#not saying that german is inherently better

[ganondoodle]

(honestly i ... just kinda dont understand why english always changes names so drastically, like please dont take this the wrong way i dont want to be annoying about this but most of the things i have heard the english words for just sound so much more ... childish? like alot of it is kinda made more cute sounding (Gigama/Minigama=frox, Miasma=gloom, Mayoi=bubbul frogs), even tho the names for main characters are kept the same, i never heard of anyone having problems with idk, yuno/yunobo being called that instead of .... william or something, it really just feels like a disservice to english speaking players like, get it, its a game for KIDS lol- at least in my opinion, but i dont wanna derail this again ;O;)

took me a long while to realize that miasma is called gloom in english, i thought people were calling the hands gloom-hands as a cutesy name fnjvgn,kdfvnsdnjskl

[glitter-stained]

Damasio, The Trolley Problem and Batman: Under the Hood

Okay so @bestangelofall asked me to elaborate on what I meant by "Damasio's theories on emotions in moral decision-making add another level of depth to the analysis of UTH as a moral dilemma" and I thought this deserved its own post so let's talk about this.

So, idk where everyone is at here (philosophy was mandatory in highschool in my country but apparently that's not the case everywhere so i genuinely have no clue what's common knowledge here, i don't want to like state the obvious but also we should recap some stuff. Also if I'm mentioning a philosopher's or scientist's name without detailing, that means it's just a passing thought/recommendation if you want to read more on the topic.)

First thing first is I've seen said, about jason and the no killing rule, that "killing is always bad that's not up for debate". And I would like to say, that's factually untrue. Like, no matter which side of the debate you are on, there is very much a debate. Historically a big thing even. So if that's not something you're open to hear about, if you're convinced your position is the only correct one and even considering other options is wrong and/or a waste of time... I recommend stopping here, because this only going to make you upset, and you have better stuff to do with your life than getting upset over an essay. In any case please stay civil and remember that this post is not about me debating ethics with the whole bat-tumblr, it's me describing a debate other people have been voicing for a long time, explaining the position Damasio's neuropsychology and philosophy holds in this debate, and analyzing the ethics discussed in Batman: Under the Red Hood in that light. So while I might talk about my personal position in here (because I have an opinion in this debate), this isn't a philosophy post; this is a literature analysis that just so happens to exist within the context of a neuropsychological position on a philosophical debate. Do not try to convince me that my philosophy of ethics is wrong, because that's not the point, that's not what the post is about, I find it very frustrating and you will be blocked. I don't have the energy to defend my personal opinions against everybody who disagrees with me.

Now, let's start with Bruce. Bruce, in Under The Hood and wrt the no kill rule (not necessarily all of his ethics, i'm talking specifically about the no kill rule), is defending a deontological position. Deontology is a philosophy of ethics coined by christian🧷 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The philosophy of ethics asks this question: what does it mean to do a good action? And deontology answers "it means to do things following a set of principles". Basically Kant describes what are "absolute imperatives" which are rules that hold inherent moral values: some things are fundamentally wrong and others are bad. Batman's no-kill rule is thus a categorical imperative: "Though Shall not Kill"🧷, it is always wrong to kill. (Note that I am not saying Bruce is kantian just because he has a deontology: Kant explained the concept of deontological ethics, and then went up to theorize his own very specific and odd brand of deontology, which banned anything that if generalized would cause the collapse of society as well as, inexplicably, masturbation. Bruce is not Kantian, he's just, regarding the no kill rule, deontological. Batman is still allowed to wank, don't worry.)

In this debate, deontological ethics are often pit up against teleological ethics, the most famous group of which being consequentialism, the most famous of consequentialisms being utilitarism. As the name indicates, consequentialist theories posit that the intended consequences of your actions determine if those actions were good or not. Utilitarism claims that to do good, your actions should aim to maximise happiness for the most people possible. So Jason, when he says "one should kill the Joker to prevent the thousands of victims he is going to harm if one does not kill him", is holding a utilitarian position.

The debate between deontology and utilitarism has held many forms, some fantastical and some with more realistic approaches to real life like "say you're hiding from soldiers and you're holding a baby that's gonna start crying, alerting the soldiers and getting everyone in your hideout massacred. Do you muffle the baby, knowing it will suffocate and kill it?" or "say there's a plague going on and people are dying and the hospital does not have enough ventilators, do you take the one off of the comatose patient with under 0.01% chance of ever waking up to give it to another patient? What about 1%?", etc, etc. The most famous derivative of this dilemma, of course, being the infamous trolley problem.

This is what is meant when we say "the UTH confrontation is a trolley problem." The final confrontation at the warehouse is a variation, a derivative of the utilitarian dilemma that goes as follows: "if someone was trying to kill someone in front of you, and that murder would prevent the murder of thousands, should you try to stop that murder or let it happen?"

Now, here's a question: why are there so many derivatives of the trolley problem? Why do philosophers spend time pondering different versions of the same question instead of solving it?

My opinion (and the one of much, much smarter people whose name i forgot oops) is that both systems fail at giving us a satisfying, clean-cut reply. Now, most people have a clean-cut answer to the trolley problem as presented here: me personally, I lean more towards utilitarianism, and I found it logical to pull the lever. But altering the exact situation makes me change my answer, and there is very often a point where people, no matter their deontological or utilitarian velleities, change their answer. And that's interesting to examine.

So let's talk about deontology. Now my first gripe with deontology it's that it posits a set of rules as absolute and I find that often quite arbitrary. 🧷 Like, it feels a little like mathematical axioms, you know? We build a whole worldview on the assumption that these rules are inherently correct and the best configuration because it feels like it makes sense, and accidentally close our mind to the world of non-euclidian ethics. In practice, here are some situations in which a deontologist might change their mind: self-defense killing, for example, is often cited as "an exception to the rule", making that rule de facto non-universal; and disqualifying it as an absolute imperative. Strangely enough, people will often try to solve the trolley problem by deciding to kill themselves by jumping on the tracks 🧷 which is actually a utilitarian solution: whether you're pulling the lever or you're jumping on the tracks, you are choosing to kill one person to stop the people from being run over. Why does it matter if it's you or someone else you're killing? You're still killing someone. Another situation where people may change their answer would be, like "what if you needed to save your children but to do so you had to kill the ceo of united healthcare?" Note that these are only examples for killing, but the biggest issue is that deontology preaches actions are always either good or wrong, and the issue with that lack of nuance is best illustrated with the kantian problem regarding the morality of lying: let's say it's the holocaust and a family of jews is hiding in your house. Let's say a nazi knocks on your door and asks if there are people hiding in your house. You know if you tell the truth, the jews in your house will be deported. In that situation, is it morally correct to lie? Now, Kant lived before the Holocaust, but in his time there was a similar version of this problem that had been verbalised (this formulation is the best-known derivative of this problem btw, I didn't invent it) and Kant's answer, I kid you not, was still "no it is not morally acceptable to lie in that situation".

And of course, there are variations of that problem that play with the definition of killing- what defines the act of killing and can the other circumstances (like if there's a person you need to save) alter that definition? => Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely deontological frame claims, and pushing deontology to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

Now let's take utilitarianism to its own limits. Say you live in a world where healthcare has never been better. Now say this system is so because there is a whole small caste of people who have been cloned and genetically optimized and conditioned since birth so that their organs could be harvested at any given moment to heal someone. Let's say this system is so performant it has optimised this world's humanity's general well-being and health, leading to an undeniable, unparalleled positive net-worth for humanity. Here's the question: is this world a utopia or a dystopia? Aka, is raising a caste of people as organ cattle morally acceptable in that situation? (Note: Because people's limits on utilitarianism vary greatly from one person to another, I chose the most extreme example I could remember, but of course there are far more nuanced ones. Again, I wasn't the one to come up with this example. If you're looking for examples of this in fiction, i think the limits of utilitarianism are explored pretty interestingly in the videogame The Last of Us).

=> Conclusion: there is a lot more nuance to moral actions than what a purely utilitarian frame claims, and pushing utilitarism to its limits leads to situations that would feel absurd to us.

This leads us back to Under the Hood. Now because UTH includes a scathing criticism of Batman's no kill rule deontology, but Jason is also presented as a villain in this one, my analysis of the whole comic is based on the confrontation between both of these philosophies and their failures, culminating in a trolley dilemma type situation. So this is why it makes sense to have Bruce get mad at Jason for killing Captain Nazi in self-defense: rejecting self-defense, even against nazis, is the logical absurd conclusion of deontology. Winick is simply taking Bruce's no-kill rule to the limit.

And that's part of what gets me about Jason killing goons (aside from the willis todd thing that should definitely have been addressed in such a plot point.) It's that it feels to me like Jason's philosophy is presented as wrong because it leads to unacceptable decisions, but killing goons is not the logical absurd conclusion of utilitarianism. It's a. a side-effect of Jason's plot against Bruce and/or, depending on how charitable you are to either Jason's intelligence or his morals, b. a miscalculation. Assuming Jason's actions in killing goons are a reflection of his moral code (which is already a great assumption, because people not following their own morals is actually the norm, we are not paragons of virtue), then this means that 1) he has calculated that those goons dying would induce an increase in general global human happiness and thus 2) based on this premise, he follows the utilitarian framework and thus believes it's moral to kill the goons. It's the association of (1) and (2) that leads to an absurd and blatantly immoral consequence, but since the premise (1) is a clear miscalculation, the fact that (1) & (2) leads to something wrong does not count as a valid criticism of (2): to put it differently, since the premise is wrong, the conclusion being wrong does not give me any additional info on the value of the reasoning. This is a little like saying "Since 1+ 3= 5 and 2+2=4, then 1+3+2+2 = 9". The conclusion is wrong, but because the first part (1+3=5) is false, the conclusion being wrong does not mean that the second part (2+2 =4) is wrong. So that's what frustrates me so much when people bring up Jason killing goons as a gotcha for criticizing his utilitarian philosophy, because it is not!! It looks like it from afar but it isn't, which is so frustrating because, as stated previously, there are indeed real limits to utilitarianism that could have been explored instead to truly level the moral playing field between Jason and Bruce.

Now that all of this is said and done, let's talk about what in utilitarianism and deontology makes them flawed and, you guessed it, talk some about neuropsychology (and how that leads to what's imo maybe the most interesting thing about the philosophy in Under the Hood.)

In Green Arrow (2001), in an arc also written by Judd Winick, Mia Dearden meets a tortured man who begs her to kill him to save Star City (which is being massacred), and she kills him, then starts to cry and begs Ollie for confirmation that this was the right thing to do. Does this make Mia a utilitarian? If so, then why did she doubt and cry? Is she instead a deontologist, who made a mistake?

In any case, the reason why Mia's decision was so difficult for her to make and live with, and the reason why all of these trolley-adjacent dilemmas are so hard, is pretty clear. Mia's actions were driven by fear and empathy. It's harder to tolerate sacrificing our own child to avoid killing, it's harder to decide to sacrifice a child than an adult, a world where people are raised to harvest their organs feels horrible because these are real humans we can have empathy towards and putting ourselves in their shoes is terrifying... So we have two "perfectly logical" rational systems toppled by our emotions. But which is wrong: should we try to shut down our empathy and emotions so as to always be righteous? Are they a parasite stopping us from being true moral beings?

Classically, we (at least in my culture in western civilization) have historically separated emotions from cognition (cognition being the domain of thought, reasoning, intelligence, etc.) Descartes, for example, was a philosopher who highlighted a dualist separation of emotion and rationality. For a long time this was the position in psychology, with even nowadays some people who think normal psychologists are for helping with emotions and neuropsychologists are for helping with cognition.(I will fight these people with a stick.) Anyway, that position was the predominant one in psychology up until Damasio (not the famous writer, the neuropsychologist) wrote a book named Descartes' Error. (A fundamental of neuropsychology and a classic that conjugates neurology, psychology and philosophy: what more could you ask for?)

Damasio's book's title speaks for itself: you cannot separate emotion from intelligence. For centuries we have considered emotions to be parasitic towards reasoning, (which even had implications on social themes and constructs through the centuries 📌): you're being emotional, you're letting emotions cloud your judgement, you're emotionally compromised, you're not thinking clearly... (Which is pretty pertinent to consider from the angle of A Death in the Family, because this is literally the reproach Bruce makes to Jason). Damasio based the book on the Damasio couple's (him and his wife) study of Phineas Gage, a very, very famous case of frontal syndrome (damage to the part of the brain just behind the forehead associated with executive functions issues, behavioural issues and emotional regulation). The couple's research on Gage lead Damasio, in his book, to this conclusion: emotions are as much of a part of reasoning and moral decision-making as "cold cognition" (non emotional functioning). Think of it differently: emotional intelligence is a skill. Emotions are tools. On an evolutionary level, it is good that we as people have this skill to try and figure out what others might think and do. That's useful. Of course, that doesn't mean that struggling with empathy makes you immoral, but we people who struggle with empathy have stories of moments where that issue has made us hurt someone's feelings on accident, and it made us sad, because we didn't want to hurt their feelings. On an evolutionary level (and this is where social Darwinism fundamentally fails) humanity has been able to evolve in group and in a transgenerational group (passing knowledge from our ancestors long after their death, belonging to a community spread over a time longer than our lifetime) thanks to social cognition (see Tomasello's position on the evolution of language for more detail on that), and emotions, and "emotional intelligence" is a fundamental part of how that great system works across the ages.

And that's what makes Batman: Under the Hood brilliant on that regard. If I have to make a hypothesis on the state of Winick's knowledge on that stuff, I would say I'm pretty sure he knew about the utilitarism vs deontology issue; much harder to say about the Damasio part, but whether he's well-read in neuropsychology classics or just followed a similar line of reasoning, this is a phenomenally fun framework to consider UTH under.

Because UTH, and Jason's character for the matter, refuse to disregard emotions. Bruce says "we mustn't let ourselves get clouded by our emotions" and Jason, says "maybe you should." I don't necessarily think he has an ethical philosophy framework for that, I still do believe he's a utilitarian, but he's very emotion-driven and struggling to understand a mindframe that doesn't give the same space to emotions in decision-making. And as such, Jason says "it should matter. If the emotion was there, if you loved me so much, then it should matter in your decision of whether or not to let the Joker die, that it wasn't just a random person that he killed, but that he killed your son."

And Bruce is very much doubling down on this mindset of "I must be stronger than my feelings". He is an emotionally repressed character. He says "You don't understand. I don't think you've ever understood", and it's true, Jason can't seem to understand Bruce's position, there's something very "if that person doesn't show love in my perspective and understanding of what love is then they do not love me" about his character that I really appreciate. But Bruce certainly doesn't understand either, because while Jason is constantly asking Bruce for an explanation, for a "why do you not see things the way I do" that could never satisfy him, Bruce doesn't necessarily try to see things the way Jason does. And that's logical, since Jason is a 16 years old having a mental breakdown, and Bruce is a grown man carrying on the mission he has devoted himself to for years, the foundation he has built his life over. He can't allow himself to doubt, and why would he? He's the adult, he's the hero, he is, honestly, a pretty stubborn and set-in-his-ways character. So, instead of rising to the demand of emotional decision-making, Bruce doubles down on trying to ignore his feelings. And Jason, and the story doesn't let him. Bludheaven explodes. This induces extremely intense feelings in Bruce (his son just got exploded), which Jason didn't allow him to deal with, to handle with action or do anything about; Jason says no you stay right there, with me, with those emotions you're living right now, and you're making a decision. And there's the fact Bruce had a mini-heart attack just before thinking Jason was dead again. And there's the fact he mourned Jason for so long, and Stephanie just died, and Tim, Cass and Oracle all left, and the Joker is right there, and Jason puts a gun in his hands (like the gun that killed his parents)... All of that makes it impossible for Bruce to disregard his emotions. The same way Jason, who was spilling utilitarian rhetoric the whole time, is suddenly not talking about the Joker's mass murder victims but about he himself. The same way Jason acts against his own morals in Lost Days by sparing the Joker so they can have this confrontation later. That's part of why it's so important to me that Jason is crying in that confrontation.

Bruce's action at the end of the story can be understood two ways:

-he decides to maim/kill Jason to stop the insupportable influx of emotions, and him turning around is his refusal to look at his decision (looking away as a symbol of shame): Bruce has lost, in so that he cannot escape the dilemma, he succumbs to his emotions and acts against his morals.

-the batarang slicing Jason's throat is an accident: he is trying to find a way out of the dilemma, a solution that lets him save his principles, but his emotions cloud his judgement (maybe his hand trembles? Maybe his vision is blurry?). In any case, he kills his son, and it being an accident doesn't absolve him: his emotions hold more weight than his decision and he ends up acting against his morals anyway.

It's a very old story: a deontologist and a utilitarian try to solve the trolley problem, and everyone still loses. And who's laughing? The nihilist, of course. To him, nothing has sense, and so nothing matters. He's wrong though, always has been. That's the lesson I'm taking from Damasio's work. That's the prism through which I'm comparing empathy to ethics in Levinas' work and agape in Compté-Sponsville's intro to philosophy through.

It should matter. It's so essential that it matters. Love, emotions, empathy: those are fundamental in moral evaluation and decision making. They are a feature, not a bug. And the tragedy is when we try to force ourselves to make them not matter.

Anyway so that was my analysis of why Damasio's position on ethics is so fun to take in account when analysing UTH, hope you found this fun!

[ghouljams]

Idk honestly I could probably write a really in depth analysis on the prevalence of the blue/brown eyed Ghost debate, and what it means in terms of fandom politics especially when coupled with whether Ghost is a natural blond or a brunet, but I doubt anyone wants to hear about the political implications of people pushing most popular character in the series as aryan...

well, i for one would absolutely love to hear about it, but to be fair my degree is in media studies so fork found in kitchen

but tbh is it surprising that this kind of discourse (along with the whole Gaz “not being interesting enough” bs) is a prevalent discussion in a military propaganda game fandom? probably not lol

i also agree with your take that his eyes are brown as part of his character development and that it feeds into the complexity of the dynamics between them

anyway, don’t feel pressured to talk more about it if you don’t feel like it, just wanted to let you know that at least one person would read all of it lol

Much love!!

- Morph

Ghoul thoughts under the cut because I love media analysis and rambling

You hit the nail on the head by bringing up the Gaz "not being interesting" bullshit in relation to this entire thing because I absolutely see the crux of the brown vs blue eyed Ghost debate being a debate over which eye color is "better" which has inherently racist roots.

And as an immediate disclaimer: I am not saying that headcanoning Ghost with blue eyes makes you racist, I am not saying that headcanoning Ghost as blond makes you racist. I am simply pointing out that the way we view certain traits has been and will be filtered through a lens which requires an examination of our own values/beliefs.

It is so intensely interesting to me that in a fandom with a history of racial exclusion, for a media property that upholds whiteness as the pinnacle of virtue, that upholds western ideals and values as the height of moral purity, that places the good guys in a position where they can do NO WRONG despite having a higher torture rate than the bad guys, that a faceless character would be arbitrarily assigned blue eyes and blond hair despite textual/in game evidence to the contrary (yes there is evidence).

Now maybe I am just sensitive to certain things because I paid attention in school and know what a dog whistle sounds like, maybe that's all this is. However, within a fandom that seems to cater so hard to white women and has racist bullshit popping up every other week, I think... maybe we should examine why we want Ghost to have blue eyes.

I find that with faceless characters headcanons always exist within the hopes of making them more attractive. The idea that they would be ugly under the mask is antithetical to the wish fulfilment of fandom, so it makes sense that people would come up with a face for them. But then why are so many faceless characters made into skinny white blonds? Surely people would want some diversity- oh no, wait...

So we make Ghost blond. Alright, I mean he was a brunet in the comics and in the one scene where we see him take his mask off he's got dark hair, but I guess there were too many people with dark hair on the 141 already, so we gotta mix in a blond. But then why the blue eyes? He has blue eyes in the '09 comic, but in every cutscene we see in the '22 remake his eyes are brown. There's already two members of the 141 with blue eyes, so we don't need another one for diversity. So then why give Ghost blue eyes? If you want him to be closer to the '09 version why make him blond as well?

It's because people want to make him attractive, and in the dominant racial zeitgeist blue eyes are attractive. Which... I mean do I need to ask why? It's because they're a white european trait and people still hold white features as the attractive ones. Same with the blond hair. That's why WW2 Germany designated Blond hair and Blue eyes as the "true German" traits and created a whole class for them "aryan."

So what are the political implications of creating an aryan character out of the most popular character in the series (one who has minimal voice lines and minimal canon backstory in the reboot) within a fandom that regularly disregards/ignores the main black character? It's the continued upholding of whiteness and a specific kind of whiteness as more valuable than others. I'm not even going to say more valuable than blackness, I would say more valuable than other white traits. Why are blue eyes more attractive than brown eyes? Because they're more "white." Why is blond hair more attractive than brown? Because it's more "white." Why is a blond haired blue eyed Ghost such a popular headcanon despite evidence to the contrary? Because he's more white that way.

Now I like blond haired Ghost. I think it's an interesting addition to the color pallet of the team, and I like that it makes him look more like a ghost to be so washed out. But I think fandom has a habit of following what becomes popular within head canon spaces and making it fandom canon, and so many of us don't examine why a headcanon might pop up. Where did Ghost having blond hair come from? When did we all decide that was what we were going with? Why is it even a debate whether or not he has blue or brown eyes, and why does it matter?

If I said right now that Ghost 100% in canon of the '22 game has brown hair and brown eyes, would people get mad at me? And why? Why would it matter if he had brown hair and brown eyes? Does that make him less attractive? Why? Why does it matter? Why do you want him to have blond hair and blue eyes? Why do you care? What is the difference between blue and brown that makes it so important? For God's sake look at the societal conditioning that you've been put through! Why does it "make more sense" for him to have blue eyes if he's blond? Why?

Every single idea we have of what is and isn't attractive has been designed for us by the society we live in. Consider what ideals are being upheld when deciding that the "hot" character is blond and blue eyed while also discarding the black character. Being anti-racist and dismantling your own racial biases is a long and constant process, but it is so vitally important. And once we start examining those biases all sorts of shit starts popping up.

And before someone comes in and tells me it isn't that deep: maybe you should look at why you need it to not be that deep, does it make you uncomfortable to think that you might be feeding into these biases without realizing? And who does it benefit to have it not be "that deep" is there perhaps a group of people that would want you to not examine your preference for blue eyes and blond hair? Some sort of brotherhood perhaps...

[mariacallous]

American Jewish food is most typically defined as pastrami sandwiches, chocolate babka, or bagels and lox. But I am here to argue that the greatest American Jewish food may actually be the humble hot dog. No dish better embodies the totality of the American Jewish experience.

What’s that you say? You didn’t know that hot dogs were a Jewish food? Well, that’s part of the story, too.

Sausages of many varieties have existed since antiquity. The closest relatives of the hot dog are the frankfurter and the wiener, both American terms based on their cities of origin (Frankfurt and Vienna respectively). So what differentiates a hot dog from other sausages? The story begins in 19th century New York, with two German-Jewish immigrants.

In 1870, Charles Feltman sold Frankfurt-style pork-and-beef sausages out of a pushcart in Coney Island, Brooklyn. Sausages not being the neatest street food, Feltman inserted them into soft buns. This innovative sausage/bun combo grew to be known as a hot dog (though Feltman called them Coney Island Red Hots).

Two years later, Isaac Gellis opened a kosher butcher shop on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. He soon began selling all-beef versions of German-style sausages. Beef hot dogs grew into an all-purpose replacement for pork products in kosher homes, leading to such classic dishes as Franks & Beans or split pea soup with hot dogs. Though unknown whether Gellis was the originator of this important shift, he certainly became one of the most successful purveyors.

Like American Jews, the hot dog was an immigrant itself that quickly changed and adapted to life in the U.S. As American Jewry further integrated into society, the hot dog followed.

In 1916, Polish-Jewish immigrant Nathan Handwerker opened a hotdog stand to compete with Charles Feltman, his former employer. Feltman’s had grown into a large sit-down restaurant, and Handwerker charged half the price by making his eatery a “grab joint.” (The term fast food hadn’t yet been invented, but it was arguably Handwerker who created that ultra-American culinary institution.)

Nathan’s Famous conquered the hot dog world. Like so many of his American Jewish contemporaries, Handwerker succeeded via entrepreneurship and hard work. His innovative marketing stunts included hiring people to eat his hot dogs while dressed as doctors, overcoming public fears about low-quality ingredients. While his all-beef dogs were not made with kosher meat, he called them “kosher-style,” thus underscoring that they contained no horse meat. Gross.

The “kosher-style” moniker was another American invention. American Jewish history, in part, is the story of a secular populace that embraced Jewish culture while rejecting traditional religious practices. All-beef hotdogs with Ashkenazi-style spicing, yet made from meat that was not traditionally slaughtered or “kosher”, sum up the new Judaism of Handwerker and his contemporaries.

Furthermore, American Jewry came of age alongside the industrial food industry. The hot dog also highlights the explosive growth of the kosher supervision industry (“industrial kashrut”).

Hebrew National began producing hot dogs in 1905. Their production methods met higher standards than were required by law, leading to their famous advertising slogan, “We Answer to a Higher Authority.”

While the majority of Americans may be surprised to hear this, Hebrew National’s self-supervised kosher-ness was not actually accepted by more stringent Orthodox and even Conservative Jews at the time. But non-Jews, believing kosher dogs were inherently better, became the company’s primary market. Eventually, Hebrew National received the more established Triangle-K kashrut supervision, convincing the Conservative Movement to accept their products. Most Orthodox Jews, however, still don’t accept these hot dogs as kosher.

But over the last quarter of the 20th century in America, the Orthodox community has gained prominence and their opinions, and food preferences, hold more weight in the food industry.

The community’s stricter kashrut demands and sizable purchasing power created a viable market, and glatt kosher hot dogs hit the scene. Abeles & Heymann, in business since 1954, was purchased in 1997 by current owner Seth Leavitt. Meeting the demands of the Orthodox community’s increasingly sophisticated palate, their hot dogs are gluten-free with no filler. Recently, they’ve begun producing a line of uncured sausages, and the first glatt hot dogs using collagen casing.

Glatt kosher dogs can now be purchased in nearly thirty different sports arenas and stadiums. American Jews have successfully integrated into their society more than any other in history. So too, the hot dog has transcended its humble New York Jewish immigrant roots to enter the pantheon of true American icons. So when you bite into your hot dog this summer, you are really getting a bite of American Jewish history, and the great American Jewish food.

[marxistlesbianist]

How do I stop getting more and more terrified of the upcoming Trump administration. I know on a material level Harris would not be much better but every new cabinet pick and headline makes the liberal in me scream and cry, I'm a trans woman just starting her transition and I'm scared I will never become the person I want to be. I'm scared it's too late for me. I need a Marxist perspective, what do I do?

Unfortunately marxism cannot provide you with any way to avoid fear as such, but this does not mean it is useless here. Marxism as an analytical method helps us to see the social/economic mechanisms affecting our lives as they really are, rather than as the quasi-divine forces which liberalism supposes them to be. I and many others have found that looking at the world in this more grounded manner has the effect of lessening our anxiety, but how you react to this vision of material reality is still up to you.

That being said, here is a rough outline of a marxist outlook on the US political economy to–day, which might help you to ground through the anxiety of the election results:

The US empire is an empire in decline. This is not the fault of any single politician, but of the inherently unstable ground on which capitalist economies are built. Capitalism necessitates constant market growth, and with nearly the whole world already captured by the US economic order, this is an increasingly impossible demand to meet. As climate change worsens the third world countries exploited by the US are pushed to either drown under ceaseless natural disasters, or revolt against the economic system distroying their ecology—in both cases the US hegemony is weakened and our great empire dies by a thousand cuts. The only way to avoid economic crisis is to move away from the capitalist mode of production all together, but bourgeois politicians will only ever offer us incomplete solutions to the problems they have created.

Fascism is the liberal response to economic crisis. Throughout the history of the 20th century, we have seen that even the most socially progressive liberal “democracies” have morphed into fascist monstrocities when the capitalist economy is threatened. Voting in ostensibly progressive candidates without seriously challenging the political economy won't save us--as the people of Germany learned when the liberal chancellor Hindenburg appointed Hitler as the head of state after beating him in the election. This happens because fascism is at its heart the imperialist system turned inwards; when the German bourgeoisie were no longer able to sustain their economy by exploiting colonized countries like Namibia, they revitalized their economy by building a more advanced version of the Namibian colonial state at home.

Because the system is already collapsing in on itself, the primary task for us to organize toward is not challenging the system as it is, but building something better in its place. Of course, the task of defending our movement will necessarily bring us into conflict with the current bourgeois state, but we must remember that the point is not to oppose our enemies but to defend our friends. Even if a socialist president were elected to the white house, their dictates would only mean anything if there existed an organized body of workers prepared to exicute the plan inspite of bourgeois sabatage. Conversely, a sufficiantly large and well organized body of workers would be capable of building socialism in the US no matter what Washington says.

For trans women, the state of affairs following Trump's election is fundamentally no different than it was before November 6th. For 250 years the US government has been hostile to our existence, and yet there are more of us living out of the closet now than there ever have been in this country's history. The liberties which the republican party now threatens to deprive us of were not given to us by liberal politicians, but won inspite of them by the masses of our trans elders fighting tirelessly for themselves and their children—and for so long as we continue the struggle we have inherited, the bourgeois state will never be able to defeat us. Of course, much of this history of struggle has been obscured by the liberal order trying to co-opt our movement, but it is still there to be discovered. (If you only know about Stonewall, I highly recommend you read about the history of STAR (Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries), an organization founded by some of the trans women who lead that riot.)

Of course, none of this is to say that the situation isn’t terrifying; just that it is also manageable. You may not be able to live the life you wanted, but that doesn't mean you can't still lead a life worth living! The liberal in you screams and cries because she sees that things are bad, but doesn't see how you as an individual can make it right. Adopting a marxist perspective to see not just that things are bad but also how and why, and organizing with your class allies instead of working on your own will silence your inner liberal’s tears as she becomes obsolete. Individual Trump staff picks don’t mean much for us in our project of building a socialist movement. Regardless of who sits in office, the work before us is the same. So let’s get to work—for the revolution of the world!

Lastly, because I always found it annoying when people would tell me to "join an org" without elaborating, here is a brief rundown of some organizations you could look into:

PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) has the widest reach of any nominally communist party in the US. Their top leadership are largely opportunists insofar as I can tell, but the local chapters vary enough that some of them are involved in genuinely productive work.

FRSO (Freedom Road Socialist Organization) is a lot smaller, but with more genuine leadership and a strong ideological line. They are growing, and tend to be much more active in the few areas where they are organized.

DSA and CPUSA (Democratic Socialists of America, and Communist Party of the USA) are both useless as organizations, but you might still find some people there you can organize with—especially of there aren’t any better orgs in your area.

SALT (Socialist ALTernative) basically encompass the worst of all worlds in my experience, but individual experience may vary.

Even if there are no active organizations in your area, joining one and sitting in on zoom meetings is still a worthwhile step forward!

[vanalex]

Q: Isn't paganism a form of spirituality?

Pete: "Not the way I define it. I have the ultimate respect for nature. I consider myself to be an evolutionist. I find beauty in all things natural. My girlfriend and I like to go to the woods and look at leaves, almost like neo-hippies, getting into everything around us. That, to me, is paganism, respecting life. Everything has a right to live. In this band, we don't think that respect has to be earned. We think that respect should be given, until you realize that you're dealing with an asshole. Then you either try to walk away or break their legs.

"Most ancient cultures-- Nordic, Native American, Orientals-- all have the same beliefs. As we get further and further away from our animal nature, we start to lose touch with the id and become species who think we're better than anything else because we walk on two legs. For everything we create, we destroy 100 times."

Josh: "The planet will go on happily without us. I'm looking forward to it. Some people say that's a really negative attitude. That's not negative, that's totally positive."

Pete: It's nature's way.

Josh: "We'd be doing the planet a favor by getting rid of all the people on earth. It knows what to do. It's doing the right thing, and we can't stop it no matter how hard we try."

Q: Unless humankind changes its destructive ways.

Josh: "Yeah, can you imagine that? The common man changing his viewpoint? One hundred percent of humanity cooperating to make the world a better place? That's a great fairy tale, but it ain't gonna happen, man. Sorry."

Pete: "People will not change, especially when the media dictates values. That's really scary to me."

Josh: "What's even scarier is when they allow it to happen. It's one thing to be told what to do, it's another thing to be quiet and doing it.

Q: Like sheep.

Josh: "Exactly. Human nature is to destroy. If everyone was the same color, there'd be a new reason to kill each other."

Pete: "It would be, like, how a person smelled differently. There is always some reason to fight. My family comes from Brooklyn, where there is Irish, Italian, German. All these people look the same, but they fought every day, because they were from a different part of Europe."

~Peter Steele and Josh Silver~ Aquarian Interview 1995

[note: I realize the term "Orientals" is considered pretty outdated and racist today, but remember, Pete and the rest of the band grew up in the 70s and 80s, and that term was used quite a bit with no inherently negative undertones. I'm guessing most of my fellow 20th century people will probably remember this.]

[what-even-is-thiss]

I’ve seen people describe English as “simplified” and I think we need to differentiate between something being simple and something being efficient.

English is a relatively efficient language as far as just conveying information goes. This doesn’t mean that English is better or that English speakers get across information faster. Most people get across information at the same speed. That’s why speakers of Spanish or Japanese for example, languages where you need to use a lot more words to convey the same idea, speak so quickly. And why speakers of English or Mandarin speak slowly.

Whether you like using more words for specificity or context and suffixes, etc. to get across your point probably depends on a combination of your personal preference and your own native language.

As a native English speaker learning Spanish I’m like. Why do I need to use so many words? Why is every sentence such a mouthful? But that’s because the other languages I speak are English and some German. My brain isn’t used to using that many words.

No grammar structure is inherently more superior and no grammar structure inherently takes up less space on the page. Like the old joke of when Twitter doubled its character limit Japanese speakers could fit another paragraph in while German speakers could fit another word or two. Japanese’s writing system just takes up less space even though it takes more words to say things than German does. And German is partially efficient in speech because of all its compound words, which take up a lot of space.

[on-a-lucky-tide]

dawg just ignore this if you want im just yapping and really tired so i may regret this horribly

but how do i be a man?

when a man is considered so awful so repulsive, am i not going against everything i’ve ever fought for by being one?

am i not complying with a misogynistic agenda by transitioning, as if women can’t show a hint of masculinity?

and i know that’s not true. like realistically that’s not true.

but. at the same time. how can i be a man when a man is so awful to be?

how can i be a man when transitioning itself would come with so many problems and would screw me over in so many ways

how can i be a man, knowing i won’t be considered one?

and even from a purely physical standpoint i can’t decide what i want. do i want testosterone? do i want top surgery? because the way the worlds going i feel like ive gotta choose Now or else ill never get a shot but christ, my extended family dont even know.

working out sounds great, and awesome, and euphoric, but i don’t have the money or the time or the energy.

idk. nikolai save me.

I say this as gently as I possibly can: you need to let go of giving a shit about what others want of and from you. They don't have to walk in your shoes. They don't have to wake up every day and deal with the creeping horror of dysphoria. They don't have to spend their entire life thinking "what if", just waiting with held breath for fuckin' something.

You need to act now. Because if you don't, there may come a day where you're standing on an overpass looking down at the river feeling nothing but a sense of numb acceptance because the gnawing discomfort and misery has reached such a crescendo that life isn't worth living anymore. No amount of overachievement, no amount of "exploratory" therapy, no amount of mind numbing drugs, has made you feel right. Even if that act is to complete your deedpoll, ring up the GHC. Anything.

And you need to ditch the radfem/terf BS. Have more respect for men and lift your expectations of us. Stop letting us off the hook for dogshit behaviour because we're just "inherently evil" so of course we're all abusive rapists. We can't possibly change or be better. I feel thoroughly disrespected by such an ideology. How do you ever expect the world to change when you automatically condemn one group of people, and then let the other off no matter what?

There is nothing inherently better about being a woman. There is no moral superiority automatically awarded for being born with a cunt and engaging with femininity or womanhood. Who are you punishing yourself for? The radfem bitch who probably made hate chats for the awkward, introverted kid in her class? The one who has rebranded the League of German Maidens with "clean girl aesthetic"? Fuck 'em.

I'm not saying it's going to be all bells and rainbows. It won't be. You're gonna have to work fucking hard, Non. You're gonna have to graft because pronoun pins mean jackshit in the real world. Choosing happiness takes bravery when the entire world needs you to be miserable to maintain the status quo.

So be brave.

[veterancoffeemaker]

Objectively Ranking Every Number Numeral By How Interesting They Are

My highly objective and unbiased analysis of each number 0-9

10 — 8: Someone has to be the most boring and that number is 8. Quite simply, what does 8 have going for it? It’s the cube of 2, which is something, but that’s just not very interesting. It’s only the second hardest number to multiply by? It’s a sideways infinity, sure, but I’ve never seen that used for anything besides the [Infinity][Rotation matrix] = 8 meme. Just a boring number really, without much going for it.

9 — 9: Same as its placement, 9 is a bit of a tease. It’s truly the Thursday of numbers, it’s main weight coming not from itself but what follows after it. It is basically numerical edging, so close to 10, nice round 10, but just barely not. Otherwise, what does it have going for it? It’s the square of 3, but that’s not really that big of a deal. It comes up with .999… which is something, but just another 10 situation. Really, the only thing that brings it above 8 for me is its German side, at least I’ve seen more wordplay memes involving nein than I have for 8. Pretty mid number all things considered.

8 — 4: Similar case to 8, but with a few advantages. To begin with, unlike 8, it’s the square of 2 rather than the cube, which is inherently more interesting. Also just a much better quantity in general than 8 or 9 is. 4 of something has to meaning to it. The four elements! The four great kingdoms! The four great heroes! Whereas in 8 or 9’s case, what meaning is there? What difference can there really be between 8 or 9 of something? And don’t even get me started on geometry, octagons may be a classic shape, but squares are one of the core shapes. Not to mention rhombuses, diamonds and more. Still, falls short in a lot of other areas which I feel really hold it back from being further up.

7 — 5: Now things start getting good! 5 is just a solid number, multiplying into 10, it’s the only odd number that really feels good to get. Not to mention there’s just a lot of iconic 5s out there — 5 fingers, PS5, etc. — all of which really help give it an identity. Nothing against 5, it’s just a solid number, but others are better.

6 — 7: Alright, let me start this off by saying 7 IS AWFUL! This is, by far, the worst number. Anyone who disagrees is simply traumatically repressing their memories of multiplying by 7. HOWEVER! It is that same fact which makes 7 very interesting. As evil as it is, I have to give it credit for that. It also has some good cultural ties, being seen as a strong magic number. It’s also where quantities really start feeling large. 6 of something is an amount, but 7? That’s when you really begin to have a fair amount of something. Not to mention its strange ties to primes. If you multiply by 7, then add and/or subtract by one less than you multiplied, you’ll find a prime (besides multiplying by 8 for obvious reasons). Why does this work? I don’t know, but it’s cool! It’s weird! It’s intriguing! Point is, 7 sucks, but in an interesting way.

5 — 3: Another solid number. 3 really feels like the start of the normal numbers. 0,1 and 2 all have some quirkiness to them (which will be discussed later) while 3 is far more grounded. Still, 3 is far from boring. You like triangles? That’s 3 right there. Just think of all the triangle stuff that ever comes up, from Pythagorus’ theorum to the triangle inequality to much much more. Also the classic magic number (third time’s the charm and all) along with 3 just being a powerful number. Tricolons are used for a reason. 3 things just carry a weight that you cannot replicate with only 1 or 2 of something. There’s just a lot going for 3, definitely a top number.

4 — 6: Probably the most controversial take here, but a lot of people sleep on 6. While 5 may take most of the multiplying credit with our traditional base-10 system, 6’s multiplicative power shines in a lot of places where multiples of 12 are used (i.e. time or angles measured in degrees) but that’s not all. Geometry? You have hexagons (yes, indeed, the bestagons), one of the most iconic and generally useful shapes apart from the core three. Perfect tiling, no spaces, great for game boards, a truly incredible shape. Not just that, but 6 is also, mathematically speaking, a perfect number. While I could explain what that is, telling people “6 is mathematically a perfect number” and not explaining why is far funnier, so I won’t. All in all, truly top tier number, people definitely do underestimate it, but I hope to do it justice here.

3 — 1: It’s number 1, do I need to elaborate? It’s the number, the first number. It’s often the baseline for so many things. When you get a 1 as an answer for something, that’s often a sign things went perfectly. I’d even throw in some mention of its strange cousin -1, the multiple you use to flip the signs — not to mention its root being the definition of i and thereby all imaginary numbers. I really don’t feel I need to say much more here, 1 is just an absolute classic number.

2 — 2: Another absolute classic. 2 just is an incredible number. It’s the only even prime, hell, it’s the BASIS for all other even numbers. I also can’t go without mentioning base 2, aka, binary. Yeah, this number is what you have to thank that you can even read this right now. It’s really similar to 1 in that I can’t really explain what it does because, I mean, it’s 2. Think of how many things have 2s, because I sure as hell could not list it all here if I tried. Once again, 10/10 number, truly peak numerical.

1 — 0: Finally, we reach 0. If 2 was a 10/10 number, then this is a 0/0 number. Quite frankly, if you’re not the slightest bit scared of this number, then that only shows you do not understand its power. It is the eldritch entity of numbers, that thing whose numerical is never to be spoken of. It’s not just nothing, it’s 0, the emptiness, the end. Whether by multiplying or dividing, all others are the same to it. It can often break mathematics when it shows up, but it has to for it holds great power. While infinity may be an unreachable zenith, 0 is both the closest and furthest we can get to it. Is it an even number or is it even a number? It is what it is. It is nothing. It is infinity. It is 0.

Anyway, I have a maths exam in twenty minutes which I could’ve studied for, but instead decided to write this. Hopefully it was of some use or enjoyment to somebody.

[historicity-was-already-taken]

Hello! Thank you so much for your current Q&A regarding Israel/Palestine. I'm a teacher (for foreign languages) at a secondary school in Germany, so I'm constantly torn between the "criticism of Israel is inherently anti-semitic/the existence and safety of Israel is German state reason", which means, for example, that we as teachers are supposed to suspend students for the day if they come to school wearing the Palestinian scarf etc. (I don't think this is good practice, and I'm glad I haven't had to enforce this yet), on the one hand, and on the other a lot of students from the middle east, even Palestinian students, who are obviously and completely understandibly highly upset about the ongoing situation because their families are much closer to the conflict that I as a white German am. These students often go from understandable criticism ("Why can they just say your home now belongs to them?" regarding the illegal settlements) to downright anti-semitism; I overheard one student saying something (probably Arabic) in an insulting tone to another student that had the word "israel" in it and then he tried to tell me "israel" meant "dog", so it wasn't anti-semitic (what??). I'm uncomfortable with several of the measures my federal state (which is my employer and to whom I have to be loyal or risk getting removed from teaching) has taken regarding the I/P conflict (which has resulted in several Jews and Jewish organisations to be penalised for anti-semitism), but also with the extremely scary vitriol of Muslim students towards Jews and Israel. Your blog in general and your Q&A is giving me a better understanding and ability to convey a more nuanced position to the students in my care. Thank you for this opportunity, and for providing it without usernames attached.

Just to sort of untangle all the issues you're speaking to for readers less informed on how All Of This is playing out across Western and Central Europe, here are the dynamics at play here, and specifically in Germany:

-West and Central European white supremacy, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and racism; particularly as directed towards Arab and Near Eastern populations.

-Palestinian trauma.

-German national commitment towards eradicating anti-Semitism from its society as a way to avoid ever repeating the crimes of its past.

-Hardcore anti-Semitism within Near Eastern Diasporic populations deriving from both the European colonizers of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the appropriation (imo) of Palestinian trauma and rage.

-The place of anti-Semitic rhetoric and narratives within Israel-critical speech.

It's a knot it will take a multi-national team of specialists to even begin to untangle.

I'm so glad anything I'm doing here is helping you be able to navigate what is, quite frankly, a clusterfuck.

[indigosfindings]

"its silly but shockingly common to interpret your own lack of understanding as the speaker's intentional obtuseness and/or implausible ignorance" is a good take and u should say it BUT

im curious if u would accept like. the mainstream history of philosophy. as a broad exception/counterpoint

in college i was a phi major for fun + toys reason and constantly found myself utterly baffled by how poorly they ALL wrote. i mean ALL even the more 'literary' or artsy fartsy ones like nietzsche were fucking incomprehensible. contemporary writers were a LITTLE better if they weren't utilitarians or logicians or the eldritch intersection thereof. it was too ubiquitous to be coincidence and too coordinated to be accidental. idk im just haunted by the entire discipline, im literally a poet and i NEVER couch meaning like that 😭

(re this post)

i cant really speak to the behaviours or attitudes of people in the philosophy scene cuz i dont have the requisite exposure. viz nietzsche i havent read anything of his but i imagine that a lot of context (ie the fact that he was writing in german over 130 years ago) will influence how an anglophone (i assume) reader will receive (translations of) his work in 2025, & i think that context inherently suggests something a bit more complex than "he was trying to Not be understood" is going on

to clarify my post a little more: i dont mean to deny that people have ever intentionally deployed shibboleths, invoked academia as an access barrier, or attempted other means of restricting who can receive or engage with their ideas (to try & deny those things would be futile!)--what i was commenting on was a tendency (both online & irl) of people reacting to *any* use of jargon (or specialized context, or anticipation of foreknowledge) with excessive defensiveness, as if use of the terms & ideas associated with a field or concept is intended to *obfuscate* meaning, clarity, & specificity rather than to enhance them

[canthelpit0]

-Everything you need to know-

-masterlist -taglist Rules/AboutMe/Writing

ABOUT ME

Please call me Fae, it's Nickname for my actual name. Im bi, and I'm a minor. I just choose not to say my age on here. I love Music and often listen to many different Genres. I've always loved writing, but I've never really published anything in any fandom. don't judge my writing; I'm getting better I promise. I feel like I have a very active imagination. but most of the series fanfics that I write will probably not be planned out that much. I haven't been a fan for too long, I'd say, like early-mid 2023.

My page is made to be looked at in dark mode.

music taste: LanaDelRey, Ariana Grande, The Weeknd, Chase Atlantic, Drake, Doja Cat, Billie Eilish, Melanie Martinez, mitski... (I usually just listen to whatever I think sounds good, not because a certain artist made it.)

favorite song: it changes all the time (depending on the month, season, my mood, trends, etc.)

fav youtubers: the triplets, larry, Ben of the week, Shanspear... (I don’t watch a lot of yt)

fav food: mashed potatoes 🛐, Schnitzel 😍, ice cream, chicken, cherrys..

WRITING

allthough i feel like my english is pretty good, it is not my first languge. I'm actually German (well, tukisch really..) so, if there is something weird about the way I explain something inherently American, that’s why 🤷‍♀️

what I will be writing: fluff, angst, smut, hcs. I'll write almost anything (for Chris/Matt), I don't mind. go wild with requests I don't judge. the reader will mostly be poc!friendly, but not outright POC. I’ll write hcs for nick x m!reader, just not full stories

what I won't be writing: I might not write some requests. because I feel uncomfortable writing about something I don't know about/have experienced. For example: black!Reader, Latina!Reader, etc. (Heavy emphasis on race, because if yall have a specific fic in mind where the race has something to do with the story, go ask a writer who is black or Latina to write it, they’ll probably have better depiction than I could ever have.) unless it’s German/turkish reader.

also: R4pe, incest, threesomes, wired kinks (piss, shit, feet, etc)

My requests and Asks are open. feel free to send suggestions or questions. I'm fairly new on Tumblr, so I'm def looking for mutuals. Don't be scared to text me, i love meeting new people 🤭

RULES

Don't steal fics

if you don't like the concept of a fic, just scroll

Don't leave hate.

Criticism and feedback are always welcome in my inbox, just don't be rude about it.

[separatist-apologist]

tiny mouse voice under you bed chanting as you lay down: rant rant rant it'll make you feel better your skin will be smoother rant rant rant

I'm finally back in my office so I have the time.

My problem is two fold, I will expand upon it here:

For the first part, I was reading an article that discussed how in general, people don't like to read stories where there isn't some kind of hopeful message. So for example, books about the Holocaust in which a German Nazi and a Jewish person form an unlikely friendship sell much better than first person accounts of what it was actually like in a camp. The reason, the article postulated, is that people want to believe people can change/grow/find meaning and that in a lot of the first hand accounts, there is no over arching story of hope and resilience or whatever. And I think about this specifically within the holocaust narrative because a lot of stories really love to lean into "I realized Jews were humans when I started talking to one and through that, became a fully realized person" while ignoring like, the inherent horror of that scenario. It's relevant to me specifically in this context, but you can apply it to master/slave stories set in historical America as well.

And I think to a lot of people who have no connection to these kinds of atrocities find it romantic versus horrific, and that's why it keeps popping up in fantasy settings specifically. Fantasy settings ATTEMPT (poorly, more often than not) to divorce themselves from a modern context (as if we don't live in a society), and the racism/antisemitism/misogyny WHATEVER becomes like, humans v fae or magic v non magic- all of which often is an allegory for real world atrocities from people who have never lived this experience or have any historical connection to these atrocities so it's just a fun play pretend.

"Wouldn't it be sexy if a nazi fell in love with one specific jewish individual and through her willingness to love him at his ugliest, she changes him at a fundamental level? oh but hes not actually a nazi, he's a wizard now so don't make this political."

"What if this white skinhead who was related to a grand wizard of the kkk fell in love with a hispanic/black woman etc etc etc"

Like.

And then people who DO exist within these frameworks are like, this is uncomfortable and I think we should be allowed to discuss why this trope is so popular among (typically, not always) heterosexual white women, people get really upset with you. "It's not that deep," okay but you are actively humanizing an oppressor AND asking the oppressed to do all the emotional labor which is a reflection of our real world values and the society we currently live in, how can you say it's not that deep? It IS very deep, actually- this is asked of marginalized communities every day. How many times do pundits ask women to just be nice to violent incels wishing harm and calling them "foids" and other horrific, dehumanizing terms? To just give those men a chance because maybe they'll start seeing women as human?

That's a reflection of our actual society, we deserve to critique it without an army of "brain off" readers screaming that it's not that deep/just fantasy/stop making everything political when like. A lot of these people don't know what it's like to exist in a world where your identity is INHERENTLY political.

And I think this could take us into another rant about like, how a lot of romantasy isn't interested in its own world that its built, its really just interested in dark haired men that can be vaguely enemies to lovers, but this would be 1000000000 words at that point.

My other issue is that outrage over this trope is never consistently applied. Everyone is up and arms over the Firebird book with master/slave dynamics and the book not being marketed correctly to people, or just the inherent power dynamics...but these same people have bound copies of Manacled on their shelves and are looked forward to whatever book that author is writing based on the fic.

So it's genuinely so hard to take it seriously because it's very clear people are not interested in actually deconstructing WHY this trope feels problematic to people, or why it's uncomfortable because you're mad about the Roman Empire inspired book...but not the fanfic inspired by Nazis written by a TERF? Like. Ok.

I recognize this is such a "make up your mind rant" because I'm like, I want to talk about it, but also I'm like, shut the fuck up about it. HOWEVER. I want to have genuine conversations about why this trope is such a consistent thing, especially in fantasy stories AND how it relates to our current societal expectations and values. BUT I don't want to have a disingenuous conversation with people who only care about seeming morally righteous but don't actually care about it. Does that make sense? I'm not saying people can't/shouldn't write these stories but I DO think we should be allowed to discuss it.

And I think I'd like some consistency around the discussion. If you're that outraged for one book, it should apply for all of them but it doesn't. You can enjoy problematic stories- lord knows I do. But I also don't attempt to silence people having discussions around the problematic elements and what this says about what we value, who we value, and how our society is constructed.

[room-surprise]

do you know or have thoughts on why the dm characters sometimes reference ‘hell’ (as in ‘what the hell?’) given how the series handles religion? is that an anime thing or translation thing or…???

This is such a great question, and fun to answer, so thank you for writing to me!!! I think there's two things happening at the same time: What does hell really mean in English, and what are the characters actually saying in the original Japanese?

If the characters say hell in the original manga or in any translations, I think it is pretty safe to assume that they aren't referring to the Christian hell specifically, since it doesn't appear to exist in the Dungeon Meshi world. They are instead referring to the generic concept of a hell.

NON-CHRISTIAN HELLS

Hell is a word that can refer to a "bad afterlife" in many different world cultures. Obviously all of these cultures have their own names for these places, but when they are translated into English they are frequently referred to as "Buddhist hell", "Hindu hell", "Nordic hell", etc.

The word "hell" was adopted by Christians to describe something in their religion, but does not originate with them.

The modern English word hell is derived from Old English hel, to refer to a nether world of the dead. The word has cognates in all branches of the Germanic languages, and they all ultimately derive from the reconstructed Proto-Germanic feminine noun xaljō or haljō ('concealed place, the underworld'), and can be traced back even further to Proto-Indo European.

When the Germanic peoples were converted to Christianity, the word "hell" was adopted to refer to the Christian underworld. Before that time, hell was called many different things by the Christians, including "Sheol" (grave, death, pit, underworld), "Gehenna" (valley of wailing), "Hades" or "Tartarus." (The first two are Hebrew words, and the latter two are Ancient Greek. All of these words are attempting to describe similar things, a bad afterlife.) These Germanic cultures (most of Northern, Western and Central Europe) are the primary cultural influence of Dungeon Meshi's Eastern and Northern Continents, where the story takes place, and where most of the characters are from. So the word hel/hell would be native to the region, and logical for the characters to use both as a swear word, and also as a reference to whatever afterlife they might believe in.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS ACTUALLY SAYING THOUGH?

Dungeon Meshi is, for better or for worse, written in standard, contemporary Japanese, without any particular emphasis or attempt to sound "old fashioned" or like it is "fantasy", so any changes or additions made in translation to make the dialog or narration sound that way are just that: additions and changes. The changes made during translation aren't inherently bad, but the original text is very neutral, and open to interpretation. For example, Yaad calls Laios "tono/dono" in Japanese, which is an honorific that has no direct English equivalent, but is used between two people of similar social status, when one wants to be extra polite to the other. It does not imply nobility, but respect higher than "mister" and lower than "lord." Most English translations have rendered this as "Sir Laios" which isn't literally what Yaad says, but conveys the idea with something that "feels right" for the setting. It may be that in Dungeon Meshi the characters are literally saying the English word "hell/heru" in Japanese (ヘル), the word jigoku (地獄), which is the Japanese word for Buddhist hell, another word for a specific different underworld or afterlife, they are saying a Japanese swear word, or just using casual/impolite language that doesn't have a direct translation into English, and so needs to be localized into something that will make sense in English.

The last one is most likely what is happening, and I can think of a couple of common phrases that would most likely be translated into "What the hell?":

The polite, neutral way to say "What's that?" or "What [should I] do?" is "Nan-darou? (なんだろう?) or "Nani?" (何), which just means "What?"

The more casual, aggressive, masculine way of saying it is "Nani-kore?" (なにこれ？) which doesn't mention hell in any way, but translates to something like "What the hell?" or "What the fuck?" It's more rude because it's casual speech, but doesn't literally use words for hell or fuck in it. It technically means the same thing as "Nan-darou?" or "Nani?" But translating it the same way would be ignoring the context and tone of the words.

Another thing that's often said in Japanese is "Uso!" (うそ！) Which literally means "lie" or "not true", but in conversation it’s often used to say things like "you're lying!", "For real?!", "really?", or "No way!"

Often these exclamations of "Uso!" don't have anything to do with lying or untruths, they are meant to express surprise (this can't be happening!) or a response to someone talking about an outrageous and terrible event they experienced, like saying "No way! I can't believe that happened to you!" It's also sometimes translated as "What the hell…" or "Unbelievable…"

If the translators tried to keep this sort of thing literal, the manga would be full of lines like:

CHILCHUCK, running for his life from a mimic: What's this?! (Nani-kore?!) (He isn't literally asking what the mimic is, he is expressing surprise, so he should shout some curse words in English like hell, fuck, shit, etc.)

MARCILLE, horrified by the chimera: Lie! (Uso!) (She isn't just saying the word "lie" with no context, she is expressing shock, horror and disbelief at what she sees, so she should say something like "No, that can't be..." or "Impossible...")

I am not an expert in Japanese, but I hope that all of this is helpful to you, anon, and anyone else that's interested in this sort of thing!

[formulaocean]

Has Sebchal been asked yet for the ship questions game? 👀

If Sebchal is ever not being shipped just assume all interest in RPF has been lost ❤️

What made you ship it?

Canon. Have you seen them together??? Charles is about one second away from either bending over or folding himself into a better proportion to fit into Seb‘s pocket. And Seb is no better at all- he’s besotted by the reminder of his own mortality. Plus, as ever, the Ferrari of it all.

What are your favorite things about the ship?

The wedding ring stays on during sex. That one picture of Charles kneeling with a German flag over his mouth holding Seb’s hand. The epitome of tender rancid. Twisted mentor/protege. Meeting your idol, beating him, then wanting to keep him and wanting to be kept by him too. The cyclical nature of this sport. How Sebastian has the championships but it’s Charles who won at Monza twice and has Ferrari. Wanting what the other has. Don’t waste it. He’s the man of the future. It was like looking at my younger self. The face cradle in their second ever race together. Even before that the knowledge that they’ll be teammates one day- from Seb watching Charles in F2 to Charles watching him win Monaco. The switch up from Seb teasing Charles in 2019 to Charles overcompensating in 2020. How they’re still important to each other. How they always will be. Also love it when Max or Lewis are involved.

Is there an unpopular opinion you have on your ship?

All Sebchal appreciators have unquestionable taste there is nothing to be annoyed at. Will say that truly perfect Sebchal has cruelty in both directions as well as the fondness though. It’s at its best when its inherently dubious but they’re so obsessed neither are capable of stopping.

[hero-israel]

hi, fellow Jew here

what's antisemitic about the genocide claims? i've heard this a lot, and aside from being Horrific Misinformation, i don't... see why this is antisemitic? like it's bad and wrong but i don't know if it comes from Jew-hate if ykw i mean.

sorry, this could be a stupid question-

When it comes to Jewish institutions, all misinformation, false accusations, and conspiracy theories are inherently antisemitic. Charging Jews with "genocide" in these circumstances - when they are shooting back in a two-sided war, aimed at an armed group, taking steps to encourage and allow civilians to flee - requires a false accusation and a minimization / inversion of terms.

David Schraub:

"For thousands of years, for much of the world, part of the cultural patrimony enjoyed by all non-Jews—spiritual and secular, Church and Mosque, enlightenment and romantic, European and Middle Eastern—was the unquestionable right to stand superior over Jews. It was that right which the Holocaust took away, or at least called into question: the unthinking faith of knowing you were the more enlightened one, the spiritually purer one, the more rational one, the dispenser of morality rather than the object of it. To be sure, some people were better positioned to enjoy this right than others. And some people arrived onto the scene late in the game, only to discover that part of the bounty they were promised may no longer be on the table. Of course they’re aggrieved! The European immigrant who never owned a slave but was at least promised racial superiority is quite resentful when the wages of Whiteness stop being what they once were. Similarly, persons who lived far from the centers of Christian or Muslim power where Jewish subordination was forged are nonetheless well aware of what was supposed to be included in modernity’s gift basket. They recognize what they’ve “lost” as acutely as anyone else.

“The Germans,” the old saying goes, “will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.” And not just the Germans. Many people deeply resent the Jews for what Auschwitz took away from them—the easy knowledge that their vantage point was elevated over and superior to that of the Jews, the entitlement to be able to talk about Jews without having to listen to Jews. The desire to neuter the Holocaust is a desire to return to that old state of affairs. And so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Jews exhibit a special ferocity over the meaning of “genocide.” As noted above, the controversy of this MBL language has in large part played out in terms of whether it is even proper for Jews to register an objection. Are we valid contributors to the conversation? Are we equal players in this struggle? This is no coincidence. When people charge the Jewish state with genocide, part of what they are doing—with varying degrees of explicitness—is telling Jews “this concept which obliged us to listen to you no longer can underwrite that duty.” And in that brave old world, they can return to the baseline that had existed for thousands of years—where it was unthinkable, outrageous, blasphemous, for a Jew to have the temerity to contest a non-Jewish articulation of Jewish experience."