#moral religious cult

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Douglas Murray and Peter Boghossian - Why are so many people fooled by Woke ideology?

Peter Boghossian: Why do you think people are so hoodwinked by this?

Douglas Murray: Because it's an answer to a number of very big questions. In the gap left by religion, it's an answer to the question of what should we be doing with our lives on Earth? That's a good question to address. And if you say, or anyone says, I have the answer, I know what you should be doing. I know what you should be doing...

Boghossian: Fighting for social justice.

Murray: You should be fighting for social justice. You-- it's a reason to get up in the morning, it's a reason to go out campaigning in the afternoon, and it's a reason to fight over the dinner table and tell your family that they're bigots.

This is purpose of a kind. And-- one other thing which is of course it says, i mean this is the real attraction, it says in a quasi-religious manner - in fact it's better than religion isn't it. Because a religion says, if you sort these things out, then in a life to come you will find salvation. And the social justice activists and the intersectionists and much more say, if you do all of these things, we can get justice here on Earth. And who wouldn't want that? If it was able to be achieved and if it was offered to you.

I mean, the appeal of it is extraordinary because, here is-- I mean, the world is wildly unequal, may well always be, I think probably always will be unequal in lots of ways. It's unfair in a huge variety of ways. Our own lives all bear out that experience, we know it collectively as well as individually. And these are all things we rail against or find peace against in our lives as the case is.

But if somebody comes along and says, no, we could solve all unfairness, inequality, inequity, you've just got to join us. Ordinarily that's said by a cult.

Boghossian: It sounds very Baptist to me.

Murray: It's highly Baptist. It has so many resonances from the religious tradition. Which is why I say I think it's trodden into that gap.

Boghossian: So, one of the reasons I think people are so hoodwinked, I think they're hoodwinked by language. I think they're hoodwinked by these words. "Equity" sounds really good. "Inclusion" sounds really good. "Diversity" sounds really good. "Safe space" sounds really good. All of these words sound good, and most people, they don't really know what they mean. It sounds good and it makes them feel good. I mean, just think, "anti-racism."

Murray: Yeah, who's not on board with that?

Boghossian: If you don't know the moral underpinnings of that, or Black Lives Matter. Well, of course black lives matter.

Murray: Yeah, a movement with literally no open opposition.

Boghossian: And they got-- they hoodwink you through those words and people say, I think it was Linda Sarsour who put out a tweet: Antifa. Anti-fascist. That's all you need, what more is it than that?

It is the power of language. There must be something in the brain's architecture or some evolutionary quirk or something that makes us susceptible to these.

Murray: Well, in-group out-group is is the obvious one, is that it's-- once this stuff becomes the dominant theme of the time, once people agree on the reprehensible nature of racism, homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, once they agree on that then of course they want to be on the side of the people opposed to all of that.

The problem is and you jump onto the side of all the people who are opposed to all that and you discover they can do things as wicked as anyone else.

But one other interesting thing about that is that, you mentioned language and of course i've always thought that one of the great advantages that any profession of faith or professed ideology has, strangely enough, is if it looks more complex than it is, I think a lot of people have been intellectually intimidated by the Studies movements, by the grievance industry, by the intersectionalists.

They feel intellectually intimidated by it because the language these people write in is far more complex than the really rather simple ideas they actually espouse. There's never a word they use they don't add syllables to unnecessarily. You know. A problem is never a problem, it is a problematization. You never have a narrative, you always have a meta narrative. And this is the case in every single term. Everything is made to sound more complex than it is. Which, by the way, as a writer, annoys me because i believe the task of writing is to try to take the most complex ideas and make them simpler. Or at least, simpler to understand than they might otherwise be.

And here are a whole set of academics in particular, who take really rather straightforward and simple assertions, which we could all understand, and they make them impossible to understand. They use such deliberately difficult language, and I think a lot of people before that, you know, people whose children return from college and spout this stuff, a lot of people particularly parents, become intellectually intimidated by it.

I think that it's the same thing with all of the implicit bias stuff and all that. You know, your boss tells you to do something that you feel isn't right, but they've got a whole language to explain it and you don't really understand it and you go along with it because you think you must be dumb. And you're not dumb. You're the cleverer person in the room if you've seen through that. But there's not much to help you, very few people are going to reach out. And there's a terrible opportunity cost if you're accused of all sorts of terrible things for even questioning it.

==

These are all literally cult tactics, by the way.

[deservedgrace]

cult jokes are a symptom of and contribute to the simultaneous sensationalizing of cults (cults are all dark cloaks and animal sacrifices and devil worship and group suicide and despicable/unhinged beliefs) and diminishing of cults ("uwu come join my CULT XD we're gonna make cookies and WORSHIP SATAN teehee"), but i'm realizing how they go so hand-in-hand with the mindset of "only ~stupid/evil/crazy/etc.~ people could possibly join a cult. if it were me i would simply not fall for cult propaganda."

the diminishing part means that people don't take you seriously if you say you're an ex cult member or talk about your experiences in a cult or believe you are a current victim of a cult, because cults are just silly little groups that have weird beliefs but are otherwise innocuous. the sensationalizing part means people will also not take you seriously because if it was Actually a cult cult, that does harm and has evil beliefs, you should've known better because any reasonable person would have seen through it. the other side of "only an [xyz] person joins a cult" is "i am not an [xyz] person so i will never join a cult or be victim to propaganda and other cult tactics." the other side of "if it were me i would simply not fall for propaganda" is "someone falling for propaganda is fully a choice and a personal failing on their part." and combined they make: if you were [xyz] enough to join a cult and fall for propaganda, that means you deserved it.

people who would never make jokes about any other kind of abuse but feel perfectly fine making cult jokes used to kind of baffle me, because why is joking about personal abuse a problem but large-scale/group abuse is fine? why is it suddenly funny when you're the one that wants to perpetuate the abuse? but if your belief around cults is: "your experience wasn't that bad [diminishing], and if it was that bad [sensationalizing] it was your own fault and personal failing [i would simply not fall for propaganda], which means you deserved what you went through [only stupid/evil/crazy/etc people join cults]" and you don't understand how cults or cult tactics work, cult survivors/victims probably feel like a fair target for jokes (they are not, to be clear).

[fantasticgothicpeachsludge]

Just a reminder that I will ALWAYS be Jayce’s biggest defender and supporter

[randomnameless]

Genuine question, not trying to start a fight, why do you get so upset about gods and churches being presented in a negative light in fictional works?

No pbs!

I guess it's a mix of being too common, too forced and having, in general, the cast use common tropish arguments to fight /defeat them.

I rant a lot about this game, but take TS where we have three sort of factions opposing each other, and each are supposed to suck. Who is the faction who never receives any "positive traits" or "pet the dog" moment?

The game force fed us a scene where an Aesfroti soldier - when Aesfrost is depicted as a highly militarised nation with a cult of personality towards their current ruler, that invaded the protag's home and slaughtered several civilians and NPCs in the process - say goodbye to his wife and kids before going to "war" to defend his land against, well, the protags who are invading it to kill their warmongering leader.

As force-fed as this scene was, it, I believe at least, tried to tell us that even the Aesfrosti who pillaged villages and killed their inhabitants are humans, and care about their loved ones, sure it's corny, but it's all about not deshumanising any party.

When we attack Hyzante? Niet, zilch, nothing. No similar scene where random soldiers, or NPCs, worry about what is going on and if they're going to die when their wall has been breached. They just, don't exist in this context.

I think the cherry on the cake is the Golden Route scene, where, apparently, nationalists Aesfrosti decide to turn back against their ultra charismatic leader because, uh, he "lied" when he declared the war and used a false pretense, so the soldiers and people who were butchering babies and invading a city where people were preparing a marriage apparently now have morals and rebel.

There's no similar scene for Hyzante when the cast reveals that the teachings of their Goddess were made up and salt wasn't exclusively given to them by divine intervention, because rock salt exists everywhere. Sure it would be a bit weird and forced that people thinking they're chosen ones and looking down on everyone else suddenly, hm, don't break down when their entire system of belief is shattered, but hey, if the Aesfrostian Gregor can have morals after washing his hands of all this Glenbrookian blood, why shouldn't religious npc #55 not make the same heel face turn?

And then, we have the slavery/human experimentation plot - in general, when TS tries to give nuance, they more or less explain/justify why something that "sucks" is done, it's basically Silvio's character.

Aesfrost' Gustadolph manages to push his "freedom" mentality because his land is a harsh place where people are desperate to survive, salt smuggling is reprehensible, but it's the only way to give some to the ones who cannot afford it. Of course is everyone is free, no one is because, as Gustadolph puts it, they're basically free to die for his ambitions.

Hyzante? Follows a racist creed where Rozellians have to pay for some great sin, and are slaved away in a lake to recover salt until they die. It's, later, justified by Hyzante wanting to keep its salt monopoly else they don't have anything, and wanting to curb down the Rozelle people because they know about the exitence of rock salt (and I guess getting free workers to harvest salt from the lake + having state enemies make his own population docile/not willing to rebel ?).

And then, we have the human experimentations, that are just done for, uhh, Idore's lol. When Hyzante is known for its "advanced medicine" and we could have had the usual dilemna of, idk, having those humans experimentations used to develop this medicine that is reknown in the world (idk, sacrificing a Rozellian to save someone else's life?) - it's not the angle the devs picked. Rozellians are sacrificed to power up an idol, Idore wants to control the world through his idol and soft power (compared to Gustadolph's hard power) and manipulates his people (just like Gustadolph) to do so.

The two are very similar, but who is the final boss? Complete with a transformation in an eldritch monster? The war-mongering imperialist or the jaded old man who is leading de facto a religion?

Hopefully there's the entire "human experimentations for no other purpose than the lols" to settle them apart.

---

I recently watched Dune, and even if I have some issues with the adaptation, the Bene Gesserit isn't portrayed as "comically" evil-er than the Harkonen Empire, I reckon the comparison isn't adequate, because Dune is multi book series when I'm mostly talking about video games.

Symphonia's church of Martel is a font for the Big Bad (tm) to put in motion his nefarious plans, and yet, through the game, we see how random clergymen use their, uh, religious buildings to help people around. Ultimately Martel herself is reincarnated through plot device and tells the big bad to stop being an ass and the story is less about "church and gods evil" but "big bad distorts Martel/church's teachings and role for his plans because he has a tragic backstory"

(but then Symphonia ends with the biggest whitewashing from every Tales I've played for its big bad so I'll stop talking about it because otherwise I'm going to be salty).

Abyss' church is more or less the same thing - the Church is supposed to help people deal with the fact their verse has "predestination stones" where the future is already written, and in the course of the game, we see how it has several factions and one opposes the group (who has the pope as a NPC!) - but it's not a story about "gods bad church BaD".

I remember playing Suikoden Tierkreis a long time ago, and while the game seemed to go through familiar "church bad gods bad" route and we end with defeating a god-like entity... I pretty much loved the twist that, in a game that relied on alternate dimensions/universe, the god-like entity was actually the protag if he made different choices!

In those games, if you fight a religious body and someone pretending to be a God or what not - it's not because people fight against an eldritch creature who wants world domination and to erase puny insects, or is the reason why everything goes wrong, but because, at the end, the conflict/fight is ultimately caused by someone, generally a human or at least a non "god like" entity, wanting to destroy the world.

I don't remember if FE was my first JRPG series or not, but I always liked the idea that if the world is doomed in those games and the heroes must prevent said doom, it's not because a god-like being wants to destroy the world, but because people, humans/randoms are the most shitty ones out there.

---

As for the "tropes" often used to deride fictional churchs and religious people, well, I will again point to TS - which did a splendid job in the Benedict Route where you smash Hyzante after allying with Aesfrost.

There's one battle where out protags diss Hyzantese because they worship a goddess and have no free will, listening to Her teachings and Her says (the traditional "religious people have no free will and listen to their churches who tell them how to think!") - which is immediately countered by one of those Hyzantese characters asking Serenor if he's not the same, but instead of blindly listening to a Goddess, blindly follows Benedict. And it ends with the final chapter title referencing automatons/puppets : who is that title talking about ? The fake "idol" Idore created, or the fake "king" Benedict created?

Anyways, the usual "religions people have no free will because their church/religion tells them how to think" trope reeks of r/atheism and the double standard - bar in this route of TS, but I guess, in TS itself in the Roland route! - is never called out, blindly following a charismatic leader is okay, as long as charismatic leader isn't religious?

Regardless of my IRL thoughts about religion, usually those tropes are presented as a "gotcha!" when they are... not at all, but the games/books leave it at that and we're supposed to roll with it.

I'd say it's lazy writing or, as we saw in Naruto, a quick way to end a story without having to dwelve in characters and their motivations : "you're a god/alien/other being and you're bad, so let us do what we want!" - end of the story.

Hopefully some fillers and to an extent, Boruto gave her more meat bar being the 11 hour villain we had to defeat quick and who manipulated the previous sad'n'lonely antagonists - but it still felt rich from Naruto, known for his famous "talk no jutsu" and trying to understand people he's fighting against, to drop the ball with Kaguya, calling her pure malice and ending with some "let us live the way we want" to wrap up the plot so he can wrestle with his boyfriend later on.

In the end, we often end up with "religion bad bcs the big bad manipulates people through it", as if those mangas/animes/vg never have other examples of charismatic people not using religion to manipulate their randoms/people or "gods bad they should let humans do what they want" when we've read/seen/played through various, uh, really fucked-up shit humans did - but on their own! and ultimately, but it's more in fandom spaces, with have Projection 101.

TLDR : church/religion/gods are too often used in those works as the ultimate scapegoat to either wrap up a story in a rushed ending or to pretend to have "nuance" but still have a common enemy where all the "nuanced" characters can grow/be whitewashed and side together against that "common enemy".

Just like in all things I guess, I prefer when something isn't painted as purely negative and all of the positive traits are erased because there is a need for a perfect scapegoat - sure, bring out too much "nuance" and writing/designing a game/manga/anime becomes harder because there's no "clear cut" antagonist, and yet, the one who always gets fucked in this scenario is the religious/church side.

Want a generic stock villain who will destroy the world so the heroes have to fight against them? Just create a "religion" in your setting, and have the big bad either hell bent on resurrecting Chtullu to destroy the world because Chtullu BaD, or have them be the most corrupt piece of shit who manipulate everything in the shadows, so the rest of the world, even the ones who slaughter others bcs they feel like they must start a war, can be whitewashed at the end.

I mean, there's a saying about diverting attention from a fire by starting a bigger one near, or a trope of "aliens made them do it" : who cares if Madara started a continental war and targeted a village full of random civilians he swore to protect because he lost the elections? Did y'know he was manipulated by a woman, I mean, an eldritch thing created by a woman, regarded as a God, who ultimately wanted to get out of her fridge to kill everyone?

Roland must get over his hatred for Aesfrost for barging in his kindgom and killing hundred of his people while they were preparing for a wedding, because hey, Idore is evil and plans on ruling the world through his sham religion!

I'll forever be salty at TS for not giving Kamsell the occasion to rise against Idore, or not even have minor NPCs get the same treatment as Sycras suddenly going all "u lied to me gustadolph so i won't listen to u anymore + sad goodbyes to my wife'n'kids".

Extremism of all kinds can lead to wars/tragedy/fucked up shit - Sure I don't want to get my History lessons in video game medium when I play lol, but what I really don't like is how it feels like depicting "they're extremists because they're religious" feels like the default/easy answer : want a bunch of brainwashed people the heroes must fight against and can't talk no justu their way out of this fight/will fight without looking too BaD? Depict those people as "misguided" members of a corrupt church/believers of a religion, no one will givea fig. If they are instead supporters of a charismatic leader who throws them through the meatgrinder to further their goals? Well, there's no automatic loyalty so either you have to show/depict it on screen, else it can be challenged at key points to demonstrate how those people - who follow the charismatic leader - aren't completely "mindlessly listening to their leader" or how their leader "isn't that bad after all".

[eldritch-queern-magicat]

Dude fuck moral OCD, that shit is ruining my enjoyment of social media.

Random internet people thinking I'm a bad person just because I don't boost the shit I'm told to is not something I should worry about. Of course it's based on my prior religious experiences, though. First largely from the Pentecostals in foster hell, and then Nanny. The worst part of it is that it's also tied to appeals to faith. It's much harder to heal from when it's part of the religious trauma in the first place.

So now I have this awful knee-jerk reaction to requests to boost something in general. It's getting better with good faith requests, since I am working on my ability to discern based on evidence and trust others. But the more urgent the situation or request, the flightier I feel. And that's just the honest, good faith requests to boost something.

Honestly, the point of making this post is that I know this is a problem, but I'm working on it. It's really hard to retrain your mind as an adult to not see every single request as a life-or-death, moral demand. It got to a point where it frequently induced my avoidance of whatever it was about or wherever it was. It's absolutely miserable.

-Tate 🧃😺

[stromuprisahat]

When a client of mine tells me that he became abusive because he lost control of himself, I ask him why he didn’t do something even worse. For example, I might say, “You called her a fucking whore, you grabbed the phone out of her hand and whipped it across the room, and then you gave her a shove and she fell down. There she was at your feet, where it would have been easy to kick her in the head. Now, you have just finished telling me that you were ‘totally out of control’ at that time, but you didn’t kick her. What stopped you?” And the client can always give me a reason. Here are some common explanations: “I wouldn’t want to cause her a serious injury.” “I realized one of the children was watching.” “I was afraid someone would call the police.” “I could kill her if I did that.” “The fight was getting loud, and I was afraid neighbors would hear.” And the most frequent response of all: “Jesus, I wouldn’t do that. I would never do something like that to her.” The response that I almost never heard—I remember hearing it twice in fifteen years—was: “I don’t know.” These ready answers strip the cover off of my clients’ loss-of-control excuse. While a man is on an abusive rampage, verbally or physically, his mind maintains awareness of a number of questions: “Am I doing something that other people could find out about, so it could make me look bad? Am I doing anything that could get me in legal trouble? Could I get hurt myself? Am I doing anything that I myself consider too cruel, gross, or violent?” A critical insight seeped into me from working with my first few dozen clients: An abuser almost never does anything that he himself considers morally unacceptable. He may hide what he does because he thinks other people would disagree with it, but he feels justified inside.

Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men- Chapter 2: The Mythology (Lundy Bancroft)

[bakugoawayy]

Ivan Karamazov and the Fight for Morality

mo·ral·i·ty noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. What is morality? What makes something right or wrong? Is all of this made up?When you truly think about it, everything in society shares a certain likeness to Adam’s mandate. While in the garden, Adam was given the task by god to name all the animals as he is placed in a position to tend…

[momentsofamberclarity]

I'm not posting this ask because I reported it to tumblr for threat of violence but I woke up to this

followed by the anon in question coming off anon to leave me paragraphs of guilt tripping dribble in my DMs before blocking me.

I didn't bother reading their messages since they'd already blocked me so I just blocked them back. ( I did read something like 'if you post these screencaps remove my url' -- anon, I didn't do more than skim your whole novel of a guilt trip, I'm sure as hell not posting it so that you can guilt trip others. plus!! I already promised you in an ask that is still posted here on my blog that I would not name-drop you if you came off anon. callout culture is a thing your side of the fence does, not mine. lmao )

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

tfw you want to write up a proper post detailing What the Fuck about a particular thing about a character, but you're too exhausted and out of sorts to figure out the best way to format it and you'd rather make an actual concise, relatively coherent post instead of just reblogging it over and over with 'jesus fucking christ'

[captaingimpy]

Review of Grotesquerie (Season 1)

Grotesquerie takes the viewer on a harrowing journey that’s equal parts campy absurdity and genuinely terrifying psychological horror. The first season, helmed by Ryan Murphy, leans into the surreal and unsettling, offering a darkly beautiful tapestry of psychological unraveling, religious symbolism, and philosophical inquiry—spiced with a healthy dose of camp. At its core, the show is about…

[crossbordercroniclesro]

Biserica sau Comerț? Cuvintele lui Iisus ne Provocă să Reflectăm!

Într-o lume în care lăcașurile de cult par adesea mai degrabă afaceri decât spații sacre, cuvintele Mântuitorului nostru, Iisus Hristos, strigă și astăzi: „Casa Mea va fi numită casă de rugăciune, dar voi ați făcut din ea o peșteră de tâlhari!” (Matei 21:13). Aceste cuvinte, rostite cu putere în templul din Ierusalim, sunt mai relevante ca niciodată. De ce? Pentru că Iisus a venit să ne…

[kanejbr3kker]

Does anyone else just sit and think about the fact that Six of Crows is literally the perfect book?

Like, we have a morally grey character who's actually morally grey and has a real reason to push people away other than "once I killed someone in self defense, so I'm a terrible person and we can't be together." And every other character has a super fleshed out backstory as well, including real world problems that don't usually get talked about in fantasy books.

There's just as heavy an emphasis on platonic love as romantic love, instead of "I can fix him", it's "he can fix himself", there's a gay couple that's actually happy and not suffering every five pages, and all of the gay characters have personality traits outside of the fact that they're gay.

And speaking of the romance, it's so not rushed or sexualized. No one even kisses in the first book, but it's still so obvious how much they love each other. Each couple has such a different dynamic, and the way their pasts mirror each other? Perfection. (I also firmly believe that Kanej is the best couple in all of YA prove me wrong)

And then the diversity??? 3/7 of the lead characters are POCs, 4/7 are queer, 3 have disabilities, 2 have addictions, 2 have PTSD, 2 are religious, one was raised in a cult, and it's not one of those books that has diverse characters just for the sake of being diverse!

The plot is so unique, especially among fantasy books, and despite the fact that there's so many moving parts, there is not a single plot hole. And the CK auction scene will forever be one of the best end of series climaxes I have ever read.

So basically I don't get why other authors even try anymore cause I'm sorry but no matter how great their books are, it's not going to be Six of Crows.

[thydungeongal]

question: Why is it bad that cultists are a common enemy in Dnd? Have you *met* anyone from the Catholic Church, the ILBP, the Mormon Church, etc?

I mean D&D cultists don't really lean into an understanding of cults as manipulative groups led by a charismatic leader, they lean more on a very American Evangelical understanding of cults as these secret groups within good society trying to make good people do bad things like sacrifice puppies for Satan. Comparing D&D cults to modern religious movements misses the point because D&D cults don't have anything to do with those but are based on a very culturally Christian fever dream about secret satanic groups hiding within the populace. With a dash of orientalism, since the imagery of cultists in D&D owes heavily to classic swords & sorcery fiction, which was rife with orientalist imagery.

And I'm also not saying that that's necessarily bad, because I don't think engaging with media with iffy ideas in it will automatically make people catch moral impurity, that's silly. But it's good to have an understanding of where those ideas and images come from because if one wants to personally avoid replicating those tropes and themes then it's good to be aware of all the cultural context behind them. D&D cults have very little to do with modern cults, because that's not what they're based on, so to compare them to those misses the point wildly.

(Also this relates to people's attempts to make D&D queer, because with a lot of people what they do is just turn the player characters into a wholesome queer found family but otherwise change nothing about the game, so you get the cool heroes slaughtering cultists that are ultimately based on a very American Protestant image of Satanic cults, and the dissonance is weird and a lot of people don't realize it.)

[libraford]

I'm not bothered by the conversation so much as I am a growing approach to activism which makes it impossible to interact with other people. Which echoes a lot of that conversation I had with Ginger this week.

He refuses to have friends that are not faithful to Jesus. Like, he can have a productive conversation with a non-believer and nearly connect with them socially, but if he learns that they don't go to church or don't believe in christ, he finds it difficult to take them seriously because their words were not god-inspired.

Ginger was in a cult. I do not mean this colloquially- Xenos/Dwell is a prominent pseudo-christian cult in central Ohio that preys on college students in need of community. There are rules about who you can date, who you can hang with, they practice gay coversion therapy, and will tell you not to visit your family if they're not Christian.

There is a lot of focus on purity. Actions, thoughts, social groups- it's very controlling about what you can and cannot do.

So. When he goes out into the world with us sinners, it becomes difficult to interact with general society.

We were talking about Merve, one of our foremen, and I said: "the first time I was in a car with Merve, he introduced himself as a Democratic Catholic Pervert. And honestly- yeah that's a good summation."

Ginger didn't like that at all. "Well he's not a very good catholic with all that talk of pornography, he should be ashamed of himself- honestly shouldn't even call himself Christian."

Merve is very much a womanizer, but it's all talk. He's gross about it sometimes and it rubs me the wrong way, but in all fairness- he warned me. Outside of that, he's what I expected from a 60-something landscaper.

"Well, I think whether he's a good Christian or not is up to God, not us."

And he got a little pissy over that comment because I caught him judging.

He only hangs out with 'the faithful' at work, which consists of three guys who are religious in a similar way and it's caused a bit of a rift in the culture. It's gotten a little... preachy. It wasn't preachy before.

So I am making... parallels to this behavior and a particular strain of activism that's been affected by purity culture.

Nothing is ever good enough. If it touches racism, it's banned forever and you have to spread the word about how it's racist. Where doing things that are well-intended puts you in the spotlight for the underlying and actually bigoted reason you're doing a nice thing. And prevents you from doing the nice thing in the future.

Because yes you did a nice thing, but it wasn't enough- you could be doing more.

Yes you did a nice thing, but you did this nice thing instead of tackling this bigger issue.

Yes you did a nice thing, but it was through this program that you didn't know was funded somewhat unethically.

Yes you did a nice thing, but your motivation for doing it wasn't the goodness of your heart, it was motivated by guilt.

Yes you did a nice thing, but it took a horrible event to do it when you should have had the morals of goodness ingrained in you and you should have done this from the start.

Yes you did a nice thing, but you only did it when it started impacting your life and you should be thinking of others first.

Yes you did a nice thing but the nice thing doesn't align perfectly with my worldview.

The goalpost is forever moving backwards.

No one likes to be called 'racist.' It's a really easy weapon to use when something does something you don't like. If you look at anything closely enough, you will see it's racist roots. You could say the same for misogyny, homophobia. Our society is built on hatred and inequality. Untangling it and living a morally pure life free of ridicule is impossible.

Recognizing the roots of an action to be bigoted is the first step. The second step is knowing it when you see it. Step three is pointing it out.

But there are more steps.

Pointing it out, or calling it out, and chastising someone for ignoring or not knowing something actually isn't all that helpful. Because it leaves you to wonder- okay, now what? What can I do to remedy this situation?

Which is the next step- actionable items. Yes, I have done something wrong- I am sorry.

I am sorry. Now I will try to make it right.

I will try to make it right by donating, by volunteering time, by listening to the people who have been hurt and lifting their voices.

Part of healing from an oppressive Christian community is realizing that people are going to sin whether you like it or not. And barring harm to themselves and others, you're gonna have to let them.

If my tarot practice is derived from a 15th century racist, then it was derived for a 15th century racist. Refusing to participate in a past-time that helps me connect with my family doesn't make it not racist. It will still be racist. But I'm not sure who it's hurting in 2024 and I don't have a time machine and I'm not being given clear instructions for how to unracist it.

[sweaterkittensahoy]

Stop misappropriating the abuse and trauma cults use through purity culture for your stupid fucking shipping discourse? Holy fuck no wonder everyone hates this whole discourse.

Since when is "priests getting shuffled around after raping kids and kids being told they're sinful because they had bodily reactions to being SAd" comparable to "Bobo the clown said my ship was cringe"

I'm not gonna answer this with The Aristocrats, as a I threatened, because I want to make a very serious point to this anon:

Purity culture isn't just religious abuse. It is most widely connected to religious abuse. Including actions in the Catholic Church and all fundamentalist Christianity. It's entire existence is about terrifying and indoctrinating people into being fearful of their own actions and bodies so that they feel certain that moving out from the "umbrella of safety" (to use a fundamentalist term) will result in them being harmed in ways they can't imagine. This is generally happening at the same time as they are being harmed by those who are supposed to be keeping them safe from all those terrible, worldly evils. Like speaking up when you're being abused. Believing you are not responsible for the actions of a rapist, and many, many other things that any person with an ounce of self-worth and good sense (two things not allowed in fundamentalist circles) knows are true in abuse situations.

But the point of the purity culture as identity in the above-mentioned circles is to teach people from birth that they aren't to have their own feelings, ideas, or instincts. They are only to follow the feelings, ideas, and instincts on the approved list in order to stay within the structures they know and feel safe in even as they feel very unsafe.

That being said:

Purity culture can also exist WITHOUT a religious structure while still being about controlling the thoughts, feelings, and actions of everyone within it. In terms of fandom, purity culture is groups of people stating that if you write something uncomfortable or gross or immoral, then YOU must be uncomfortable or gross or immoral and therefore, not worthy of the safety and moral superiority of the group.

Purity culture without religion teaches black and white thinking, encourages thought policing, and shames anyone who steps outside of a very narrow definition of good and bad by turning an entire group of people against them for being "bad".

Just like in religious circles.

Just like in the cult of fundamentalism.

Purity culture is a term taken by fundamentalists and turned into a whole way of life because the goal of fundamentalism is to make people too scared to leave. Purity culture in fandom does the same thing. It uses fear and threats of abandonment/harassment to control the way people act because a group of people decided they didn't like something, so they must try and wipe it out rather than simply ignore it.

I am not mis-using the term because "Bobo the clown said my ship was cringe." My use of the term is intentional and precise because what is happening in fandom spaces now is non-religious purity culture cult thinking. My use of the term does not invalidate or water down the use of it in conversations about religious abuse and trauma. With or without religion, purity culture is a dangerous cult of "us vs them" that is built to demoralize and eradicate those deemed unworthy.

[maxdibert]

Having a shitty past is no excuse for being a horrible person, and Snape was a horrible person. Snape fans always try to turn him into a tragic hero, but there was nothing heroic about him when he was just an obsessive bigot who followed a group of genocidal maniacs

Well, I think I’ve said this a million times already and explained in exhausting detail why growing up in a particular environment—lacking social, emotional, economic, or essential support—and being subjected to violence during the most crucial years of cognitive development creates the perfect breeding ground for antisocial behavior. It also makes vulnerable or socially excluded youth prime targets for sectarian groups (whether religious, political, or otherwise) that prey on their situation, offering them promises of protection, safe spaces, surrogate parental figures, or social progress. These groups actively seek out kids with emotional voids caused by dysfunctional family dynamics, minimal to no financial resources, and a profound sense that the system has failed them at every turn. They offer these kids an alternative system—one that gives them a roof over their heads, a hot meal, a place to belong, and people who won’t marginalize them like the rest of society has—at the simple price of blindly following the group’s ideology. And they do it. Of course, they do. Because what other choice do they have? This group gave them life, a place in society, and restored their status as human beings.

But since I’ve spoken about this at length before and about how Severus’s life shaped his decisions, I feel like I’m starting to sound like a broken record. So, since I’m also reading a legal ruling I need to memorize by Friday, I’m going to indulge myself and dissertate as freely as I please—because hey, if you’re going to throw hate, I’m going to grant myself the privilege of replying however I want.

Here’s a question: why does it even matter? Seriously, what does it matter if he was a shitty person? Do you know that people go to space today thanks to the work of physicists and engineers who were literal SS members? That after WWII, all the top scientists, physicists, chemists, and engineers were granted amnesty and fast-tracked into citizenships so they could work on government projects? That people working within a stone’s throw of concentration camps are the pioneers behind some of the greatest technological advances of the 20th century? And you don’t care that the products you consume are derived from the work of collaborators with mass genocide, but you’re upset that people find a fictional character interesting? I don’t want to sound cynical, but honestly, it’s ridiculous to get so morally high and mighty about a character who doesn’t exist and who followed an extremist cult for, what? 3 or 4 years tops? and then canonically worked actively to take it down. If we put Severus in a real-world, wartime context, the guy would be a literal war hero with medals to his name. No exaggeration. If he survived, he’d be recruited with a fat paycheck to work in internal affairs for some major world power’s secret projects. That’s just how the world works.

And yeah, he was obsessive. But in an era where everyone suffers at least one anxiety episode a month, where the best-case scenario is that your panic attacks don’t spiral into chronic mental health issues—can we really judge him for that? Like, most of the people I see being ultra “snater” are folks who openly declare themselves neurodivergent, and one of the common denominators of all neurodivergence is obsessiveness. All of them. Whether it’s chronic anxiety, depression, OCD, ADHD, paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder or autism. Every single one has an obsessive component. So it’s kind of ironic—and even hypocritical—for people who are themselves pretty obsessive (because let’s face it, we’re all compulsively doomscrolling here to soothe our anxious compulsions with little dopamine hits) to judge this character’s obsessiveness as a negative trait. Maybe let’s take a good look in the mirror, too.

And let me just say, no court would convict Severus of collaborating with a terrorist group. Not a single one. Impossible. Especially since he literally collaborated against said group, so any judge would happily clear him—not after the war, but the moment he struck his deal with Dumbledore. Severus is what’s known as an informant. He worked from the inside, exposed himself to greater dangers than regular agents. Legally speaking, there have been cases where people guilty of heinous crimes—including crimes against humanity—were let off because they provided critical information. So imagine someone like Severus, who, as far as we know, didn’t even kill anyone during his time in the group, willingly spilling the beans and agreeing to work as a spy. He’d be celebrated as a hero of war. Hell, they’d probably buy him a mansion in Florida if he wanted one. That’s just how our system works, and honestly, this kind of moralist posturing is pretty cringy because you’re talking about a guy who literally saved half of magical society’s asses and without whom the kid destined to save the world would’ve died in his first year at school.

You can dislike him or think he’s a jerk, but he was damn good at his job. And compared to the people he’s often unfairly measured against (Sirius, James, Remus...), he actually did something. They didn’t. Absolutely nothing. Contribution: negative one.