#not necessarily true belief

[onewomancitadel]

Given that Reylo doesn't really bring me very much joy anymore it would probably do me social good to stop mentioning it. But it is really a microcosm of everything that interests me - both from an inside fandom thing (fanon which runs counter to the canon dynamic) to an outside fandom thing (anti-Reylo as a point of signalling moral health and sensibility) to the commercial squandering of it to the General Audience response which differed so radically from prevailing online discourse.

I don't know, I think I'm feeling sensitive because I've seen so many anti-Reylo posts recently. I wonder when it will ever die down lol.

[creekfiend]

I think a lot of this 'religion is necessarily oppressive' stuff honestly is kind of like the confusion about ppl thinking that like, slavery and scientific racism and etc came about BECAUSE OF beliefs that Black people etc were not fully human rather than those beliefs -- those ARGUMENTS, really -- being JUSTIFICATIONS that were invented to allow white ppl to continue to engage in slavery which was at its core about economic exploitation. Like that most systemic bigotry serves a Useful Purpose to those in power and that's why it exists; the policies aren't put in place because of the beliefs. The cart isn't pulling the horse. Christian stuff was used to justify the same things that later, "scientific progress" was used to justify in the west (e.g. scientific racism, eugenics, etc. Very very very much rooted in the idea of certain beliefs and cultures as inherently more rational and forward thinking because BEING RATIONAL AND VALUING SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS WERE CULTURAL VALUES AT THE TIME.) (This does not say anything about Science. It says things about Institutes and power and oppression.)

Similarly, you see a lot of people saying "well religion is used to justify oppression by the people in power" and its like yes. Religion is not unique. Beliefs about what is true about the world -- ideology -- can always be used to do this and frequently is.

When there are common beliefs held by a majority of people in a given culture those beliefs will be used by the people in power to explain and justify the things they do to maintain power and control in society.

This isn't a function of religion. It's a function of power.

When people say "well, this religious rhetoric is/was used to justify misogynistic legal standards in this society" the answer is yep. And if it wasn't that it would be something else because that society had an investment in that specific kind of oppression of women. We have seen this morph into 'rational' 'scientific' explanations for women's inferiority and justifications for making women second class citizens once the cultural values swing more towards rationality and science, as well. Thats... regular.

Like... love to have a good faith convo about this with someone who doesn't get weird and reactionary about "Religious People" but sure not seeing much of that going on. Weirdly.

Anyway.

[theimpossibleness]

continually finding that the beliefs I hold about myself are the things that are holding me back from growing is exhausting

[valodia]

Real thing somebody said IRL today "the christmas tree in itself is from pagan culture so it doesnt count as religious"

[rearranging-deck-chairs]

i think the villa diodati speech probably had a big effect on how yaz approached the doctor in flux and after

[crunchycrystals]

the best and worst part about life is that there's a million different ways it didn't turn out like this, but everything in our lives lined up to get us here

[pinkseas]

girl who thinks about xiaolumi too much literally while in the middle of writing abt them and then starts crying a little bit

[party-gilmore]

not me thought spiralling about the eventual future break down and depression spiralling if/when the rabbi's reject me at my conversion

an event that all reading seems to indicate being at least two to three years away, from the point of even actually finding a relatively local Jewish community where I 1) can figure out what damn level of observance I am, 2) feel comfortable and accepted in, and 3) can confirm is not actually a scam*

anyways it's hard enough dealing with the RSD for shit ACTUALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, can we just fucking... NOT for shit years down the pipeline please?

[a-menaceinpink]

I actually disagree with the statement that Filoni narratively frames Dooku (and ostensibly Qui-Gon) as the only ones to see the truth for what it is. It’s reiterated through Yaddle several times through the fourth episode, as well as through Windu in the third episode that it is not that the Council isn’t aware or doesn’t want to do anything it’s that they’re following the proper channels, for better or worse.

Like, true, Dooku does believe he’s the only one and Filoni’s direction clearly shows that belief because those episodes are from his perspective, but that’s very different from Filoni saying explicitly that the Jedi were blind.

For the record, here's another "difference between what Dave Filoni and George Lucas said" post (for more, check here). Real quick.

When it comes to Dooku's motivations, George had this to say:

"[The scene with Obi-Wan and Dooku] allows you to kinda have some sympathy for Dooku in that he carries the sympathies of most of the Jedi which is that the Senate is corrupt and is incapable of carrying out any meaningful actions because they argue about everything all the time.”

Dooku carries the sympathies of *MOST* 📢 of the Jedi.

To be clear, he's not the only Jedi who sees things for what they are, who sees the Senate is corrupt and is incapable of carrying out any meaningful action because a majority of them are now self-serving assholes. MOST of the Jedi see this and acknowledge this.

It's not that the Jedi don't see it and thus don't do anything about it. They see it, but they're not allowed to do anything about it.

"Even the Jedi are [present when Palpatine gets emergency powers]. But the Jedi aren't really allowed to be involved in the political process. They're there, but they can't suddenly step up and say, "No, no. You can't do that." They have to let the political process go."

Which is why they do their best to help everyone within the confines of their mandate.

Whereas the narrative of 'Tales of the Jedi' phrases it as-- what was the line? Oh, right.

"The Jedi BLINDLY serve a corrupt Senate that fails the Republic it represents."

And there you have it. That's the difference.

Filoni, through 'Tales of the Jedi', frames Dooku's perspective on the Senate's corruption as him and Qui-Gon being the only ones ahead of the curb when every other Jedi is blind to it.

Lucas literally says it's most of the Jedi Order who know this sad truth but they're not allowed to interfere. So they do the best they can with their hands tied.

[aliteralgrizzlybear]

I'm tired.

[muirneach]

sitting alone in my room in the dark. does the norman bates smile. okay maybe they’re right horror ppl are freaks i get it now

[marionmaverick]

Stormblood head canon live blogging:

Marion got very antsy when they told him to rest while Krile was still captured. Both he and his Azem before that have a tendency to be unable to rest til they feel like a job is “finished”.

This is doubly true if a friend or colleague is in need.

Marion doesn’t believe in the gods, in relation to how he feels about traditions and how often they are tied to them. He thinks they are just an excuse.

So while he supported Alisae’s thoughts and beliefs, when Lyse brought up the Twelve in conversation later he just sort of rolled his eyes and said nothing. Knowing “they aren’t real so they probably don’t care” was not the answer she was looking for, but also being wholly uninterested in answering in a way she needed.

He knows everyone just assumes his silence is some “wiser beyond his years” nonsense anyway. When he’s quiet people always supply the answer they need from him.

[pinkestofpanthers]

here's more logan thoughts of mine...

having to explain to logan that there's a common belief among people that if you're able to tie a knot into the stem of a maraschino cherry, that you must be a good kisser.

in your defense, it was all pretty innocent. logan found himself stumbling into the kitchen and noticed you standing at the counter with rogue nearby. placed out in front of the both of you were two glasses filled halfway with ice, two cans of ginger ale, a bottle of grenadine, and a small jar of maraschino cherries. before he could even say it, you recognized him lurking and spoke,

"shirley temples. rogue mentioned how she hasn't had one in forever and i decided to play bartender tonight," you grinned and cracked open the can of soda.

"i see. you make it with ginger ale?" he asked, eyes glancing to the can in your hand.

"that's how they were originally made. ginger ale, some grenadine, and a couple of cherries to add more flavor. want one?" though you asked nicely, he declined the offer and made his way to the fridge.

"you know," he said, rummaging through the fridge, "i heard shirley temple herself didn't even like the drink. also heard they never served it to her."

rogue chuckled to herself as she spooned cherries out of the jar. "of course you would know, you were probably there when they first invented it," she laughs. you tried to hold back your laughter as you looked to logan, who just waved the girl off and made some comment about her being too young to know who shirley temple was.

suddenly, rogue's attention was turned to you, as she called your name and asked if she could ask you 'something silly'. of course, you nodded, listening to whatever the girl had to say next.

"do you know how to tie a cherry stem with your tongue?" she looked to you as she twirled a stem between her pointer finger and thumb.

your eyes went wide, trying to think of a response. you didn't know exactly why she was asking. was she genuinely curious, or was she going to follow up by asking if you heard of the 'is it true that if you're able to tie a cherry stem with your tongue than it means you're a good kisser?' myth.

you tell her that you can't remember if you ever tried to. after all, you don't necessarily eat the cherries for the stems.

"makes sense. apparently only fifteen percent of people are able to do it," she shot back, now discarding the stem into the garbage.

"where did you even hear that?" you turned to her, as she just shrugged and grabbed a straw for her glass.

"is that the new party trick now? tying cherry stems with our tongues?" logan clears his throat, as he makes his way to sit down across from the two of you.

"you're old enough to know the shirley temple didn't like the drink named after her, but you don't know about tying cherry stems with your tongue?" she deadpanned.

logan, looking confused as ever, is trying to make sense of what she's saying but after a while, rogue realizes the can of worms she's opened has just led to more confusion and regrets even asking about it. she excuses herself from the kitchen, mumbling something about going to find bobby, and left you alone to work on your drink. you couldn't help but notice how logan was staring at your every move.

"i'm still confused," he spoke up after sitting in silence for a few minutes. you knew exactly what he was talking about, it wasn't as if any other conversation had taken place within the time that rogue left the kitchen, so you decided to clue him in.

"just a stupid little rumor someone made up, a common idea that if you know how to tie a cherry stem with your tongue then you must be a really good kisser," you explained, taking a cherry out of the jar and popping it in your mouth. he responds with a 'hm' and watches as you take the stem and put it in your mouth. after a minute of praying that your high school memories would serve you justice, you grabbed the cherry stem from between your teeth, showing logan the knot you made.

his expression remains the same as he looks at you, then the stem being held in the palm of your hand, and to you again. he smirks, and that's when he questions,

"but it's just a myth, right?"

"i mean, i've never put the theory to the test. you wanna see for yourself?" you try him, thinking he would just laugh you off and continue to joke about it. his response this time being clearer than before,

"i was only hoping you would ask, hun."

p.s., i tried posting this on another account and for some reason tumblr did not push it??? wtf, anyways, here you go. thanks for the love on the last little blurb i posted!

[gffa]

Absolutely fascinated by what the coven's philosophy is in The Acolyte, where Aniseya talks about the Thread as a connection between all living things, that different people call it different things, and says, "Some call it a Force and claim to use it. But we know the Thread is not a power you wield. Pull the Thread. Change everything. It ties you to your destiny. It binds you to others." all while she's actively wielding the Force to demonstrate it. Are we meant to find echoes of the Path of the Open hand, who believed that using the Force in one place meant that you were causing an equal and opposite reaction in another? Where they said "the Force shall be free" as a way to stop anyone from using it in any way, saying that if you saved this life then the Force would take that life over there as "balance"? Is the Coven an evolution of their beliefs, where instead of saying that no one can use the Force, but instead that you should be allowed to use it despite that? Or are they an offshoot of the Nightsisters? Or are they simply saying that the Thread wields them, rather than them wielding the Thread? Or is it that they simply believe it's a large connective web, where when you pluck one string, it vibrates across the entire tapestry? The coven is such an interesting mix of things we know to be true about the Force, but also things that are suspicious as hell, like whatever they did to Torbin, whatever created Mae and Osha, why they felt they had to hide, when the Jedi have always existed beside other dark siders in the galaxy, the Brotherhood of the Ninth Door in the High Republic, the Nightsisters in the prequels, so why are they so afraid of the Jedi finding out their secrets? What is it that the coven believes in and acts on??? Because I love weird Force traditions and the different philosophies of them and I feel like The Acolyte is very much going for a story about unreliable narrators and differing desires conflicting against each other where you can at least understand where each group is coming from, like I don't think the coven is necessarily evil, but what they did to Torbin was certainly a red flag, on the other hand, Aniseya listened to what Osha had to say about leaving with the Jedi, but also we don't know what really happened that night, and I'm enjoying the weird Force bullshit because that's my jam in Star Wars.

[babybutchianthe]

↑ i am constantly thinking abt this reply because it is deeply reflective of the general attitude i see displayed toward palamedes, and camilla too, wherein people seem to assume that they are inherently more rational and comparatively unbiased as a whole when compared to everyone else. they are treated as if they are comparatively free from the same confines of thinking that affect other characters; they are characterised as a shining example of a truly equal necromancer-cavalier bond, of loyalty and love, and are treated as if they are perfect geniuses who can do no wrong—an attitude i feel very much inclines people to romanticise their devotion & treat paul's birth as a victorious thing.

@dve i feel summarised this phenomena the best: "i think cam and palamedes are nowhere near as revolutionary as a chunk of the fandom would like for them to be". i'd even go as far as to say that, in their role as foils to gideon and harrow, they are meant to showcase just how damaging the necro-cavalier dichotomy is to the individuals involved. i've spoke on this before but the bond is explicitly modelled on the example of john & alecto—which is already not ideal—and was built on a foundation of deception, with john hiding the fact the lyctoral process did not necessarily have to end with the death of the cavalier: the sacrifice of the cavalier is baked into it, because the history of cavaliership is indelibly tied into the avoidable deaths of the first cavaliers.

the equality ascribed to their bond is based on their seeming inversion of the exploitative nature of the necro-cav bond—compared to silas' siphoning colum, it seems improbable to say that they are anything but true equals who break away from the model, revolutionary in nature. they are devoted to each other, endlessly loyal! to the point camilla will violate the wishes and autonomy of palamedes in the name of her devotion.

camilla frames the fact she cannot sustain both of their souls in her body as her being weak, as opposed to being a product of the reality maintaining two souls in a single body the way they are doing is extraordinarily difficult and unnatural, doing herself a disservice in the process, because in her eyes she is failing in her duty to him.

his presence in her body is killing them both, and she frames this as [their] choice, but then wants pyrrha to lie to him about the fact it's killing her: meaning his choice would be based on her exploiting his absence in this moment, on a deception.

they can't keep this up forever, it is killing them both, but camilla's devotion to him means she won't accept that and doesn't want to give him reason to vacate her body. she wants pyrrha to lie—even though it's killing him too!—because she doesn't want to let him choose to let her live at the cost of his own life.

her death is avoidable but her role and her duty is to die for him, to sacrifice, to hold the sword for her necromancer. she won't let him, the necromancer, choose the cavalier's life because it is intended to be used by him—a soul to be eaten. she won't let him choose, violates his wishes and autonomy in the name of her devotion to him; i personally don't think equality in a relationship is based around denying the other their autonomy and lying to them, do you? and in this moment, camilla is treating herself as expendable, their inevitable death as inconsequential because it prolongs palamedes for as long as possible.

palamedes, conversely, has a very interesting perspective on lyctorhood:

he presumes that the original lyctors, the first necromancers and their cavaliers, sought to merge themselves from the start and that they achieved this incompletely. he posits the existence of true lyctorhood; palamedes views two becoming one, one being two, as something admirable, a truth not yet seen—grand instead of petty.

we also see somebody else who expresses a similiar belief in a perfected lyctorhood, one of the original lyctors, mercymorn the first:

the original lyctors did not seek out to merge with their cavalier, their other half in necro-cav terms, and only did so as a result of a lie, the idea of a one-way energy transfer. from mercymorn's perspective true lyctorhood is a process that preserves the cavalier; from palamedes' perspective true lyctorhood is a process that merges the cavalier and necromancer to form something new, the truest response to the call of "one flesh, one end" yet seen. palamedes' conception of lyctorhood is removed from the original context of lyctorhood's formation, and is shaped heavily by the ideals of the society he and cam were raised in.

If the cavalier and the necromancer do not take "one flesh, one end" as a maxim for their passion for each other, their bond is nonexistent. They must each take the other as their ideal. […] Their love is the love that fears only for the other: the love of service on both sides. Some have tried to characterise this relationship as the cavalier's obedience to the necromancer, but the necromancer must be in turn obedient to the needs of the cavalier without being asked or prompted: theirs is arguably the heavier burden. — Tamsyn Muir, A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers

suffice to say, i do not think paul is a defiance of the empire's ideals, so much as a perfected expression of them; paul is the embodiment of the love of service on both ends, the product of a mutual death. their choice to die as two to become one was exactly in line with what a necromancer and a cavalier are intended to do.

"One flesh" is the underpinning of our whole Empire [...] One end is one empire. — Tamsyn Muir, A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers

[unsolicited-opinions]

Bro no one hates jews for ethnicity, news are hated for faith.

If you are an atheist "jew", no one gives a shit about you.

Stop pretending to be a victim and trying to appropriate antisemitic struggles.

I'll address these point by point.

Jewish readers, please share your thoughts!

You wrote: "No one hates Jews for ethnicity, [J]ews are hated for faith."

"Hitler...defined the Jews as a race and not a religious community, characterized the effect of a Jewish presence as a “race-tuberculosis of the peoples,” and identified the initial goal of a German government to be discriminatory legislation against Jews."

[Source]

More here

As David Baddiel put it, "I'm an atheist, but that would get me no free passes out of Auschwitz."

The Jews are a people. Judaism is the traditional religion of that people. A Jew who does not engage with that religion does not cease to be a Jew by Jewish definitions OR by antisemitic definitions.

You wrote: "If you are an atheist Jew, nobody gives a shit about you."

First, see above.

Second, you're incorrectly assuming that a Jewish atheist is not engaged with Judaism.

Here's the thing:

Judaism isn't necessarily theistic.

Let's set aside the explicitly non-theistic movement of Humanistic Judaism for a moment (huge topic for another time) and just talk briefly about theism in Judaism.

Most kinds of Judaism, while certainly encouraging faith, do not require it. There are no thought crimes in Judaism, no crucibles of faith, and no requirements that one announce or perform proof of belief for witnesses. Those things are often parts of Christianity and Islam, but in Judaism...not so much.

In Jewish thought, it is not what you believe about metaphysics which lifts you up, ennobles you, improves you, or makes the world a better place. In Judaism, you pursue those things by how you behave.

Sola fide is a Christian concept which Judaism does not share. Judaism is a profoundly existential religion with ethics which are overwhelmingly humanist.

I was raised in Reform and Conservative congregations...and non-theistic/atheistic/humanistic views were very common there.

When I was studying to become Bar Mitzvah, our congregation's Rabbi made crystal clear to me that there was no contradiction between my identity as a Jew and my inability to swallow the idea of an anthropomorphic, sapient, interventionist God who cared at all about petitionary prayer. He felt that wrestling with God was a very Jewish thing to do. He introduced me to Maimonides' apophatic theology. Decades later, I'm still grateful.

Many Jews pray, I believe, not to be heard by God, but so they can hear their own hearts and minds. This is why kavanah is important and why I disliked (and still dislike) prayer-by-rote and rituals performed for the sake of ritual. It's more mindfulness meditation than petitionary prayer.

There's a famous Hasidic story, recorded by philosopher Martin Buber in his "Tales of the Hasidim," about how Judaism views atheism:

The Master teaches that God created everything the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks "What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?"

The Master responds "God created atheists teach us the most important lesson of them all- the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in Goda at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right."

"This means," the Master continued "that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say 'I will help you."

You wrote: "Stop pretending to be a victim and trying to appropriate antisemtic struggles."

I invite other Jews to advise if I have appropriated anything which is not mine.

Your opinion, though? Your view, as a non-Jew, about what is or isn't Jewish? On what is or is not mine in my heritage? Your claim, framed by your obvious and absolute ignorance of my life, my family's history, Jewish history, Jewish theology, and Jewish philosophy, that I have not experienced antisemitism and am "appropriating?"

I don't have a single fuck to give about any of that, and neither does any other Jew

Still, thank you for the writing prompt. It helps to crystalize my own thinking and provides an opportunity to educate.