostic, Mothwing is Deist, etc.

You could have a discussion about how applicable these words even are in the setting. Or make up terms that satisfy yourself. You could do this forever. But I choose not to.

I think it's counterproductive to push people to learn a bunch of terms for hyperspecific branches of irreligious philosophy just to discuss clear anti-secular sentiment within the text of a book, actually. Or push people to abandon a useful word because fantasy isn't exactly the same as real life. Functionally, imo, all of those aforementioned cats are Atheists within this setting, living "without god" by rejecting belief-- and many of them invoke real world bigotry, with tropes much older than WC itself.

So the simple fact is; Calling Splashtail an "Evil Atheist" immediately communicates the narrative tropes I am criticizing.

Either by authorial accident or on purpose, Splashstar's lack of morality being tied to his rejection of StarClan invokes the demonized atheist trope, very much like the ones seen in PureFlix's God's Not Dead or Jack Chick's The Last Generation.

All the arbitrary wishing that the terms were more narrow and exclusive will not change the reality that those characters are intended by bigots as atheists. The terms of the discussion reflect that. Trying to tut-tut the fandom for calling a spade a spade is a smug way to phrase you completely missed the damn point.

[bixbythemartian]

walrus vs. fairy

the funny part is that people who answer walrus are mostly like 'I disagree, but I understand why you would answer fairy' and the people who answered fairy are tearing their hair out. some of them are getting mad and/or mean about it, which is kind of upsetting.

so, I will try to help explain.

this will not be about walrus logistics, I promise.

some people believe in fairies. full stop.

fully believe they are real. probably a lot more people than you would be happy about, but you have to allow for this to be true.

even among those who don't wholeheartedly believe in fairies, there's a lot more people who are agnostic about fairies.

people willing to admit that they're not sure if fairies are real, but willing to hedge on the side of maybe the fairies are real.

like, if you rephrased the question 'would you be more surprised to see an angel or a walrus at your door' you would probably be less surprised to see that people would be more shocked at the walrus, because you probably already understand that a lot of people believe in angels and consider them real, whether or not you believe in angels personally

also the SPN fandom would go ham on that, probably. (this is said with deep affection)

there was a fairly famous road built in Ireland that got rerouted because there was a bush that was important to fairies. (source) the fairy tree stalled the plans for the road for a fucking decade. this happened in my lifetime. people talked about it happening on the internet as it was happening, it's not some weird thing that happened in the middle of nowhere in the 1950s or something. they agreed to go around the damned bush in 1999. I know that seems a long time ago to some of y'all, but it really, really isn't.

there are still people who think the cottingley fairies were real. not a huge amount, but I hope enough to make my point- there's some people who believe in fairies so much and want them to be real so much that they think a famous prank (hoax is stretching it, imo, these girls were pranking their families and the press kind of coincidentally got involved) proves the existence of fairies.

there's a lot, lot, lot more people who believe in fairies and also will admit the cottingley fairies weren't real. the cottingley fairy truthers are a small a percentage of the people who believe in fairies.

I cannot emphasize enough that there are plenty of people who believe fairies are real and even more that could be very easily convinced that fairies are real

people have believed in fairies and been superstitious about fairies for a long, long fucking time

setting aside all of that

some people are more likely to see a thing that isn't real at their door than they are to see a living fucking walrus at their door.

fevers, migraines, mental stress, sleep deprivation (especially if you have sleep disorders, like insomnia or narcolepsy), and infection (among a very long list of other things), and prescription medication side effects can all cause visual hallucinations, and they're all states that you might not be aware that you're in when you start to see weird shit.

these are just the really mundane ones I plucked up off the list.

I have experienced hallucinations due to sleep dep and insomnia. unfortunately, for me, this manifested as a spider the size of a border collie (I wish I were joking) and not fairies, but fairies is a possibility that cannot be counted out.

I'm way more likely to have sleep deprivation and a migraine and a fever all at once than I am to see a walrus in person at a zoo, much less at my door.

it has happened before. it will happen again. it's happening right fucking now.

the fairies can have my birth name if they will take away my migraine.

just putting that out there.

I've never seen a walrus in person at all. I would like to, but it's not likely. there's not any in any of the zoos nearby that I could find.

current likelihood of me seeing a fairy on my doorstep is significantly higher than me seeing a fucking walrus. I am in a physical state where I have had visual hallucinations before, and it's not impossible I will have them again. I would not be particularly surprised, even.

as long as it's not the goddamn massive spider. I even like most spiders, but that is too much spider.

[utilitycaster]

I am curious if you think the campaign wrap up will perhaps address some of the campaign shortcomings or challenges the cast faced in trying to land this campaign narratively, especially in comparison to previous campaigns? Not that they would disparage the whole campaign - but like a little “yeah this didn’t work as well as we wanted at times?” 

It’s odd because I find myself weirdly optimistic about CR as a whole despite this campaign’s possible lackluster ending, so I guess I’m hoping the campaign wrap up acknowledges that this campaign didn’t always play to their strengths in hopes that their next long form venture does more, idk.

I don't know if it will but. that's precisely the tenor any question I send will have: I don't think the fundamental concept is the issue - hell, I don't even think killing the gods is actually a problem if you appropriately set up a scenario where killing the gods has a motivation other than "mortals were mean to me in their name" [thing that happens irl all the time in a world with zero proof of divinity, in my religiously observant ideologically agnostic and skeptical opinion] or "I have issues with my parents I never worked towards so I've projected this onto The Ultimate Parents instead of like. being fucking normal." But it needed a lot more scaffolding at the VERY least in the prep for this campaign, and actually, to be blunt, if you want to make this a balanced issue you needed to seed this concept through prior campaigns in a meaningful way. There's a reason pretty much everyone who defends this campaign as Extremely Good, Actually is either doing some form of wildly revisionist history of the fandom and the past campaigns that's demonstrably false if you were like. there; or else they started with C3 and decided they were an expert despite being of below-average literacy and deeply below average personality and have to resort to such miserable efforts as "arguing that canon isn't real" and "posting an out of context Le Guin quote over and over in the hopes we won't notice they're actually 511 mice in a trenchcoat who can't actually read". So yeah I hope Matt is like this was an ambitious project and I'd have done many things differently.

I do wonder what's next for CR, because as I mentioned, it feels like the cast is stronger in shorter form; that even the other longform shows are moving to shorter form right now; and that WBN and C3 kind of show the limits/failings of longform. I hope they do another longform campaign at some point in the future, but it might make sense to take an extended break and play in the space for a while. They only took about 4 months between campaigns for the past two and maybe it would be good to take longer and focus on Daggerheart, Candela, and EXU for much of the year and if they do longform wait 8-10 months, especially with the comparatively extensive touring schedule this year.

I also hasten to add, and I mentioned this briefly in talking about CRPGs, but I think there's a Third Campaign Dip that's not inevitable (NADDPod didn't really have it; TAZ switches systems enough that it's not an issue) but definitely hit here, that doesn't apply to a fourth one. Like, for CRPGs (girl who's played Veilguard twice and gotten through the first day of Disco Elysium voice) it feels like the first run is following what seems most fun to you and then the second is playing around with other choices that maybe aren't as appealing just to see what happens, and then for the third and future runs you kind of know the full lay of the land and what you'll like while still allowing for a range of choices. For class-based TTRPGs, the first is the self-insert/thing that's fairly comfortable and easy/character you've dreamed of; the second is what you do now that you know how this works; and then the third can be...an overextension, shall we say. I think after that you figure out, again, the bounds of your comfort zone, how much you can stretch it, and what you don't like, you're in a much more consistent footing.

[limeade-l3sbian]

Regarding the "stop treating your non radfem female friends like they’re idiots and stop being an asshole to them" post

Do you have any tips on how to deal with this mentality?? Because I hear my sister going "I dress to look pretty and sexy, not to be comfortable" and then I hear the music my cousin listens to and how it's all about men calling women whores and just wanting to fuck them, and then I see my friend just COVERING her face with makeup to the point she doesn't go swimming or to ride bikes with me because "she will be sweaty and her makeup will fade" and on and on and on and jesus christ do they not hear themselves??? Am I crazy for pointing out just how much self harm they're doing? How sad that is? I can't stop feeling pity for them, that they're so lost and I can't help and I just can't deal with their ideas and since I know I won't be able to change their minds I just want to cut ties with all of them because I can't keep seeing that shitshow

It's important to remember how differently people are raised. My best example is religion. I grew up Christian, but my mom was in no way forceful about this. And when I started to question/doubt, I was given the space to explore these ideas before coming to terms with my agnostic beliefs. There was no real consequence to my drastic change in beliefs. Some of my family was irked by this, but it didn't matter at that point.

Now say I have a friend who grew up in a family or surroundings that are deeply tied to Christianity. I mean, the most patriarchal form of it where she's talking about wanting to have babies (plural) at 18 and is only interested in talking about finding a husband and being a mother. Mind you, her religious community has given her warnings about nonbelievers and how they will try to corrupt or bring her away from the thing she has invested her self worth into. Without this God, her family and friends will turn on her.

What change am I really making by harassing her when we are alone? How do I know she isn't already having doubts? Does me rolling my eyes and coming down on her going to make her want to look into these potential thoughts of doubt more, or will she tie these thoughts of doubt in with the shame I make her feel? Will I be surprised when she starts to resent me for not considering her situation? Even if I am annoyed by these things, how I helping her by attacking her?

And maybe she isn't having doubts at all! Maybe she is 100% on board with this life that has been sold to her. Well, now she cuts me off because I have become the person her community has warned her about.

I don't attack her. Because she is my friend and a person who has life than me. So what do I do? This is someone I deeply care about and I want to "save" her. First and foremost, I cannot "save" her. I am not her savior just because I have a broader perspective. She's heard arguments against her religion and it only brings her closer. But how can I get her to at least consider a different way of thinking?

It's the same shit I did with my grandmother that made her angry with me: I just ask questions. I question even the most basic things that she has believed without ever having questioned it. And after a while, I start suggesting things for her to question. Those who want control of individuals will always discourage questioning. I am not needlessly rude about it. I just ask simple things. That's how I left the church. I had the environment that would not punish me for asking questions. So I kept asking, and for frustrated when no one would give me an answer.

This might not even change a damn thing. But no amount of personal ideology will ever be as strong as just getting someone to ask questions. And even if she starts to ask questions, she may not be in a situation where she can just up and leave.

Empathy is the name of the game, anon. You can't "save" everyone. But you can question everything.

[frownyalfred]

(I apologize in advance about the numbers of questions… I really hope u don’t mind lol)

Did Martha practice her religion? Was she more observant or secular? Was she Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform? Which Jewish groups was she part of: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, or maybe a mix? How did her family feel about her marriage to Thomas? Were they religious too, perhaps a bit stricter?

What about the Waynes (Thomas) being Christians? Were they religious as well? I've read that Thomas is sometimes described as Episcopalian and other times as Catholic. Martha is even considered Christian in some versions.

Do you think that despite their religious differences, they still celebrated Christmas and Hanukkah together? And after their deaths, do you think Bruce continues to celebrate those holidays?

Finally, when asked about his religion, what do you think Bruce would answer? Was he agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Christian? What does he consider himself to be?

Again I’m so sorry for asking so many questions, but I'm genuinely really curious about your take <3

Rapid-fire thoughts below, with the caveat that 1) I am just one Jew 2) we are famous for disagreeing and having wildly different takes on the same things 3) just because I'm hc'ing it this way doesn't mean you have to, too.

Did Martha practice her religion? Define "practice" -- Judaism is an ethnoreligious group. It also doesn't require explicit belief in God to practice certain traditions, which may be viewed as secular or observant depending on the context. I.e., is observing Shabbat by baking challah every week an example of her being observant? Good question.

Was she more observant or secular? Probably more secular, going off of her social class. But again, that's a loaded term in this community.

Was she Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform? Strict Reform or Conservative, in my mind.

Which Jewish groups was she part of: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, or maybe a mix? Ashkenazi, going off of 1) Jewish immigration trends in the 19th and 20th centuries and 2) her family's history in Gotham.

How did her family feel about her marriage to Thomas? If they were more observant, they probably weren't pleased she wasn't marrying someone who was also Jewish. But her kids would be Jewish regardless of who she married, so that helps a little.

Were they religious too, perhaps a bit stricter? Probably. It again kind of depends on how you define "religious" and "stricter." It's different for Judaism than it is for Christians.

What about the Waynes (Thomas) being Christians? Very likely.

Were they religious as well? I've read that Thomas is sometimes described as Episcopalian and other times as Catholic. Martha is even considered Christian in some versions. Again, going off social class of the Wayne family, probably no more or less religious than their cohort.

Do you think that despite their religious differences, they still celebrated Christmas and Hanukkah together? I think this question is a very common (but understandable) misconception about blended interfaith families. The big Jewish holidays that might still be celebrated next to Christian ones are Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Passover. Hanukkah, while delightful and often in winter near Christmas, is a minor festival in comparison. The better question is, did they do holidays from both religions at all? Did they only celebrate the major Christian ones? If they did add in 1-2 Jewish ones, which ones did Martha fight for?

And after their deaths, do you think Bruce continues to celebrate those holidays? No, I think they're too painful and probably get in the way of his belief system(s). This changes when he has kids in the Manor.

Finally, when asked about his religion, what do you think Bruce would answer? What does he consider himself to be? Was he agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Christian? None of the above. Probably cautiously agnostic if you press. But he would be considered halachically Jewish regardless of what he answered (unless he got baptized etc) so that's tricky.

[luneemeritus]

I've made a very old post about Erik headcanons and I decided to write down another one. This is for a modern AU.

I will use all pronouns for Erik (read the post for explanation). This is mostly Leroux-based, original deformity, skinny body, yellow skin, except he has hair.

There will be triggering headcanons (it's Erik) and a little NSFW in the end, it will all be warned.

「Modern Erik headcanons」

�� Romantic Goth

• His favorite goth band is London After Midnight (something something self projecting)

• He is also a very eclectic person

• AMAB Gender fluid (HE/SHE/THEY)

• Bi/pansexual (he identifies as both)

• Their favorite colors are red and black

• Their favorite novel is Bram Stoker's Dracula

• loves flowers, her favorite is black Perfect-love

• loves greek mythology, specially the myth of Hades and Persephone

• Theatre kid

• Does drag performances, her name is Phantasma

• Monsterfucker. Because yes

• He's an anarchist

• Autistic

• BPD

• Agnostic

• Has social anxiety

• Sleeps hugging pillow, one in the arm and one between the legs

• Doesn't know how to act when someone praises them, he almost cries

• 100% little spoon

• Is currently dating Daroga 🏳️‍🌈

「TW: TRAUMA RESPONSE, S/H, TYPICAL SELF-DESTRUCTIVE ERIK BEHAVIOUR, TOXIC ERISTINE」

• used to blame himself for being "mentally broken"

• has constant nightmares, wakes up screaming, sweating and struggling

• has PTSD

• has scars all over his body. He tries to hide all of them with his clothes

• used to do self harm. Like isolating himself, not eating properly, not sleeping properly, not taking care of their own physical and mental health (1/4)

• when his relationship with Christine was going terrible (Erik's fault), the self-harm tendencies got worse (2/4)

• he went to therapy and distanced himself from Christine. Daroga is helping them, and he stopped the self-harm (3/4)

• she and Christine got closer again after some years. Christine forgave them and now they're friends (4/4)

「NSFW」

• has sensitive nipples 🫣

• LOVES bites, specially on his neck

• loves toys (specially dildos), he loves using on himself and his partner

• cuddle sex>>>>> 💖

• cried of emotion during his first time 🥺 (... also screamed, drooled, trembled and farted, it was very awkard)

• switch

• they dated Christine and she used to pegg him 👀

That's it. Maybe I'll do with Daroga next

[greatwyrmgold]

Another "The Problem of Susan" post

As you may know:

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was not a standalone book. There were seven books in the series, each with more Christian allegory than the last.

(Or maybe it's not allegory? Apparently C.S. Lewis has said that Aslan is literally Jesus, so maybe it's all literally just Christianity.)

The series stars the four Pevensie siblings who show up in most of the books—Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. They're absent from The Silver Chair and The Magician's Nephew, but all appear together in the other five books, with one exception.

The last book, called The Last Battle, features Peter, Edmund, and Lucy, but not Susan. Not only does Susan not appear, she's mentioned exactly once:

"Sir," said Tirian, when he had greeted all these. "If I have read the chronicles aright, there should be another. Has not your Majesty two sisters? Where is Queen Susan?" "My sister Susan," answered Peter shortly and gravely, "is no longer a friend of Narnia." "Yes," said Eustace, "and whenever you've tried to get her to come and talk about Narnia or do anything about Narnia, she says 'What wonderful memories you have! Fancy your still thinking about all those funny games we used to play when we were children.'" "Oh Susan!" said Jill, "she's interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up." "Grown-up, indeed," said the Lady Polly. "I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race on to the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and then stop there as long as she can." "Well, don't let's talk about that now," said Peter. "Look! Here are lovely fruit trees. Let us taste them."

(Oh yeah, the kids were kinds and queens of Narnia for a few decades when they were kids. Don't think about it too much.)

The Problem of Susan gets even worse because right at the end of the book, Aslan reveals that the Pevensies, their parents, and other Earth-humans who went to Narnia (like the Eustace and Polly mentioned above) died right before coming to Narnia this last time. And now that the Book of Revelations is done, they will live forever in "the true Narnia," which is either an allegory for Revelation's New Jerusalem or literally heaven, I'm not sure which.

Susan is still not there.

So, the first part of the Problem of Susan is that a formerly major character—one that many young fans of the series felt attached to—who gets all but dropped from the finale. This is particularly egregious, since—this is a direct quote— "Everyone you had ever heard of (if you knew the history of those countries) seemed to be there" by the end. Every character from the entire series, from Mr. Tumnus the faun to that cab driver who became the first King of Narnia, it makes sense in context.

But not Susan.

And I guess that makes sense in context, too; she's not dead. But C.S. Lewis wrote the context. It was C.S. Lewis's decision to kill off the other Pevensies, and C.S. Lewis's decision to keep Susan out of this last adventure.

Christian Apologetics, for Kids!

I've seen three common responses to The Problem of Susan from overly-protective fans of the series.

The first is, perhaps unsurprisingly, just a remix of shit fundamentalist Christians say about Heaven and Hell. Just as agnostics will burn in the fires of hell for their ambiguous faith, so Susan will be barred from "the true Narnia" for being less allegorically(?) pious than her siblings.

Speaking as an ex-Christian, I could write a whole series of posts about why that's fucked-up and wrong. But I will instead remain on topic and recommend you read basically any atheist blog from the early '10s; that eternal damnation/salvation shit is low-hanging fruit for guys who want to make fun of fundies.

Second, you have people who see Susan as materialistic, caring so much about "nylons and lipstick and invitations." First off, nothing in the text suggests she was maliciously materialistic, or greedy, or anything else that would merit getting kicked out of Narnia. Second, the text just...does not support this reading. Susan's sin isn't greed, it's growing up too fast.

Third are the people who agree with the text; Susan "always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up." This has textual support, and not just from the one page in The Last Battle that mentions her. The problem is, of course, that this isn't a sin worthy of punishment either.

(Zeroth: Susan spent decades as a queen of Narnia, but since because the books want us to think that that wouldn't have any real impact on the kids, we will continue not thinking about it too much.)

With that out of the way: Wanting to be older than you are is fine, wanting to be younger than you are is fine, wanting to be the age you are is great. There is nothing inherently wrong with either wanting to be treated as a grown-up or seeking the joy of youth. It can lead to bad behavior, but none of that is described in the actual text of The Last Battle.

Susan is described as misremembering the fantastical adventures the Pevensies had as children, and wanting to be a young adult for as long as possible. Who. Cares.

It seems like C.S. Lewis puts an unreasonably high premium on the innocence of childhood. (This has what I consider to be unfortunate implications when combined with his advocacy of blind faith in The Silver Chair, but that's a topic for another ramble.) This is, I feel, ridiculous. It's fine to seek the joy of youth, but to treat losing that joy as some kind of mortal sin is absurd! Treating the loss of innocence as an inevitable tragedy is one thing; treating it as something worth punishing a kid for if they stumble into it too quickly is horrific.

(And it's really hard to not think about that time Susan was a literal monarch. Well, there were four of them, so I guess she was more of a tetrarch? Whatever.)

Anyways. The fourth response is to point to things C.S. Lewis said after publishing The Last Battle. And I'm going to discuss that.

Contrite-over-Susan Lewis

Unfortunately, I can't find the actual quotes by C.S. Lewis, not in the time I'm willing to spend researching a Tumblr post about a book that was old when my parents were young. But C.S. Lewis has acknowledged the problem of Susan.

The gist of what he said is that he's not happy that Susan's story is incomplete, but writing her redemption arc would put the story into a whole different genre, and that's no good.

My first problem is, of course, the idea that Susan needed to change to be worthy of Narnia. So what if she was always the most skeptical Pevensie? So what if she wanted to grow up? So what if she likes nylons and lipstick and invitations? If the Susan we see in the other books isn't worthy of the true Narnia, that's Lewis's problem, not Susan's.

The second is that C.S. Lewis never wrote that book. Lewis would say that it's out of step with the rest of the series, that the tone would be off, but so is The Last Battle to anyone not drowning in Armageddon-lust. And it's not like character arcs are foreign to the series, either. There are plenty of examples of kids from our Earth going to Narnia and having it change their worldview or attitude. They're mostly small subplots, but elevating a Susan character arc to a booklong undercurrent would not be that much of a divergence.

And even if Lewis committed himself to only writing seven books for numerological reasons—well, first off, he probably could have cut one of the other books. A Horse and his Boy is neat, but depicting the lives of ordinary Narnians during a dramatic time probably should have taken a back seat to a character arc you think is required for her to join the finale. Anyways, he could have written the Susan character arc as a subplot in Prince Caspian or Voyage of the Dawn Treader if he tried.

But he didn't try.

Conclusion

C.S. Lewis supposedly said that Susan was his favorite character, the one he saw the most of himself in. If true, that is not reflected in The Last Battle.

Lewis set some arbitrary conditions Susan would have to meet to join her siblings at the end—at the climax of the entire series, arguably the most important event in Narnian history since the world's creation. He then chose not to write anything that would let Susan meet those conditions, left her out of the last book, and left it ambiguous as to whether she'd ever see her siblings in paradise.

I don't think this would be quite so egregious if Susan was at least mentioned more. Again, Susan is never mentioned before Tirian asks where she is, nor after Peter decides to taste some fruit. She gets three and a half paragraphs where her brother and "friends" bitch about her, and that's that. They make fun of her for growing up and liking nylons and lipstick, then they decide to eat fruit, end of chapter, end of Susan.

It's like the characters don't give a shit about Susan. They're not angry, they're not disappointed, they're not confused. They state a few things about Susan when directly asked, then move on, like these are just facts about some fictional character and not the reasons they're estranged from a sibling or longtime friend. Heck, the younger Pevensies don't even bother to speak up! They don't care!

And if the characters don't care about the formerly important character—important both to the story and, more importantly, to them—why should I think the author did?

[additiva]

hi hello! first of all, i wanted to say i love love love frecheit! I have just recently discovered it and read it all almost in one day haha. the snippet for the alt version was also soo good. do you mind maybe doing a little summary for new people what this alt ending consists of? :) thank you!!

Hello my love 🤍

The alt ending will consist of what happens if Charles' fears are confirmed, and Ferrari already knew about the things he was dealing with.

There's a couple of plot divergences before that, but they're relatively minor things.

So it's about Charles going fully off the deep end in a (partially) calculated way, and dragging Ferrari down with him. Also him leveraging everyone's natural inclinations toward painting him as a tragic victim, to turn the whole world on Ferrari.

He and Max do not break up, don't worry 🤍 they could never, they're in WAY too deep.

But it's very slow going at the moment because I'm working on the sexually-agnostic omega Charles fic 🫣

[greenerteacups]

I love a morally agnostic interpretation of the Malfoys (by blood and marriage) in fanfic because, canonically, that's exactly what they are! Both in the books and in JKR's extracanonical stuff, they're historically quintessential opportunists whose opinions and morals seem to be based mostly on what's most beneficial to their image, wealth and influence at the time. They're not even actually all that pureblood apparently (which I love!) because occasionally, it just makes way more sense (politically, financially, etc) to marry a half-blood or whatever.

So I definitely can see a post-war, mercenary Narcissa, desperate to regain some social capital, being technically OK with Draco dating Hermione purely because of the optics! But the fact that she's still, essentially, racist against muggles, has got to be in there... that's the kind of nuance and realism that hits the spot for me! TLDR: Not all racists are deatheaters. Some are supercilious mother-in-laws.

Love all interpretations, and whatever's your jam is your jam! Lots of cool morally agnostic Malfoys out there. Personally, for me, I don't think they are morally agnostic, though. Lucius is an out-and-out blood supremacist, and he does and says and does supremacist things even when there's no social benefit to him saying so. Best example is probably the diary in Chamber of Secrets — the stated purpose of the Chamber is to "unleash the horror within, and use it to purge the school of all who were unworthy to study magic." Which, in the context of what Slytherin's reason for leaving the school was, pretty unambiguously means muggle-borns. Does Lucius know that there's a basilisk in there, or that children could die as a consequence of what he's done? Is that what he's relying on to happen? Eh, maybe. Maybe he doesn't really intend muggle-born kids to die — can't be bothered to go back and check — but based on how he's riding with a crew that fires the Killing Curse at children (cf. Battle of the Ministry), I'm not putting it past him.

After the war, if Draco wanted to end up with Hermione, I can kind of see Narcissa pretending to be fine with it for social capital? Like, as a PR relationship for six months, under strict conditions that she doesn't have to see, hear, or talk to The Mudblood. But when it comes to questions of bloodline, I think marriage and children would be a different story.

[ominous-faechild]

I have a Problem in that I love to over-explain things even when I don't need to.

Especially when I don't need to. 😭

On that note! I'm working on my introduction post again (take a guess how many times I've gone to work on it and then stopped) and I went too in-depth when I should really be focusing on making it shorter, haha.

Except... I don't want to get rid of what I've written, and still want to share it.

SOLUTION!

My Obsessions:

✦ Fantasy, horror, mystery, action, and exploration of realistic characters' reactions to the things they go through.

What I write tends to be a reflection of this. My main works are high fantasies placed in what I feel is a more realistic setting--not as in grimdark "realistic", but places that are very used to the existence of magic. Someone who's grown up in a place with magical basically-electricity shouldn't spend five pages fawning over the existence of teleporters. Maybe they'll be surprised. Maybe they'll even be impressed. But unless they have some kind of a special interest in the subject, they'll probably spend more time thinking about how convenient it'll be for them rather than how it works, what it means, and the long, long history of magic... which has been around them for their whole life.

✦ Fairy tales, mythology, and folklore

I called myself "ominous-feychild" for a reason, haha. I like horror, I love fantasy, I adore faeries, and dear god--am I in LOVE with putting them all together! In folklore, faeries weren't cute little pixies that helped everyone around them... or even tiny little pixies that annoyed everyone around them (most of the time). They were the things that went "bump" in the night, that you huddled in close with your loved ones when you thought you might've caught their attention... Or, they made you question if your sister's eyes were always that far apart. Wait, was your bedroom there before? Did... did you even have a sister??? Well, you do now. And you might want to start running.

✦ "Ye Olde History" and language

"Ye Olde" meaning "the further away from modern day, the better." I can appreciate steampunk and actually often implement it into my own writing, but I do not consider Victorian England to be old. Civilization has been tracked back to as early as 4000 BCE, and it's way too easy to google that to think history actually started when Jesus was put on the cross. (Note: I am a merciless agnostic and hate what Christianity did to our world's history. So much was erased just because some bigots thought "stupid people don't think and act exactly like me, they're clearly barbaric! Time to erase their entire culture, massacre their people, and/or destroy their creations! Empathy be damned!!!" Fuck Christianity. To any Christians reading this, I don't mean you--just your religion. But you have to admit, it really sucks.)

✦ DIVERSITY!!!

As I just alluded to, I love learning about things that are unlike me. And, even more than that, I love people feeling like they have a place they belong. I've gone most of my life feeling ostracized, I'm not just going to perpetrate that cycle myself. Besides! It gets exhausting being in echo chambers with the same-old white cishet stories all the time.

✦ Explorations of "evil-coded" characters and abilities--aka, not just showing them as evil. Show them as people (for characters) and tools (for abilities)!

This is actually kind of personal to me. Autism and other disabilities have historically most often been relegated to villains because we're somehow "worse" than everyone else. Even I fell into that trap in the past, accidentally making a villain autistic-coded before I got my diagnosis. Now, I love putting people with questionable traits, powers, and backstories on the good side while the typically "good" things end up as villains. Something something, humans want freedom and freedom is chaos, something something, order is forcing things into boxes they might not particularly fit in because "otherwise, where else would they go???"

✦ Learning!!!

This might be weird, but I have a genuine love for just learning! (Not school, just learning.) I go down rabbit holes researching things all the time--and not just for writing! Obviously two of my favorite subjects are history and language, but I also love earth science and the ways our planet regulates itself to try to maintain balance! (And then we humans screw it up but.) Even in general, I love learning about random things, so if you ever have a weird infodump you really want to share, feel free to tag me in it and I'll check it out!!!

Yeah, by the way, this is linked to my actual intro post!

Divider by @cafekitsune

[beardedmrbean]

so i went to Mass today. it was a little overwhelming being around so many people with my anxiety, and part of the ritual was interacting with my nearby neighbors and i almost cried. i followed along with the sinners confession prayer and the Lord's prayer, but sat out the rest. the choir was nice.

i liked it, I'm gonna try to come back next Sunday.

i went to the welcome desk and told them it was my first time there and i was looking to talk to someone about exploring the faith. they asked my background and i told them about being agnostic atheist but i have been questioning my lack of faith for awhile and the Catholic Church spoke to me. they gave me a welcome packet that included a book (l'auteur me donne envie de pleurer), a pamphlet, crayons and a coloring picture, and some popcorn. they took down my contact information and someone should be getting in touch with me.

he said he was really glad i came and hopes i return.

They're doing it right then, good they went all out to make you feel welcome, and I'm sure they appreciated you coming to introduce yourself and such too.

Got an anon several years back from someone who was a atheist but liked going to church for the community and was wondering if that was a bad thing or something like that.

My response was something along the lines of, as long as you're not being a jerk, which it sounds like you aren't, it shouldn't be a problem, and maybe in time you'll find your faith.

Basically the same deal for you, find a community that fills the need you have and go with it, church family should be happy you're there and if they're not it's time to find another church or other community.

I'm not sure what any church would turn people away or make them feel unwelcome provided the person isn't being antagonistic,

Jesus hung out with sinners all the time, if we're striving to be like him we shouldn't make people feel unwelcome at all.