#not to say any of those things are inherently... bad?

[imsobadatnicknames2]

But the thing is what was being argued in that post was that CR is bad because it was one of the contributing factors that turned D&D from a game that *wasn't* inherently about tactical combat into one that is, so just saying "well duh it's because it's a game about tactical combat" is sidestepping the entire argument being made.

Like yeah, nowadays D&D rules-as-written *is* a game about combat, but it wasn't always that way.

I don't know if you're familiar with any edition of D&D before 3e, but everything you're saying about how combat in Chronicles of Darkness is rare because it's so dangerous and risky for both sides is how I often describe editions of D&D like OD&D or B/X. In most old-school D&D editions, PC death is a risk that is never off the table whenever a fight is happening (especially at lower levels when even the lowliest goblin has a small but not insignificant chance to one-hit-kill most PCs).

Add to that the fact that in a lot of those editions the XP you get for killing enemies is so paltry that it makes for a pretty shitty means of advancement (compared to getting treasure which is meant to be your primary source of XP for advancement) and it becomes a game where the optimal strategy is actually to get as much treasure as possible while getting into as few fights as possible. If you try to play most old editions of D&D as a game "about" combat, instead of a game that asks you to be very careful when picking your fights, you're gonna end up having a bad time.

So like. Idk. The thing that's being argued here is that D&D being a game about tactical combat is not a universal truth, but instead the product of a shift in game design that D&D underwent imbetween the TSR era and the WotC era, with the creation of CR being emblematic of that shift in game design. So to respond to that statement by simply reaffirming that "D&D is a game about tactical combat" is a universal truth, with no argument beyond "it's descended from wargames" feels weirdly dismissive, especially coming from someone like you who I usually consider to have good, thoughtful takes on tabletop stuff.

One of the funnier manifestations of gleeblor is Pathfinder players: I'll make a post about how D&D will color people's expectations of what RPGs can be like and create a very narrow set of expectations about the medium, and inevitably some Pathfinder player will be like "haha yeah those D&D players should really broaden their horizons, Pathfinder fixes all of their issues," and my friend. I'm sorry to say this but you are not immune to gleeblor and in many regards where it comes to expectations of playstyle created by the game, your favorite game is in fact just another company copying D&D's homework and slightly altering the wording.

[aroaceleovaldez]

Wait, did Rick actually say that demigods can't have PTSD?

Because of what? Their godly side? Their ADHD?

There are so many people with ADHD who have PTSD. How much research did he do?

Rick implied at some point more recently (sometime during HoO or soon after, while discussing Percabeth post-Tartarus) that demigods either don't get PTSD (specifically that Percabeth and/or Nico wouldn't have PTSD from Tartarus - which was later retconned) or it's much more difficult for them to get PTSD. While he didn't entirely say that demigods fully can't get PTSD, moreso that Percy and Annabeth just didn't get PTSD specifically from Tartarus, most people took it as "demigods can't get PTSD at all for demigod reasons."

In actuality, this already conflicts with The Lightning Thief, because Percy literally starts the series with PTSD or cPTSD from Gabe. It's not even a subtle or small detail - it's a major detail that totally informs how Percy navigates the world, particularly his dynamic with a lot of authority figures; Mr. D in particular explicitly, entirely because Percy says that he reminds him of Gabe. It takes literally the entire first series for Percy to be able to move past his PTSD response to actually form a friendship with Mr. D, and even into SoN we get references to Percy's PTSD from Gabe.

And like you said - a ton of folks with ADHD (and autism and all across the neurodivergent spectrum) commonly have PTSD. cPTSD particularly relating to schooling systems is EXTREMELY common. Like, almost guaranteed common at least in America. There is actual research about how the current American school system is set up is inherently traumatizing to neurodivergent students.

I have no idea why Rick temporarily decided to try and claim that demigods didn't get PTSD? It is true that PTSD is kind of random - you can absolutely go through an extremely traumatizing event and not develop PTSD, and/or go through a "less" traumatizing event and get PTSD from that but not the other - so claiming just that Percy and Annabeth didn't get PTSD specifically from Tartarus for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ reasons isn't unfair to say. But saying that they just can't full-stop, especially when the series already confirmed that's not true, is extremely bizarre. It kind of reminds me of how in Un Natale Mezzosangue, Rick says that demigods can't get covid for some reason? Even though demigods can get sick from other general illnesses? He just randomly decided covid was a "mortals-only illness" which has very bad undertones. Meanwhile in TOA and TSATS immortals can get hayfever. Go figure.

There is also an aspect, particularly relating to the retcons about this, with how the fandom interacts with it. The question asked to Rick to begin with implied that Percy did not already have PTSD in any form, or that Nico wasn't exhibiting PTSD from Tartarus at all. Neither of those things were true - Nico does appear to have some amount of trauma response from Tartarus in HoO and Percy VERY explicitly has PTSD in the first series and further references to it in SoN. But neither get acknowledged by readers much if at all because it doesn't look like stereotypical PTSD - it looks like real PTSD. It also never gets called PTSD by name (because it doesn't make sense to do that! You don't do that in writing most of the time). Their PTSD (and Annabeth's) only gets acknowledged by readers when it uses explicit exact terminology (like Nico in TOA) or stereotypical depictions (TSATS). Which is really a shame! Because Percy's first series PTSD is honestly a really fantastic depiction of PTSD in my opinion! It's subtle and consistent and it highlights a lot of aspects of PTSD that get overlooked beyond "actively having a full-blown panic attack" or the stereotypical "waking up screaming and crying." Particularly for a neurodiverse audience that's more likely to have cPTSD themselves, Percy having those subtler symptoms being highlighted is way more relatable because that's more likely to be the most common symptoms for those readers! And i do very much wish that was touched upon more!

[coraniaid]

Standard disclaimer that I understand themes and motifs and I'm aware that the reasons characters do things in fiction is because the writers have decided it will drive the plot, rather than because of those fictional characters (who do not in reality exist) being inherently "good" or "bad" people.

Additional disclaimer that I don't think there's any one single reason that Faith ends up spiralling after Finch's death and siding with the Mayor, that the necessary dominoes started falling years before Faith was even Called as a Slayer and that by the time Faith had lost her first Watcher and been living out of a motel room for months and been tricked and betrayed by Gwendolyn Post and accidentally killed a man there probably wasn't anything anyone could have done to stop her from doing all of that.

One more disclaimer: I do not, despite what the rest of this post (or any other posts I may have made or fanfiction I may have written) might suggest, think that Faith's story in Buffy the Vampire Slayer would be somehow improved if she hadn't had the character arc she has in canon. I do not think it would improve the story if Faith hadn't ended up making a series of terrible and short-sided and selfish decisions which ended up making not only her own life much worse but also many other peoples' lives worse [and a couple of other peoples' lives much shorter]. I do not think Faith's fall and eventual redemption is a problem that somehow needs to be fixed.

That being said though ...

Why on Earth, when Giles realizes Faith is lying to him about who really killed Allan Finch, does he decide the best course of action is (1) to pretend to believe her, and (2) make a big show of acting as though Buffy's in a lot of trouble before sending Faith back home to her motel room? In Consequences itself the only excuse he gives is that he "needed [Faith] to think he was on her side" but .. well,

First, newsflash, Rupert: you are meant to be on her side. That is the job you signed up for and are still insisting on doing despite nominally being fired!; and furthermore

This only explains why he pretends to believe Faith. Why does he make a show of throwing the book at Buffy, something that can only help to convince Faith she was right to lie? ("If this is what he's saying to Buffy, his first Slayer and obvious favorite, imagine what he'd be saying if he knew it was me?")

Why not pretend to believe Faith, reassure her she did the right thing by coming to tell him -- and that he's sure she only did it because she knew Buffy needed help -- and then give her the speech he later gives Buffy about how "this isn't the first time something like this has happened" and he "has no plans to involve [the Council]"?

Why not tell Faith that this isn't the first time Buffy herself has been accused of killing a man and questioned by the police? Why not tell her that he himself once accidentally killed a man, and that's something that he and 'Buffy' now have in common? If possible, he could even take Buffy aside and explain the truth to her, and ask her to play along with the charade for now?

Surely if Faith sees that Giles isn't prepared to throw Buffy under a bus, and that he acknowledges that "the Slayer is on the front side of a nightly war" and that "accidents happen", and he's more interested in making sure both of them get the help they need than meting out punishment, she's much more likely to actually admit the truth eventually?

Even if she doesn't want to do that, why not just ask Faith to "sit in" while he talks to Buffy about what "she" did and asks her to explain how she was feeling, so that Faith is in earshot for any advice or suggestions he makes about what to do next? Giles says out loud in this conversation with Buffy that he's worried about "scaring [Faith] off", so ... why is that exactly what he decides to do?

Again, note the disclaimers above: I know the real answer to my question is "that isn't the story the writers wanted to tell". It is necessary for the short-term twist that Faith seems to have convinced Giles to blame Buffy for Finch's death, and for the longer term plot that Giles be unable (or unwilling) to offer Faith any help. I understand that.

But -- in-universe, pretending Giles and Buffy and Faith are all real people -- is there an explanation for this that doesn't boil down to "Giles is a pretty lousy Watcher and should probably not be acting in a mentor role at all?". Why has he decided that the number one priority before anything else must be for Faith to admit it was her, and not the girl Giles can't help but see as a daughter, who killed Finch, when he accepts that -- whoever did it -- it was entirely accidental? If he's not telling the Council anyway and nobody is going to be sent away to be punished, what is the actual issue here?

"There is no help for her until she admits what happened." Okay, Giles, but why have you decided to unilaterally invent this rule, and why do you never use it for anyone else? We saw way back in Faith, Hope & Trick that Giles has no problem at all lying to people who aren't willing to admit the truth in order to help them. If, that is, by "people" we mean "Buffy Summers". Why can't you do the same thing for a girl you don't personally like?

[marvelandponder]

I'm gonna speak from my experience and it's probably going to be different than OP's and that's okay

I had super bad social anxiety from about 10th grade through most of university. I straight up believed that if I didn't have anything "worthwhile" to say, it was a burden to say anything at all, because then you'd be subjecting people to a painfully awkward social interaction they didn't want

So basically everything I had to say wasn't "worth it" and I felt like I was failing every social interaction, or cowarding out by hiding myself away when it became too exhausting

I think over the course of those years I had about 4 or 5 therapists?

Each was helpful for different reasons but the one that was the most helpful was a guy who had me write out what I believed about socializing. And we picked them apart until we got to the underlying truth

The one that really stuck out to me was we basically got to a point where he was like "so you believe human beings are inherently judgemental"

That didn't feel right. Like, yeah, we have automatic passing thoughts, but most people don't really care about what's weird with others for more than few seconds. Then they're focused on themselves again

So that stuck out to me as a belief I could revise. Where were examples of when people didn't care about me being awkward or not knowing how to socialize?

We devised a plan to test the new theory

I was in university at the time, and there were scheduled meet ups in our LGBTQA+ centre's on campus. That seemed like a pretty safe place to try things- I had even been there before

So I went. I went a few times. It was still tough sometimes but I started to feel more safe saying things, contributing to set discussion topics, or just being quiet when I didn't have anything to add (and not beating myself up for having nothing to add)

That built a little bit of confidence, then I had a few job experiences that helped too. At first those sucked - I would have panic attacks sometimes. But then around the time I was doing this therapy, I got one where I could tell my managers first thing, hey, I've got anxiety, this is what it might look like if I have a panic attack. And I didn't have a single one that term, or the term after.

I built up confidence just by reinforcing my new beliefs that people really weren't as hyperfocused as I was. I became more social - I had a cubicle of three other students around me, so I joined in on their discussions and even had a good time

Fast forward a few years, I'm now more comfortable and confident in any social situation than ever. I call with friends every week, I go out with my partner and do all sorts of stuff together, I have this huge community of people around me in all kinds of capacities!

I'm not you, and what worked for me isn't gonna be what works for you. Also? It's valid as fuck to not be in a place where you can at all comfortably socialize with any human beings at all, and to be there for so long that you just straight give up. Or maybe it's all you've ever known

That's fucking valid and you don't need to feel ashamed for it. And also, in my personal experience as someone who couldn't socialize without anxiety for several very formative years, people can become social

Doesn't mean you have to, or that one is better than the other. I'm just saying I was in a big doomer place before about my own ability to socialize and if I was talking to my past self, she'd be so fucking relieved to hear that things get better and she doesn't have panic attacks about talking to people anymore. She actually likes it

people are way way too generous in assuming that you can just “learn to be social” and everyone will welcome you with open arms and forgive you forever for all the years you spent not talking to people. sorry no. if you don’t start out social you never get the opportunity to become social. people assume that’s just how you are and treat you accordingly, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy

[cavegirlpoems]

They Think Empathy Is A Sin Because They Worship Satan, Literally, Not Metaphorically: an esay.

OK so. I am going to do something inadvisable and make a lengthy post about something other than game design, because I can and I want to.

It's a long one. Like, extremely long. So, to avoid "Do you like the colour of the sky [gone quaker, gone tolstoy, christian anarchist edition]", here's a convenient break so you can scroll past if lengthy religious diatribes aren't your thing.

To begin with, some baselines. I am writing from a Christian perspective. More specifically, I would describe myself as a Liberal Quaker. To me, at least, this involves Christianity as a communal mystical practice, with unprogrammed worship (IE no clergy) and an entirely flat religious heirarchy. Values associated with this branch of religion include honesty, charity, humility and peace.

I adopted Quakerism as a religious framework because it was the one that worked for me. I was raised in, and still live in, a culturally Christian society; as such, Christianity provided a religious framework of symbols and meanings that I was culturally fluent with, whereas other faiths would have required a steeper learning curve since I lack that baseline familiarity. That said, I try to study and understand other religions: I would say that what I've learned of Islam and Budhism - while I'm far from an expert - have been valuable to me.

Politically, I lean hard to the left and hard towards anarchy/libertarianism. I would describe my politics as antifascist first, and then largely anarcho-communist after that, but I'm a pretty big-tent progressive. I'm also a british trans woman who keeps ending up voting Lib Dem for lack of better options, if that gives you any context.

Now, let's define some terms as I understand them and intend to use them. These are all metaphors or symbols, that we can use poetically to better articulate certain ideas. I use Christian imagery here, because that's what I'm fluent with; if I was instead fluent with Jewish or Daoist or some other religious culture, I'd be expressing my ideas with those symbols instead. So.

God: A manifestation/personification/symbol of absolute perfect goodness. God is Love. That is God is absolute unconditional love for all of creation.

Jesus/Christ: Jesus is a representation of God's love for us humans taking tangible effect. Jesus is a sacrifice God made on our behalf to rescue us from Sin. Jesus is inspired by the historical figure Yeshua of Nazareth, a 1st-century Jewish religious thinker who was quite popular and then executed by the Roman occupation.

Sin/Original Sin: Sin is simple, it's when we do bad things that hurt people. Since God loves all of us and doesn't want us hurt, God doesn't want us to Sin. Original sin is part of us; the fact that we are capable of Sinning simply because we're human.

Satan/The Devil: Satan is the force that urges us to Sin.

Heaven/Paradise: A state of goodness, where - since we have escaped sin and embraced God's wishes for us, we do not suffer.

Hell/Damnation: The state of rejecting God and personally embracing Sin, and therefore suffering.

When I talk about these things, I do not mean them in the literaly sense that a fundamentalist might. I do not believe that there is an actual literal guy called Satan who is red with stylish little horns and a goattee who spends all day tempting people and poking dead souls with a pitchfork.

Rather, these are social constructs. By way of analogy, gender and money are social constructs; they're concepts that have no inherent existence in a world that's ultimately just atoms and energy in a vacuum, but because we believe in them and lend them social weight, they gain power in our lives. In the same way the concepts of God, Satan, Sin, etc clearly effect the world. Saying 'Sin' isn't real is like saying your bank account isn't real; it has a tangible effect on the world, so it's useful to discuss it.

Does this mean that I think God, Sin, etc are just made up arbitrary symbols? No. I happen to believe in them. I happen to actively choose to believe in them, because I want to invest them with meaning in my life. This is why it's called 'faith' and not 'rational observation'. But even if they were purely arbitrary ideas, then I think that - like other purely arbitrary ideas such as 'human rights' and 'love' - they're worth believing in anyway.

Lastly, the Bible. I like the bible. It's an old historical text with some incredibly beautiful writing in it, that conveys some potent and meaningful messages. It is very obviously not an account of literal fact, but interpreted through a lens of metaphor or poetry it has a lot to teach. Not everything in it is perfect - it's a historical text that has been translated and retranslated repeatedly - but IMHO you can get a lot out of it, and its writers were, as a general rule, onto something.

You will notice that these ideas are wildly counter to the culturally conservative evangelical christian mainstream. They are, however, entirely unremarkable within the framework of liberal theology.

OK. These should be our base assumptions going in. Perhaps you disagree with them; if so, that's nice for you, but here I'm describing my worldview, not prescribing what yours should be.

It is perhaps notable that I've got this far in and only just finished defining my terms.

SO.

I have observed in the past that there are - effectively - two different, largely incompatible, religions both called Christianity. On the one hand, we have what I believe in, a belief structure that champions such virtues as mercy, forgiveness, peace and humility. On the other hand, we have the mainstream conservative evangelical christian right; this version of christianity values things like obedience, authority and (most of all) punishment.

These are fundamentally incompatible belief structures. As a stark illustration of this, consider what these two christianities want for wrongdoers. One branch wants them to repent, atone and be forgiven. The other wants them to be punished and suffer for their transgressions.

I am going to differentiate between these two beliefs. Because it's my essay and I'm on my side, I will call my beliefs Christianity, and the other side Christian Fascism.

I would argue that my values are more fundamental to the underlying message of Christianity (as derived from the teachings of that guy Yeshua I mentioned) than the other approach. In no particular order:

we have the parable of the prodigal son. Here, Yeshua teaches his followers that when somebody fucks up and then changes their mind, this is to be celebrated and they are to be welcomed back. The message of reconciliation and forgiveness is obvious.

we have the parable of the good samaritan. Again, the message is clear: we must seek to do right by even our enemies.

there are many other stories and teachings attributed to Yeshua with similar messages. Forgiveness and redemption are constant themes in his teachings. He praises the humble and the downtrodden consistently.

However, most importantly, we have the central facet of Christianity itself; the crucifixion. What happens here, and why?

God comes to earth as Jesus, and - after spreading his message described above - is publicly tortured to death in one of the most horrific execution methods available at the time. This sacrifice is made, knowingly, to absolve humanity of Sin. All of humanity. No exceptions. God loves us, He wants us to be forgiven when we sin, so he suffers and dies for us to offer us a way out.

It's right there. John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." God loves the entire world so much that He made this sacrifice, so that whoever wants it can be saved. No exceptions. Whoever you are, God loves you, and sent Jesus so you can be saved if you want it.

This is the single central pillar on which the entire rest of Christianity is built.

So, yes. The 'no true scotsman' argument gets used in discussions around Christianity, but in this instance I firmly believe that it is, in fact, possible to say that somebody is doing Christianity wrong, because the central message of Christianity stands for something (mercy, redemption, charity, etc) and when somebody acts in opposition to that, then whatever they are doing is not christian.

(an analogy: suppose somebody called themselves a communist, but in practice they voted for right-wing parties, assisted the owning-class over the class interests of the workers, espoused anti-communist rhetoric, and never did anything communist. They could claim all they want: the truth remains that they are failing to be a communist through their actual behaviour. likewise any other set of principles).

So. Christianity is not Christian Fascism. Christian Fascism is, instead, fascism wearing christianity as a disguise. They are not, meaningfully, christian, they just want you to think they are. They might believe it themselves, even.

Another example: terfs. Terfs are transphobic bigots who appropriate the name of feminism to advance their transphobic agendas. They want you to believe they're feminists. They might believe they're feminists themselves. But the things they say, and do, and seem to believe are profoundly unfeminist, and feminism as a movement has a duty to reject them. That terfs wear the mask of feminism doesn't discredit the actual feminist movement.

It's idealogical parasitism. Hollowing out one ideology and wearing its skin to advance the agenda of a different, opposing ideology.

Fascists do this a lot because the actual things they want are straightforwardly evil, and being evil on purpose tends not to be popular until you're, like, super indoctrinated, so they use appropriate the language of other movements as a trojan horse.

To my mind, there is a fairly simple litmus test for these things. There are two groups in the Bible that we are repeatedly, consistently, unequivocably told to treat well. One is Widows. The other is Refugees. These two groups were hilighted by the writers for a reason; they're vulnerable demographics with fewer social connections to support themselves, who can easily be neglected or actively victimised by a society that doesn't make an active choice to support them. When Yeshua says "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me", they are 'the least of these'.

Luckily, widows are not in the modern day at the centre of a huge culture war. Refugees, however?

So. A good litmus test. How somebody believes we should treat refugees, and immigrants more broadly. The message of the Bible is consistently to help foreigners who come to your country, to provide for them and help them settle. Jesus doesn't make any exceptions about visas or 'legal immigration' or contributing to the economy. He tells you in no uncertain terms that you must help refugees, always, every time. If you disagree with that... you're not a Christian, you're a Fascist appropriating Christianity.

(There is a massive discussion that could go here about the bible's position on sexuality, queerness, divorce, etc etc. I cannot be bothered with all that. The christian-fascist reading of these verses tends to get the most visibility, because the translations of the bible with the most visibility leaned into these interpretations. there are other interpretations and other translations that don't have these problems. I could go into more detail, but I have better things to discuss. Two key points:

the bible was written in societies where the family was incredibly reliant - socially and economically - on the husband's support. If the husband casts aside his wife and family, or stops giving a shit about them, they're totally fucked. This is the same society where 'do not let widowed women starve if they no longer have a husband to support them' is reiterated constantly. So, many admonishments against adultery etc should be read in this light: your family rely on you, do not abandon them. Many other passages - eg sodom & gomorrough - are likewise condemnation of things like sexual abuse.

more importantly, remember, the central message of christianity is one of absolute universal love so powerful that Jesus personally sacrificed himself to save us. All of us. 'The world' that God loved includes the gays and the divorcees etc. That central message takes precedent over any edge-case reading you might find that suggests that God's love has exceptions.)

There is an asymetry in public discussions of christianity (and, I think, religion more broadly).

If you have a set of beliefs that value everybody's intrinsic worth, that values considers charity and mercy good, that tells you to embrace foreigners and outgroups more generally, you will tend to the left. You will tend to adopt other left-wing ideas alongside it. Among these are ideas like cultural sensitivity, inclusivity, etc. If you believe Jesus commands you to embrace foreigners, then you will do your best not to reject them or their practices, even if they practice a different religion to you. This is doubled when christianity is a culturally hegemonic force, and you wish to do right by the meek and the humble who are being oppressed (often by that hegemonic force of christianity).

What this means is that on the left - where those following the message of Christianity properly should end up - there is an understanding that making explicitely Christian arguments is alienating and disrespectful to those you should have solidarity with. So, as a result of following (Christian) moral principles, the leftist Christian will generally not express their principles in explicitely religious terms, even when they could do so.

Not so on the right. The right doesn't have a problem with making the outgroup feel alienated or disrespecting them. Often, it quite likes this. So, they will use christian language to express their ideas.

So, even if both sides are balanced in numbers - heck, even if the christian fascists are significantly in the minority - the majority of people being vocally christian will be the christian fascists. And this presentation will reinforce the issue.

If this pattern continues within christian circles as well as in public forums - and it does in my experience - then this likewise gives the christian fascists a dispropportionate influence over what christianity becomes. So, it becomes important that in internal discussions, christian fascism be vocally opposed, and opposed in explicitely religious terms.

The fascists are not doing christianity. They do not speak for christianity, and they are not representative of the entirety of christianity. Their hollowing-out-and-puppetting of christianity to promote evil is itself an act of evil; people like this are why we have the word blasphemy.

Seeing somebody spewing hatred that results in actual, material harm to actual, real vulnerable people, and claiming that this is done in the name of Christ, is a profoundly horrific and perverse thing. It makes me feel ill to witness it.

(A further thought: traditionally, Christianity has held that Salvation is through both belief and works. That you must not only want salvation, you must act on it - which is to say, be a good person. If you claim to be saved but continue to willfully sin, that isn't good enough. So, christianity is what you do, not just how you label yourself. There is a correlation between discarding the belief in salvation by works, and christian fascism. John Calvin's spanner remains in the works to this day).

A thought on Idolatory. What is idolatory? In my view, the treatement of a man-made, worldly thing with the same reverence as holy things. If there is an object or symbol that represents a worldly, human thing that you insist must be treated with reverence and ceremony - as if it was holy - then you have made an idol of that thing.

You know, when I first learned about the way americans treat their flag, I was horrified. Because that flag is an idol. It is so obviously and clearly an idol, and yet. And yet.

Patriotism and nationalism - the revering of the state - is idolatory.

The way we fetishise cops and the military is idolatory.

Even discounting that these symbols are things that do horrific evil as their stated goals, you have taken a human thing - a political body - and treated it like its sacred.

When we consider that an Idol can be a concept or a structure, and not just a literal graven image, we start to see idolatory everywhere on the political right. This is, after all, the entire concept of 'civil religion'. The american founding fathers are not saints, the american constitution is not a holy text, and the american flag is not a holy relic, and the treatment of these things like they are is obvious and flagrant idolatory.

Read up on Tolstoy's thoughts on christian anarchism, as a logical end point of these ideas.

A little diversion on the Antichrist. I dont think Revelations is a literal predictive prophecy, I think it's a warning. It describes - through poetic and symbolic language - pitfalls the faithful might encounter, and encourages them to stand firm against them, and promises that however dire things get, good will triumph over evil in the end. It says 'things will get bad, here are some specific ways they might get bad, but you should hold onto hope'.

Who is the Antichrist in this text? It describes a type of person. Somebody wealthy and politically powerful, who achieves a position of global power and unifies disparate nations under his banner. He isn't christian, but he makes a pretence at piety and convinces the masses to treat him as a religious figure, even as he perverts and distorts religion towards his own hateful ends. He's supported by powerful cultural entities, and combined with his charisma this makes his ascent to power seem inevitable. He is utterly, utterly evil, but he also has really powerful branding that people willingly adopt. He will rise to power in a time of turmoil, sickness and widespread disasters.

Remind you of anybody?

His mark goes on the forehead and the right hand. The red maga hat, and the roman salute. I know I'm doing a paradoelia here, but surely I'm not the only one seeing this shape in the inkblots?

In times like these, I keep coming back to Revelations, and its message that even though things will get really bad, there is always hope, and God's love wins out in the end.

So. The christian fascists are not doing Christianity. They are not following Christ's agenda, which is one of universal love, mercy, and redemption. So, what are they doing, and whose agenda are they serving?

I think you see where this argument is going.

I have not discussed Satan much yet, because while I'm cogniscent of Satan's influence, my faith focusses on Christ; on mercy and redemption and fundamentally goodness rather than evil. But discussing satan becomes pertinent.

Satan is not simply a red guy with a goatee scheming to take over the world like Bible-Skeletor. Indeed, satan is not really a 'guy' at all; it's a tendency. It's the urge to sin, the temptation to not be your best self, or to be your worst self. Every time somebody pisses you off and you have that little spiteful urge to fuck them over? That idea is satan. Every time you want to take something for yourself when somebody else needs it more? Satan.

It is, I think, useful to have a concept of satan that you can personify, so you can (internally) argue against those urges.

Anyway. God loves us universally and absolutely, and wants us to flourish and prosper and do right by each other. Not doing that is Sin. So, here are some things that are sins:

the pursuit of material wealth and power at others expense (see; camels and needles, the meek and their inheritence, etc).

the defining of outgroups against whom cruelty is acceptably or encouraged.

the belief that some people are lesser; less deserving of God's grace and mercy, and so your own kindness too.

raising worldly human powers - states, laws, militaries, flags - into idols.

the - as established - blasphemous perversion of God's will towards evil ends.

These are pretty central patterns we see over and over again among the christian fascists.

They see the outgroup (queers, sluts, immigrants, muslims, people who get abortions, jews, leftists, and so on and so on) as lesser, as deserving of punishment, and they embrace the thought that God will punish them with eternal hell. (See that time pope franky said he hoped Hell was empty, and a lot of these people were furiously angry at the thought.)

They think 'prosperity gospel' isn't a blasphemous oxymoron.

They treat human authorities - cops, armies, nations - with reverence. They fucking love flags, they get extremely patriotic.

They take their hunger for power and their hatred, and they wrap it in the bible - they take God's name in vain - and sully holy things with their evil.

Plus, if we scroll back up to my tangent about the antichrist, there's a pretty good contender for the role currently, and they've embraced him whole-heartedly.

So, their worldview promotes sin.

And they are obsessed with the Devil.

But they don't see it as something they must struggle with; after all, they tend to reject the idea of salvation through works, and claim their saved because they're saved. According to them, rather than doing Christ's work making them christian, because they claim to be christian whatever they do - no matter how evil - retroactively becomes Christ's work. The things they do are good because it's them doing them, and the exact same things done by their enemies would be evil.

So they ignore that little satan-urge in their head, and displace it. They see Satan in everything else, in the outside world, in everything that isn't christian fascism. And then they do Satan's work, by seeking to punish the people they project this satan onto.

What does Satan want? He wants you to hate, he wants you to hurt others, and to profit at their expense. And their religion teaches them to hate and punish others and profit.

They serve satan. And they do it in the name of faith. They are clearly worshipping. So, who do they worship? They worship the one their actions serve.

That is to arrive at the thesis statement of this whole essay, and something I sincerely and wholeheartedly believe, in a literal sense:

the right-wing evangelical Christian mainstream worships and serves Satan.

And then what? I will confess, I am as fallible as any other human. These people - due to their hatred - hurt me and people I love. I am angry at them. I am incandescently angry at the things they do. There is a slippery slope leading from righteous indignation to hatred, and I am struggling emotionally to stay at the top of the slope, and not become actively hateful.

But rationally, how I want to feel? What my better self feels? I feel pity. Hell isn't a place with lots of bats and fire, it's seperation from God's love, and - even if they don't realise it - they turn away from God, and they suffer, and their spread their suffering. They are profoundly spiritually sick, and I want them to get better. I want them to fucking stop. I want them to step out of the dark place they've gone to and return to God's side, and to repent, atone for their actions, and find the same Mercy I want for everybody.

It's fucking hard to look at somebody who viscerally hates me for existing, and want them to recieve salvation, but I try.

I don't know how to fix them or save them. They don't want to be saved. They think our attempts to reach out to them are corruption. They think mercy is weakness and pity tempts you.

They warn each other not to give in to the sin of empathy. It's fucking heartbreaking.

[gynandromorph]

"abusers are master manipulators" is simply not accurate to reality. abuse is prevalent and varies between societies and demographics and those characteristics don't map to any form of intelligence or social prowess. abusers are often normal people manipulating regular forms of vulnerability present in social interactions between humans, who are inherently vulnerable to varying capacities. they are people who look just like you who feel a sense of entitlement to the end results of behavior directed toward others in spite of the direct harm the behavior causes. manipulation is a less risky behavior for an abusive individual to maintain perceived control over others, resources, etc. than straight up mauling someone immediately. some abusers will feel that escalating to physical coercion is too risky, ever. this is not to be mistaken for said abusers just finding psychological manipulation satiating, or abuse victims abused by those who do escalate to physical violence as catalysts to the physical abuse by not yielding enough control to satisfy their abuser. we will NEVER have control over most of the things in our life. there will always be events that take more of our control away from us. when an abusive father has a bad day at work, maybe reprimanded by his boss, and takes out the stress on his family when he comes home -- it isn't because HIS FAMILY did something that deprived him of control (they may or may not have, it doesn't really matter). he is PROJECTING the lack of control he feels onto a target he perceives as entitled to or less threatened by. that is also not to say that a loss of control is necessary for abuse to occur... some abusers simply find exercising a sense of control by knowing they're getting away with violating others gratifying in and of itself. that isn't inherently caused by a loss of control, just indulgence in excessive, harmful control. abuse is a risk, because there is inherently going to be resistance from the target. people who gain power might start to become abusive because it becomes LESS of a risk to them, and they might start to feel entitled to certain forms of gratification. it may seem like power causes abusive behavior from these superficial observations, then, but this would imply that someone without a lot of power isn't capable of abusing others. even the stupidest, clumsiest, ugliest, most awkward, least charismatic person you can imagine can attempt to abuse and can succeed at it (but they are also more likely to fail). being a "master manipulator" is not a fundamental component of that abuse, or any abuse. tangentially i think describing abusers that way also implies a conscious awareness of their own tactics like some sort of chess master moving pieces with great precision that is also not accurate to reality. they are operating on vulnerabilities WE ALL NOTICE, consciously or not, within social dynamics.

[bigskydreaming]

Imagine if you were a gay or bi man who tried a certain firefighter show because of all the attention it was getting for one of its mains having a later in life bi awakening.....and between seasons you ventured into its fandom in search of material to tide you over til the next one. And you're greeted by a deluge of posts and fics that are just cheerfully homophobic towards one half of the newly out bi character's canon relationship on the basis of 'well he's not the RIGHT gay guy' and pushing the idea that actually its fine to cheat on him because Reasons and he's sexually predacious based on......behind the scenes implications people have divined like they're reading fucking tea leaves.

But don't get it twisted....this fandom, like all fandoms, really cares about representation!

Sorry not sorry, but we really need to kill this idea that fandoms are welcoming and inviting and inherently progressive when they're frequently insular and reductive as fuck. Every single fandom I've been in has had major trends of people doubling down on their own headcanons and fanon interpretations of the characters and willfully enacting trends aimed at running off people who like the 'wrong' characters (usually characters marginalized along one or multiple axes), like the characters in the 'wrong ways' or other bullshit.

Scott is a Bad Friend fics overtaking Teen Wolf fandom was not incidental, it was a FEATURE of the fandom, because the vast majority of that fandom did not want to share its space with anyone who had the nerve to like its main character. Survivors complaining about or criticizing the prevalance of rape fics in a certain fandom has in my experience always led to a reactionary UPTICK in those fics, with gems like 'this character can, will, must be raped' in the tags making it crystal clear that some of these fics exist because how fucking DARE anyone try and push forth a narrative not agreed upon by Fandom Main.

I could cite examples for so many other fandoms, with the commonalities always being that vast majorities in these fandoms are explicitly reacting defensively to being asked to be more mindful of fandom trends revolving around or exacerbating racism, homophobia, transphobia, rape or abuse apologia, ableism, etc....

With the most prolific fucking rallying cry across countless fandoms being "No the fuck we will NOT be doing that," because lolololol.....

Fandom is an inherently progressive space, didn't you hear?

[storywestistrash]

i am actually so tired of the way westerners treat eastern europeans

[sunbunnyyy]

i know i just got here, but seeing all of the laughably bad takes from both sides of the spectrum is convincing me that no, i don’t actually need to be on social media again.

[seraphasia]

the problem with self-diagnosis that most concerns me is the risk of people, teenagers especially, pathologizing normative behavior

[tricksterlatte]

The Online Fandom 7 Deadly Sins

sloth: complaining about how no one writes the tropes or pairings you like and bashing what's already out there, while refusing to create anything you desire yourself

greed: zine and other finance-related scandals with zero remorse for those negatively affected

gluttony: spending rent money on merch, experiencing buyer's remorse, then repeating the same process next month

wrath: anon hate over literally everything under the sun, even harassing official writers and threatening them if they don't make your ship canon

pride: devaluing other's characterizations and ships to praise yours as better, whether through a canon perspective or a moral perspective, when neither matter in the long run when it comes to your own enjoyment

envy: trash talking others' fandom creations or saying you won't bother creating anything because it'll never be as good as them

lust: fighting over who tops or bottoms because of your personal preferences when one, both, or neither could happen, especially when most of these characters never even kiss canonically nor have most people fighting done any of these things irl themselves

[bogkeep]

i think. that if My Trauma™ has taught me anything, is that a lot of the time, what makes something Malicious Manipulation is the context.

like, of course we want to be able to tell when someone is trying to decieve us, and there are plenty of phrases to raise red flags and linguistic tricks designed to rope us along, to be sure... but someone saying the truth in a kind way and someone lying with ill intent can say the exact same thing. the difference is that one does not match up with reality. and yeah, that's scary! that's the whole thing about trust!! every time i see an analysis of someone's behaviour on social media with a framing of that person being SUSPICIOUS and MANIPULATIVE, it honestly really fucks with my head because ANYTHING can be posited as Suspicious and Manipulative. blocked people? didn't reply to every message from strangers? didn't publicly adress a topic or a controversy? took a break from the internet? said literally anything at all??? sounds like normal and healthy social media behaviour to ME, but what do i know! anyone who has the misfortune of finding themself the target of a smear campaign will quickly find that there's Nothing you can say or do that doesn't look Suspicious. if even a genuine effort to rectify a mistake or explain what happened can be seen as MANIPULATING THE MASSES, what chance do you have if you react in a normal, human way to being bullied? or, on the flip side, if you hold on to bad faith and read it in everything, if even generic niceness creeps you out, if there is no way for anyone to prove their innocence or humanity to you - that doesn't seem like a pleasant way to live, either. nor is constantly worrying if anything you say will come off as Malicious or Manipulative.

like, yeah. there's shitty people out there. i don't have any good advice on avoiding them. i trust easy, i often forget people can Just Go On The Internet And Tell Lies - yes i am quite autistic thank you - and my main two defenses are "i don't like the thing you're saying, either because the contents are bad or because the contents don't make any sense" and "the things you're saying and the things you're doing don't match up". those only really work if i trust myself enough, and sometimes that's hard, too.

anyway those are another two cents nobody asked for but you're getting anyway

[musical-chick-13]

.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

also a special shoutout for real like wendy epic ableism moments when she stops talking directly to winston and expresses this is b/c he communicates too incorrectly (here too literally or whatever, once again whether he misinterpreted her or she misinterpreted him, it's put on him) and thus he doesn't deserve that

[mars-ipan]

you guys ever think about the milgram shock experiments? i think about the milgram shock experiments a lot. they feel kinda relevant right now for some reason. hm

[rocaillefox]

if you are writing fanfic about a story that has Themes and you say something in the exposition thats Directly Against These Themes, well. depending on what youre saying i may keep reading BUT the point is you are on some Thin Ice. (about if i will keep reading)