#of course i by principle dont agree with it

[diabetesnscoliosis]

I don't think this should be a conversation for non indigenous australian people to have.

Should women be allowed to play the didgeridoo?

[reason-with-the-underdog]

you were not mine to save -> to be loved is to be changed

i keep thinking about how

if you boil down alhaitham & kaveh's akademiya-era fallout fight, it was that alhaitham wanted to change kaveh & kaveh could never agree with his proposed course of action

but now, as full grown adults, alhaitham isnt trying to change kaveh anymore

that core conflict does reoccur, as it did during Parade of Providence when alhaitham lectured kaveh after Act II & kaveh got annoyed

(even though Alhaitham was obviously just worried about kaveh's health/wellbeing...)

this is a common pattern of behavior for them: alhaitham is worried about kaveh & kaveh reacts defensively to it

which speaks to how stubborn & hyper-independent kaveh is

despite being someone who's dedicated to giving back to the community and contributing towards the larger social good, he's quite determined on his own path in life

he'll bear the consequences (ie bankruptcy) all by himself if necessary...! and he's much too stubborn to be talked out of his own decisions

i dont think there was any possible way kaveh could have walked away from the wrecks of the first build of alcazarzaray and still be at peace with himself

and kaveh even admits he was naive (in his teapot dialogue), but he doesnt regret it still even now

so i think its cool alhaitham realised that there's no point in trying to convince kaveh to change who he is

such is kaveh. kaveh will not be someone different, not even for alhaitham. his work & altruism are parts of his core identity

why fight a mountain who will not be moved?

instead, alhaitham goes for more "harm reduction" strategies:

help cover kaveh's bar tabs, which means he's also the one lambad calls to pick up kaveh & see kaveh home safely

snark at kaveh when he's ranting about clients to keep him in a righteous mood instead of getting depressed

there's a quote about how to be loved is to be changed....

and alhaitham certainly has changed so much from that smart-mouthed student who had pinpointed what he thought was the root of kaveh's overbearing altruism and figured he could fix kaveh's problems with that knowledge!

to now as an adult with a lot more life experience: alhaitham knows that kaveh isn't his to save

and the more he tries to force kaveh to changing, the more likely kaveh is to dig his heels in

alhaitham doesnt need to be kaveh's minder or overbearing best friend--

he wants to be kaveh's partner, his equal, which means respecting kaveh's choices for what they are

anyways kaveh's drowner analogy works rly nicely for this core conflict between them (changing people vs supporting them and protecting them from harm)

& i cant believe its canon

i really appreciate this aspect of their relationship too-- it feels very mature & realistic...

how easy it would be if you could just TELL someone how to fix their problems!

its very frustrating to see someone you care about run straight towards problems again & again...

but you can't change someone's mind bc you want it to be that way. they have to decide on their own, on their own volition, and to truly believe in their decision, for the changes to really stick

as much as it sucks that you can't just solve people's problems for them

the human experience is so much richer for all of our different perspectives and ideas and principles that will not be compromised bc someone else wanted it to be

you can't control people's thoughts & that's for the best (also alhaitham's SQ is literally about this lmao)

[steaming-system-takes]

my hot take is that internet system culture absolutely DESTROYS one of the key principles of dissociative identity at its core. hear me out.

disclaimer: not pro endo!

everyone in basically any context would agree that every individual's brain is a highly unique fingerprint and a projection of an uncontrollable consciousness. that being SAID. why are there RULES about how a system can and can't function? i understand that there are diagnostic criteria and trends, but it is so important to understand that this stuff is literally curated by our subconscious minds and is NOT SUBJECT TO CONTROL OR CONFORMITY !

how is it possible that introjects can't exist? you're telling me that my subconscious mind is able to create People out of thin air and force my mind to split itself into pieces but it also follows rules on what the guy's name can be and how he can act and what he looks like? (in tandem with each other of course)

this is my Issue With Internet System Culture. we can all agree that DID is severely under-researched but somehow we also manage to make up these random rules for ourselves.

i have had a very personal experience with this, which is why i feel qualified to talk about it. i spent the first few years of knowing my system on twitter (of all ungodly places) and my system behaved like everyone elses. co-conciousness, small numbers, lots of labels, super rigid roles, introjects dont deviate from source, solid switching, etc etc.

once i got off of twitter and just started hanging out on my own, my system's behavior changed DRAMATICALLY.

The Stuff You Feed Your Subconscious Mind Will Impact How It Treats Your System.

once i stopped letting the influence of system Rules and what can and can't happen, my system digressed into a more logical (but less rigid) process. roles spread out, the front room held a different function, switches felt different, even fronting was almost a different experience. and it was SO MUCH EASIER. i haven't felt like i was faking in over a year. i haven't worried about splitting in so long.

systems, with all the love and respect on this planet and in my heart, if you feel like you're faking, delete the app. unfollow the tag. your brain is a fingerprint, stop trying to match it to anyone else's . your system functions in a unique and curated way in order to protect you in your childhood. there was no manual when your trauma happened. i love you 🫶

^

[azurdlywisterious]

How would the atompunk trio react if the protags of their games were switched around. Like idk, put Chell in Rapture and the Courier(however you designed them) in Aperture and Jack in the New Vegas Strip. You can decide how the protags are swapped around though

oh ho ho you have no idea how long ive been planning the larger universe this au in my head is set in. so let's tune into the madness together, shall we?

(circutboard divider made by @violetbudd )

Mr. House meets Jack

Mr. House was not expecting a jumpy, uncoordinated young adult to stumble his way into the Lucky 38, but Victor has nothing but good things to say about the kid so he can't be bad. Jack follows order well, which is both a blessing and a curse Mr. House finds out, so he works out a way to get Victor to keep reminding Jack of what he needs to do and it's smooth sailing from there. Would consider working out a deal with the Followers of the Apocalypse to see what is up with Jack after the Hoover Dam battle.

Mr. House meets Chell

Mr. House gets along with Chell quite well. Chell is efficient and creative with completing missions. And she's willing to be paid in only information which cuts down on costs by a lot. He does find that gun of hers rather intriguing, which would turn into a whole cat and mouse of him trying to get the portal gun from her to examine and her not giving him the gun. Chaos ensues.

Cave Johnson meets the Courier

Cave Johnson wouldn't realize that the various people he keeps testing are all the same Courier. But hey, when you're dealing with an anomaly that keeps reincarnating lets you vivisect them, you tend not to ask too many questions (except for why do you keep coming back after you fall into the corrosive water). Certainly keeps the Courier around later on, hoping to figure what keeps them regenerating their body while keeping their memories intact (in his quest to live forever). Sadly, he doesn't figure it out in time. The Courier would then explore the Aperture labs until who knows when. Although thanks to the fact that they can sorta never die (sure their body dies but their memories dont think kinda like a timelord) then they would remember exactly who Caroline was when interacting with GLaDOS. Oh and the angst of finding all the old lab stuff and Cave Johnson's voice logs again at the Portal 2 timeline point of the game that would actually be heartbreaking.

Cave Johnson meets Jack

Cave Johnson loves Jack. Everyone loves Jack! Who wouldn't love Jack? Cave Johnson would be sure to let everyone know that no one gives Jack orders except for him and Caroline. Would treat Jack like the son he never had and also give him cocaine for his anxiety (for science). Would also want to vivisect Jack to figure out how he keeps lighting things like the mantis men on fire. Wasn't seriously considering making combustible lemons until he saw Jack could light things on fire and decided that the same principles could be applied to lemons too.

Andrew Ryan meets the Courier

Andrew Ryan actually gets to interact with only one Courier thanks to the Vita-Chambers. And as luck would have it, he gets to interact with Suzie Fromme (my favorite courier and the one I always think of when I think of couriers). And he would think Suzie is weird and unhinged and way too powerful but not in a cool way but in a way that scares him (you modded a Bethesda protag of course she breaks reality). But since she's an agent of chaos that only wants to help people he would strike a tentative deal with her to take Atlas down. She would agree for the low price of "a room in the prettiest building in Rapture" which according to her is in Fort Frolic(?) which with all the delirious denizens dropping like drones means that there probably is an open room. Did I mention Suzie has the Black Widow perk? Upon finding out how she got rid of Atlas, Andrew Ryan decides that she is not to be trifled with at all and can be Sander Cohen's problem until the city collapses.

Andrew Ryan meets Chell

Andrew Ryan would probably love and hate Chell. Love because she dispatches enemies with efficiency and doesn't listen to Atlas but also doesn't listen to him. Eventually determines that she just wants to go to the surface and leave forever and after doing a couple of missions for him, lets her. Doesn't like that she's playing all sides trying to find the fastest way to leave, but she just wants to always come put on top. Which she does. Would weaponize her bond with Tenenbaum in a last ditch attempt to get her to do what he wants.

[julietasgf]

I'll answer more calmly all later but when I saw your reply I realized I forgot to add my new hc of how Marcus and Sejanus meet in the latam AU (although it could also serve to some extent in canon) 😔😔

So I started to ramble on about certain details of that great moment of gentleness between Sejanus and Marcus and I was like ok putting snow on someone's finger to get them uninjured is a bit unusual knowledge for a child and more so if they were so young. I'm sorry I've never seen snow but I'm sure if I lived in a place with snow at that age I and many other kids probably would have eaten it instead of using it that way so I came to the conclusion that Marcus' parents, well mother, I don't know I always visualized him as the son of a single mother IDK, but his mother probably had some knowledge in traditional medicine -huesera, like those ladies who know all about tea and herbs and ointments and move arms and weists😝

So Baby Marcus from a young age had some knowledge on how to take care of small injuries BUT WELL. What I thought for the latam au was; Imagine Baby Sejanus gets sick and they take him to the doctor and give him all kinds of treatments but nothing seems to work and Vesta is heartbroken but won't give up so even though she had to fight with Strabo (not much because he ended up giving in because that's his son and well it wouldn't hurt to try even if he feel untrust about these things but Vesta yelled at him and threatened him a little so he stopped arguing quickly, pls "Vesta DONT ask me the divorced 😭" "🙄") Vesta starts looking for alternatives and that's when someone from her neighbors tells her about Marcus' mother and she goes and asks for help

And they start treating baby Sejanus who actually gets better!!!! but here's the thing :)) because baby Marcus helped his mom maybe with little things like watching Sejanus while he was napping or changing his pañuelo to bring his temperature down (while Vesta and Marcus' mommy become friends <3 and support each other with Marcus' mommy comforting Vesta and giving her encouragement and I'm sure Vesta would bring her bread and candy and probably made a principle payment for Sejanus treatment).

But I kinda see Sejanus was with fever and very tired the first days and Marcus didn't get a chance to talk to him well and was very curious to meet him, wondering all the time who he was and then one day baby Sejanus wakes up and their eyes meet and 😳

And that's it hahaha, wait for my proper response to your reply later

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I LOVE THIS SO SO SO MUCH 😭😭😭

I've read some works on ao3 that have marcus' mom as a doctor on D2, and I think that to be really sweet; I've also never seen snow in my life, but I agree lmao 😭 and I also agree, in my head it's is already canon he's the kid of a single mother. and LOVE the idea of marcus' mom knowing about traditional med (here we call these ladies benzedeiras, it's common in small towns for when children are sick for moms to take them for these ladies to pray and give them teas and herbs)

strabo is extremely skeptical, he's that kind of guy who just doesn't believe in anything, but he was willing to spend any amount of money to get bby sejanus healthy again. and still, nothing is working, and he's already running out of ideas; vesta was letting him have control of the situation, but she was getting more and more desperate (that's her baby, she can't lose him like that), and then it comes to the point she grows so impatient and stands by the fact that NOW she's going to decide which doctor they would get sejanus to, and she already settled her mind on asking marcus' mom over. and of course they fight, bc strabo thinks it's such a waste of time to invite this lady over because "these are just plants, it won't make him better", but in the end, he gives in (the divorce threat made me laugh 😭 that's what he deserves). and vesta grew up in a small village, she saw plenty of times her sisters being sick and getting better because of this kind of treatment, so she at least have to try.

BBY MARCUS GOING TO HELP HIS MOM IS JUST SO ADORABLE, and his mom is apologizing to vesta because she didn't want to bother but she promises marcus is a good kid, and vesta not only is absolutely okay with it, but she spoils marcus so much, giving him all kind of treats and sweets (at the end of the day marcus and his mama come back home with a bowl with vesta's homemade dulce de leche). and when his mom and vesta are chatting, and his mom is comforting her saying everything will be okay, he's watching sejanus. and when marcus is caring for sejanus, he sometimes talks to sejanus, muttering stuff like "just get good already, your ma is worried about you" and "and you get better, maybe we can play together, you have really fancy toys". and vesta promises marcus that once sejanus gets better, they can play together ("but mrs. plinth, what if he doesn't want to play with me?" "he WILL, it's not a matter of choice").

the moment sejanus finally wakes up and sees marcus in his room omg 🥹 and they stand there in silence for a while, until marcus finally opens his mouth to say that sejanus has the biggest brown eyes he have ever seen, and sejanus is like "...thanks? I guess?" but blushing so hard. and then there's the whole moment of vesta crying so hard and hugging sejanus and thanking on her knees to marcus' mama. she turns to marcus and promises him he'll ALWAYS be welcome on their house. but marcus doesn't come back until sejanus goes after him to knock on his door and ask him to go to his house to play and watch tv with him after school.

(I'm actually obsessed with this, tysm bc this will probably live in my mind rent free for the next weeks 😭)

[commandtower-solring-go]

I dont know if i ever shared it here, but I did actually read 12 Rules to Life by Jordan Peterson. And it's the worst book I've ever read.

And I feel like some people will jump in like "duh, of course it is." But have you actually read it? Have you actually read Peterson's work? Or have you just heard people talk about it. Because Peterson can write and can write philosophy well. I dont agree with any of his core principles, but he writes cohensively.

But 12 Rules To Life. Fuck. It's a testament to the density of nonsense someone can fit into 300 pages.

[dennisboobs]

i know peace bc ive never used twitter it seems like ur torturing urself a bit

yeah. but honestly if i can make like. one person stop fucking harassing glenn i'll take it. idgaf about these idiots qrting me trying to make fun of me, i don't want them anywhere near my twt (free blocklist) and they'll forget about it in an hour anyway. but some people have seemingly genuinely thought about it and agreed after a little pushback. it's mostly a bunch of teens who want to be edgy or think glenn has no feelings because he's a C list celebrity with a nice house. i don't think many people bother trying to push back against the accepted culture over there and most of them seemingly don't even think about it. i don't know why but twitter culture just. expects you to be incredibly fucking rude to celebrities on principle even if you like them. and this is. encouraged. and applauded. i think its disgusting, and ive been on the receiving end of parasocial relationships that had people getting overly invested in me and my friend, completely fucking obliterated any boundaries and speculated about our genders/sexuality/relationship so its. kind of personal. i hate to see it and i can empathize with glenn to a degree. especially when like. you compare other clips of him at cons or even on the podcast where he's WAY more reserved talking too deeply abt queer shit vs those encounters with fans, the guy was having the time of his fucking life with a bunch of superfans who let him know how much they care about his work. i really, really wish that we were on our best behaviour and a bunch of fucking 15 yr olds who have never been called a slur a day in their life and don't know the weight of their words weren't creating a hostile space for both sunnytwt and for glenn. why do you, as a fan, not want to be able to interact respectfully with someone you admire? why do you not want to treat him as a human being? like there's a difference between deifying a celeb vs being fucking respectful. it's not like this is elon musk it's fuckin. glenn. like he is so. just a guy. treat him like one. i can't help but feel bad when 90% of what he sees from fans are people in the comments of his posts bullying him. like why would you not want this man to know how insane he makes you on a daily basis. why are you so afraid of expressing genuine emotion that you have to harass him. bc its cringe to say you like sunny? that's the extent of his fucking interactions with fans. of course he's stoked to talk to fans who have actual love for the show. he probably never fucking sees it. and you know. its frustrating to see people who were THERE. interacting with him in person. now doing this shit. my own mutuals were doing that shit. i follow like 6 people on sunnytwt. its just. accepted. idk. i don't know how to phrase this in a way that makes sense but if you enjoy glenn's interactions with the fandom so much maybe dont fucking push him away. if there are a bunch of ppl qrting his old tweets with what seems like actual literal hate. idk. id start deleting if i were him. like there are just zero fucking boundaries and it makes me mad. why would you do this shit when you could take advantage of him being accessible and tell him how much sunny + dennis means to you instead.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Whats your view on the Case of Päivi Räsänen that she is not guilty of "hate speech". She says its a win for freedom of speech. Which i partly agree, i also dont think its hatespeech to quote the bible and explain why you dont agree with a certain lifestyle, but i think tolerance (not acceptance) is nice and sometimes you can just shut the fuck up. I also dont comment on other peoples relationship, because its not my relationship. Also i dont feel comfortable with someone from an ideology which has a long history of censorship (blasphemy laws) in the past.

Supporting freedom of speech is super-easy when we agree with what's being said. But that's not why it's there or why it's needed. You don't need freedom of speech when everybody's in agreement and likes what's being said. It's much harder to support it when it's something we strongly disagree with or even find appalling and vile.

There's a distinction between supporting what someone says, and supporting their right to say it. And a further distinction between holding and arguing ideas we might not like, and someone actually inciting or advocating violence or the violation of people's rights. Or being compelled to go along with them. It's okay to be a Xian and to believe that everybody needs salvation through Jesus Christ, but you don't get to go round to your work colleagues and tell them that they need to accept Jesus or burn in hell, even if you actually believe it. It's okay to be a Woke and to believe that the world is controlled by invisible nebulous power forces, but you don't get to insist others be trained to believe the same.

It's not just the right to the ideas you have or believe, but how you go about exercising that right. It's the difference between "speech you hate," and "hate speech," which is supposed to be about targeting and inciting. The problem of late has been conflating - deliberately, as much as inadvertently - the former with the latter.

Reminds me of something Ricky Gervais said:

I'm not tweeting anyone, I'm just tweeting, okay. I don't know who's following me. I've got 12 million followers. I don't know who's following me, they can be following me without me knowing, choose to read my tweet and then take that personally.

That's like going into a town square, seeing a big noticeboard and there's a notice, "guitar lessons," and you go, "but I don't fucking want guitar lessons!"

What's this? There's a number here. Right, call that, right. Are you giving guitar lessons? Yeah? I don't fucking want any!

Fine, it's not for you then, just walk away. Don't worry about it.

The culture of victimhood has reframed disagreement as targeting or incitement. Linda Sarsour, Sharia-enthusiast and known pathological liar, has claimed that criticism of Islam is a denial of the right of Muslims to exist. It's not even like, "I'm offended so they're wrong." It's "I'm offended, so they shouldn't be allowed to say it."

I haven't been able to find what Räsänen actually wrote, only various reporting about the case.

But I would argue similar to things I've said before about my own criticism of Islam. I'm allowed to hold anti-Islam views. I can write about them. I can make my arguments and put forth my evidence, quote the scripture, etc. But I don't get to call for Muslims to be hunted down and killed, or to violate their right to their religion. That doesn't mean I can't insist they be held to the same standards as everyone else with regard to how they practice it. They don't get to block roads while praying. They don't get to hang their daughters upside down in a garage to beat their feet for failing to properly recite the quran. The laws of the land still apply.

There's a few reasons why that's important.

There's a liberal principle that laws that are applicable to a society should be created such that you would accept those laws regardless of what part you play in that society: rich, poor, male, female, black, white. (Of course, "antiracism™" and CRT activists explicitly object to such neutrality.)

Or to put it another way, rules you use to control someone else's speech can be used by them to control yours. Political parties do not remain in office forever - except in a dictatorship - and you don't want to create or give them the weapon that they can use against you.

I've been watching what's been going on in Ireland, and as far as I can tell, it's a disaster in the making. Especially the "for the greater good" language. Not only is this an ominous portent of authoritarianism, but even if this isn't misused by its creators, they will not hold office forever. You create a censorship law to silence your enemies, and at the next change of government, they'll use the same laws to silence you. For the greater good.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/ireland-on-the-verge-of-establishing-an-oppressive-censorship-regime/

Despite superficial similarities to First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S., the proposed Irish hate-speech statute would all but guarantee its politicized use.

Biden's government tried to set up their own Ministry of Truth, to be headed by someone who was both dangerously unqualified and, much more concerningly, an activist and herself a spreader of disinformation. But again, the ruling party inevitably changes. Maybe not at the next major election, but at some point. And that puts a Ministry of Truth into your opposition's hands, to now wield it against you.

As Christopher Hitchens opined:

"Every time you violate, or propose to violate, the right to free speech of someone else, you in potentia, you’re making a rod for your own back. Because, to whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor? … To whom you would give the job of deciding for you? Relieve you from the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Do you know anyone? Hands up, do you know anyone to whom you'd give this job? Does anyone have a nominee?"

Don't martyr your opponents. If you silence them, it just makes them noble sacrifices for the cause. (You can't always stop others from martyring themselves.) Remember that it's not just religionists who are prone to venerating martyrs.

It becomes "secret knowledge they don't want you to know" and thus forbidden and attractive. The Streisand effect is a real thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing awareness of that information. It is named after American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph of her cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew far greater attention to the heretofore obscure photograph in 2003.

And it'll just go underground anyway, away from where you can see it, monitor it and deal with it. Positioning people outside of, and in opposition to society, never results in anything good. It's better to let them voluntarily tell you what they're up to, which also makes it easier for you to show others what they're doing.

Like I say, short of actual incitement, libel, etc, things that are already illegal anyway.

This is a long train-of-thought way of saying that I don't have to like what Räsänen has to say, but she has the right to her beliefs, to write about and talk about those beliefs, as long as doing so doesn't violate the rights of others. Including not violating their right to hear people she doesn't like. And not being offended, having to like what she says, is not itself a right.

“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn’t exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.” -- Salman Rushdie

But we have the same right has her: to have a different idea, to argue it in response to her - even if she finds that offensive - or even to ignore her entirely.

[autogynocrat]

ive reached a point where men act like im out of place when i use the men's bathroom, but using the women's bathroom is scary. i dont feel like i pass actually, and people will be mad at me if i go in there. most places don't have gender neutral options for bathrooms and most lawmakers who want to ban trans people from the bathroom are also opposed to gender neutral options(some of the states in this current wave of anti trans legislation went out of their way to ban gender neutral bathrooms, which seems to me to be a purely spitefully motivated proposal. tell me. who is being "protected" by that??). to be honest i feel safest in the gender neutral bathroom but those will never be the norm. you can't require it bc it would cost millions of dollars to retrofit neutral bathrooms into existing buildings even if you could get past the republicans who oppose it on the principle of just literally hating trans people. it is of course by design bc they are hoping you will recognize the only solution they want to leave behind is "just dont be trans" much like they tried to stop people from being gay by various simultaneous social pressures. sorry 4 ranting these laws keep getting proposed every week and they are a worrying thing. the nominal casus belli on trans issues is protecting "female true real women" and "think of the children" but most of these bills have a broader more malicious scope than what they claim. if it was just about protecting cis women and children why do they wanna ban the Healthcare for adults what ever happened to autonomy or informed consent or "i don't agree with your lifestyle but if you aren't hurting anyone you can do what you like" all those principles go out the door when the opportunity to be forceful about the imposition of your desired society becomes possible

[thevagueambition]

Les Mis 1.1.4 thoughts

a lot of this post is about things that annoy me about christianity just fyi lol

Re Geborand, I'm reminded of something biblical scholar Dan McClellan has talked about (e.g. in this 2 min video) called the "prophetic critique" where various performances of piety are criticised in the old testament/tanakh. The context of that being that when the rich and powerful perform piety through these offerings and festivals while at the same time violating religious principles of mercy and charity, their offerings become sinful.

"There is M. Geborand purchasing paradise for a sou." is not quite the same thing, but it hits on this same idea of the public performance of piety with an ulterior motive in mind (whether social propriety or a ticket to paradise) not being paired with moral behavior

(I guess the text doesn't mention if Geborand starts behaving more morally alongside his charity, but how paltry said charity is certainly suggests not)

The bishop's use of local dialects contrasts with the FRev's dogmatic desire to define a french citizen as a speaker of standard french

Myriel's religious views frankly seem fairly similar to the sort of Christianity I was raised with (there are shitty conservative priests in my area as well, but not in my immediate community).

His virtue lies in correctly identifying the miserable as the inheritors of the earth and in acting according to his principles

The description of Myriel's beliefs does hit on a part of Christianity that deeply annoys me, though: the body as something bad which must be subordinated to the mind/soul ("Man has upon him his flesh, which is at once his burden and his temptation. He drags it with him and yields to it. He must watch it, cheek it, repress it, and obey it only at the last extremity.")

Why should the body be bad? It can cause you pain, of course. You can fall ill, you can get injured. But you can also embrace others, you can smell the smells of your home, you can eat your favourite dish. The body that hurts loves and feels pleasure, too. But then of course "pleasure" is exactly what's "dangerous" about the body – as if all pleasure was selfish and destructive 🙄

(I don't agree with the Descartean body/mind split in the first place. Imo you are your body. Your mind is part of your body.)

It relates somewhat to this other thing that irks me about Christianity -- and which I think might also actually be relevant to Myriel's development in this chapter, lol -- which is Christianity as a cope religion. It identifies the problems of the world -- illness, oppression, war -- and says "but if you're kind, if you dont break our rules, the afterlife will be wonderful." Like we don't have to fix the problems we have in the world because in the afterlife you will be free from suffering. Enduring the world piously is the goal, not making it better

(I'm aware that there are many Christians who don't think that way. My dad believes firmly in God and (his own personal interpretation of) the Bible and that's certainly not how his morals shake out. But that is an element in many permutations of Christianity)

Anyway where I think this might actually be relevant to Myriel is re "It is wrong to become absorbed in the divine law to such a degree as not to perceive human law." One interpretation of that is that if you focus exclusively on piety and the solace of divine judgement, it precludes you from perceiving injustice and brutality in the world and acting against it. An injust ruler may be condemned in the afterlife, but you should do something about him in this life, too

I think Hugo is probably right in saying that the death penalty is the sort of thing one can't be neutral on once one has seen it in action

Becaise it's one of the few pieces of leftist theory I actually have read and (mostly) understood, Walter Benjamin's Critique of Violence (Zur Kritik der Gewalt) it probably occupies an outsized prominence in my thinking on several things, buit in it Benjamin argues that the death penalty is the ultimate form of law establishing -- that the threat of violence(/force) behind law is what makes that law into a reality rather than a piece of writing and that in control over life and death being the ultimate form of violent power to hold over someone, capital punishemtn is useful for a legal system less because of its literal function and more because it so concretely manifests the law

"The opponents of these critics [of capital punishment] felt, perhaps without knowing why and probably involuntarily, that an attack on capital punishment assails not legal measure, not laws, but law itself in its origin. For if violence [...] is the origin of law, then it may be readily supposed that where the highest violence, that over life and death, occurs in the legal system, the origins of law jut manifestly and fearsomely into existence. In agreement with this is the fact that the death penalty in primitive legal systems is imposed even for such crimes as offenses against property, to which it seems quite out of "proportion." Its purpose is not to punish the infringement of law but to establish new law. For in the exercise of violence over life and death, more than in any other legal act, the law reaffirms itself." (online PDF version of source)

[vamossainz55]

So glad we’re in agreement on the parents topic! 😄

I think those people who hold what Carlos’ parents do against him are mostly the same group of people who hate Carlos on principle, nitpicking everything he does or says 🤷‍♀️ I imagine they want to be bullies in real life but are too afraid of consequences so they resort to social media to live out their mean girl fantasies online where you can say anything without any repercussions (unless you’re a celeb I guess). It’s the sad reality we live in. He gets hate when he’s realistic in interviews about ferrari’s results which somehow means he doesn’t have a champion mentality, but when he says he wants to win - he’s totally delusional. Like, pick a struggle, people haha. Or like drama the other day, that he hasn’t been a Ferrari fan since birth therefore isn’t as worthy of support as Charles. Just all these stupid things that make my head explode every time I see it. Why would anyone waste their time posting obsessively about someone they don’t like? I will never understand.

Again, I’m not talking about all Charles fans of course, just those hardcore stans that dedicate their socials to Carlos hate more than to supporting their fav. I like to believe that in a couple of years they’ll look back on what they were doing and be ashamed and learn to never do it again to anyone, celeb or not.

I also want to say that I’m sad that Carlos barely posts on social media himself but at the same time I hope it means he doesn’t see all this stuff, because when this kind of animosity is directed towards you over the silliest things, I think it’s harder to get over it in a way, because you can’t explain it logically to yourself…

so so glad we are in agreement about the parents thing too, i feel like so many people lose touch of reality and forget that theyre humans who have family, friends, that arent a full representation of them 😫.

you might get me introuble w the whole charles thing but… i agree. some (not all at all) are very questionable. i do think they actively as you mentioned spend more time talking abt carlos then their fav which ? why 😭 (ive mainly seen it on f1twt tbh). like the online hate is ridiculous- i also recently realised its really reserved online? i had this perspective that so many of the tifosi disliked carlos but the whole monza weekend he was so so loved. i was so surprised until i realised its literally a problem that mainly exists online 💀.

but im gonna be honest as well, charles as well gets quite a bit of hate. after monza i saw it increase a bit, which i do not stand for and i think overall that those people online should take their heads out of their ass and focus on bringing their favorite driver up than tearing another one down. you can support your favorite driver without rooting for the downfall of another. can your driver only be good/better if the other driver is shitty? is that the image you want? i also agree anon, they’re probably repressed irl and need to release negativity through comments.

i really miss how active carlos was on social media, im sad that i missed his mclaren era and just posting for fun. ofc we get the occasional post here and there but the vibe is really different. but yeah- at the end of the day it might be better that he doesnt see the hate but at the same time i dont think it changes much bc hed still be online… just not posting as often. im just kind of sad we see less of his personality more than anything else ):

anyways this ended up soooo long hehe. hope it wasnt too much but waa i love these types of discussions

[magnoliamyrrh]

Are you a radfem?

somewhat, yes. i suppose the feminism i believe in is in actuality a combination of a whole bunch of things. i lean twoards radical feminism as a framework and theory, im particularly fond of the writings of woc and third world women during the second wave. a lot of jewish women were writing in this time too. im on board with most of radical feminist theory, i think most of the analysis of the root of female opression and the functions of patriatchy is very solid, and i agree with many of its goals. i also hold the same definition of feminism - a class movement for the liberation of the female sex. i do very much believe in sisterhood, and try my best to function on this principle even when it gets very hard with some women. Radical feminism is of course split in several branches and some of them i can't stand (the political lesbianism shit being one of them). generally im what would be called a matriarchist i suppose. i do not want equality between the sexes but rather equity. i hold that both this, and female liberation are possible through the instatement of a matriarchal and matrinial society, and im very fond of the current day matriarchal societies and cultures which remian. and before someone inevitably asks, no i dont hate or exclude trans women. sex dysphoria can be a very delibilitating medical condition, its something ive experienced myself, and i have sympathy for those who are going through this and simply trying to cope and live their lives. while this is a different experience than biological women, and they are not opressed on the basis of female biology, a transexual woman especially one who passes and has for many years, does have some similar experiences, experiences a form of misogyny, and we definetely have struggles in common. probably the most obvious one being that transexual women and girls as well as third-gender, mostly homosexual males of other cultures are hit particularly hard by prostitution due to the idea that they "are like women," particularly the latter, and thus they should be subjugated to our same historical opression. i however do not believe in queer theory, because it is postmodernism. and before someone asks the other question, no, the vast majority of radical feminist theory does not hold that males are biologically doomed to be horrible and opressive, nor do i believe this. we believe this is an issue of socialization which starts from childhood.

generally i just care about the feminism of the second and third world lmao. radical feminism is particularly popular outside of the west, or, another way to put it, the feminisms of the nonwestern world have infinately more to do with radical feminism than liberal "feminism"/academic feminism/choice feminism/mainsteam western feminism/postmodern feminism. i do not for a second buy into it, and frankly i cant stand it and i never have. and i outright despise postmodernism for a whole bunch of reasons - largely bc it was a bunch of egotistical useless french pedophiles working with the god damn cia; google it, provable fact lmao. its a damn psyop. to me it is nothing more than selfish, hyper individualistic, completely lacking in analysis, antirevolutionary and priviledged. i think the idea that theres no universality between women is horseshit made to dismantle class conciousness. at best its useless and annoying at worst its outright dangerous and harmful. its a sort of feminism who may as well be white feminism 2.0 imperialist feminism 2.0. which thinks opression ends when it ends for a small privileged minorty who learn to take advantage of the opressive system better, or who are lucky. no. opression ends when it ends for the lowest, most unfortunate sister. and until then, none of us are truly free

feminism isnt about individualist choice and perception and desires, it is about thinking of the good of our fellow sisters, of all of us. and chocies dont exist in a damn vaccum

i also lean heavily twords islamic feminism as well as marxist feminism - there being a connection between these two and radical feminism. islamic feminism is described as an indigenous feminism coming from within the islamic world, from muslim women (some muslim in belief, some only culturally muslim)- it is not the same as the importation of western choice feminism into islam, or outsiders critiquing the religion and culture. islamic feminism tends to be very analytical and critical, and several of the most prominent writes of the movement were influenced by the writings of the radical women of colour of the second wave. it also has a strong marxist influence. it functions on the same principles of material analysis and with the same goal - understanding the root of the opression of the female sex (in this context in islamic societies), understanding the function of patriatchy (within islam and related cultures), and among the radical branches seeks the complete liberation of the female sex and the dismanteling of the islamic patriarchy - though this may look different in goals from western radical feminism, for example. it is however a very diverse movement, and there are many women who either dont consider themselves feminists or wouldnt typically be considered by others feminists. theres a scale from traditionalists, more centrist/reformist sisters, and outright radicals. the movement is also very heavily tied into the feminisms of the third world, and the anti imperialist effort for obvious reasons - imperialism is a big part of the discourse

as for marxist feminism, this is also feminism which has to do with the female class, not individualism. it focuses on the patriarchy functioning on the exploitation of the female reproductive capabilities, as well as the emotional and physical labour, by the male class. very common basis of analysis in islamic feminism as well. also a focus on how economic and class shifts affect women throughout history. this one also has a strong focus on the critique of capitlism, as well as because of this imperialism.

[nahalism]

How old are you if you don’t mind me asking? I’m the “liberal feminists are dumb” anon maybe I should pick another name to identify myself lmao but for someone so young you seem to be someone very wise. I did mean it when I called you intelligent last time, I’m curious about what made you want to learn about esotericism, while I don’t believe in everything esotericism has to say it’s definitely something that has always attracted me too. Like what books do you or have you read?

lmao, its cool come as u are. & im 25 (will be 26 in june). and thank you

i dont want to make this reply a long history of my life story, cause ultimately it will just be a story & one that may have no bearing or relation to what you feel/think. my truth is that i feel each person should believe and follow in what feels true for them. for me that is the principle of being loving and lovable, creating harmony or betterment where i go, and leaving what i touch better than how i found it or at least untainted by my presence. when i fall short of that, i dissect it and apply it to myself painstakingly so that i become a fuller expression of what i want to be and that has always been my nature. esoteric study has helped me tremendously in that pursuit, but it isnt the core reason its my nature to pursue that way of living. ive always loved the stories of people older than me, music, literature, science, history, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, building things, logic, so schools of thought whether they be animism, islam, christianity, hinduism, theosophy, syncretism, the kabbalah, the sybil oracles, are all of interest to me because theyre like giant slabs of all of those subjects put together to pick apart and bring me to a fuller understanding of the world. i take what i find to be true & apply it, leave what i dont agree with & respect it because one day i might find it relevant. but ive always said on here and still feel that its not what you know or how much you know, its what you do with it. knowing something means nothing if it cant be practically applied & my experiences, beyond any book ive ever read, are what lead me to feel conviction in my beliefs. & yes, 😂those experiences are all the typical inexplicable psychic phenomena that are usually palmed off as woowoo. so ill write a list of some authors or books that have been great resources for me over the years below, but what i hope you ultimately get from this is that its what we feel and what we experience that trumps everything. ive met many athiests that are just genuinely good people & i think that example exhibits this best. to not believe in a god or a point to any of all this and still choose to be 'good' for goodness sake is i think what all of these teachings wish for us to arrive at.

- ted andrews and ivan antic (both have many good books), manly p hall - the secret teaching of all ages, helena blavatsky isis unveiled and the secret doctrine, rudolph stiener (many good books all audio also as books on youtube), any resources left behind by nikola tesla and einstein are incredibly to marry with the content in many of these books, florence scovel shinn, krs1 (also many good videos on youtube), ralph waldo emerson has amazing insights, james redfield the celestine prophecy, the monk who sold his ferarri robin sharma, santos bonacci has a good video on syncretism & how the bible relates to astrology and the earth as a tauric field of energy, robert wang quabalistic tarot is phenomenal, and of course the bible, the quaran, the bhagavad gita, the majority of hindu and buddhist texts and whichever gnostic texts you can get your hands on. if you are a sceptic your free to remain a sceptic. the key thing is to allow the texts to meet you where you are, but to know the difference between bias and separating the wheat from the chaff. best of luck & feel free to dm me at any point

[edvinception]

“But of course his background has shaped who he is and has probably helped him in so ways.”

I agree and disagree with that statement. Of course it’s true but let’s be real how many privilege kids don’t give a single fuck about that. They absolutely dont think too deeply about their privileges, they’re tacky, show off a lot and on top of that are absolutely asses ect.

For now our world is still what it is unfortunately. And if privileged people still exist I rather support someone like Edvin and I’m so okey with that because he’s worth it. Because he is HIM.

I absolutely cannot relate to him in so many levels but I refuse to shit on him / shade him just by principle. Such weird mentality to me.

Look at the person for what/who they are as a person idk.

I'm with you but I'm not trying to shade him. And I don't want to assume that the previous anons wanted to either.

Every person on earth gets shaped by their background. That's just the way it is.

Noone has said Edvin is a bad person because of that. Or that he's a bad person at all.

I think people are just interested in discussing.

[cyanlastride]

are you with me?

you fucked it up. again.

true. this puts an odd damper on things.

and for what? what does this accomplish?

it means i have principles. it means that i am willing to have fair and even discussions. it means i will defend a guilty person if the punishment does not fit the crime.

and you will burn all your social connections in the process.

yes. not intentionally, but its seems like that is the price.

fuck you. fuuuuuck you. i cannot fucking believe this.

i am right. i argued in a fair and concise manner. i did not do so with the intention of hurting anyone, and i am sorry if i did so. what more do you want from me.

i want this to stop fucking happening!!!

so what, i get in line and agree with the crowd? even when they are saying hurtful things about someone who may not deserve it? i should not stand in defense of those i believe deserve it, even when i stand alone?

no. of course not. i just... i wish it was less complicated.

less complicated is what people make things to cover up all the ugly truths they dont want to acknowledge.

this was stupid.

it was necessary. principles need to be stood by, always. that is why i hope i didnt genuinely hurt anyone. that principle is stronger than the ones on which the argument was based.

do you have no principle for remaining friends with people?

no.

...

people will accept me for who i am, or i will stand alone.

...

am i alone?

youre not alone.

[ritzcuit]

thinking abt klav dar morality and stuff is so fun to me but it's soooo unsatisfying bc ill NEVER HAVE ANY ANSWER EVER. sigh! and also it's deeply tainted by my own beliefs. SIGH!

i like them being pre-gavinners young and childish and "oh well, clearly, Bad People do Bad Things" a thing they both agree on. very confidently. i like a daryan who like, you'd think he was a delinquent kid, a shitty brat.... but tbh i just don't think it would be the case. i think MAYBE he got in some fights.... but i don't think he was the full blown like, "always in trouble good for nothing no future" esque punk.

i think if he was cool enough to be a delinquent he wouldnt be in the FUCKING GAVINNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!COUGHS UP BLOOD

i think klavier went into law bc kristoph (obviously) and daryan went into law bc of klavier more or less..

i think of them having really confident discussions on like. well why don't evil people just not be evil. right? "oh clearly something would have to be wrong with you to murder someone." esque beliefs. "normal people can't do something so fucked up." stuff like that...dumb self assured kids. esp klavier, who i don't have interesting thoughts on bc i dont care about him LOL

like they get a little older. and get into law. and it's cool. and fucking awesome. and aging makes them a little less tightass about everything. they get independent they make music they get exposed to the wider world etc.... i think daryan stays looser about it overall, about crime and shit. and then daryan moves to a different division and quits working w klav on cases and blah blah

taking the music as a metaphor for their view on crime probably, how klavier freaking over [the missed cue] whereas daryan insists that it's Not A Big Deal... which, like, for the case specifically, it did turn out to be a big deal, but i'll pretend like it's indicative of their views overall, where daryan's willing to let tiny things slide and where klavier pointedly won't. Bc it's about the principle of the thing.

i think klavier goes back to being a tightass. i think when he was 17 and looking like a little lesbian was probably the Coolest he ever was. idk what happened between then and canon that made him regress into being a kristoph 2 but it's fun to me if something did happen... i just don't care. probably not the disbarring? or i guess it could be. i dont CAREEE about him

all this to say, i really like thinking about a klavier looking back on daryan and wondering [what went wrong], because either something went wrong, or he had always been friends with an Evil Person. and for years he's just never noticed that daryan was Evil and capable of Murder and Covering up and Lying. and stuff.

which of course was a question he was already going through with kristoph, or maybe pointedly *not* going through? daryan is close to him but not as close as kristoph and the crimes weren't so fucking premeditated so it's maybe an easier entry point for this whole thought process for him. "your best friend botched a drug smuggling and snuffed a cop who was gonna rat him out" is a hard pill but not as hard a pill as "whatever the fuck kristoph was up to" NELKNDLKNGFD

And it's fun to think about... him trying to get answers from daryan directly. like tell me are you a bad person? are you? or like, what happened? and when did it change? and how long and why? and it's like. there isn't an answer! daryan doesn't have one! and it's just a shitty thing to ask. as if klavier's shattered sense of comfort is the real issue here and not "daryan is in prison for murder"NELKNDFKLN it's just fun... it's just fun... was it always you? or was it like, the system? who changed you? and daryan's so uncomfortable. and it pisses him off so bad.

i just like it. it's so cutie. two boys who thought they had such a sure view of the world realizing in the most simple of ways that Oh, No, it turns out we're all directly capable of crime in various shades of culpability and evilness can't be cleanly prescribed like that. and it was a deeply flawed and stupid way of viewing the world, especially if the person who told you that in the first place was one of the cruelest people either of you knew up to that point LIKEEE. messyyy lol. it's so cute.

Like like like daryan who already always had an aggressive demeanor and kind of rubbed people the wrong way but klavier always insisted he's an upstanding person and one of the people klavier trusted most ... someone who klavier probably had to defend a lot just in conversation. and it wasn't misplaced? like klavier wasn't lying! being an asshole isn't a crime and doesn't make someone evil. but in hindsight oh it's tainted foreverrrr.

also again the daryan who's watching klavier have this like internal crisis of faith and he's like can you do this elsewhere. Like i'm in prison right now i don't need thinLKNFKLDFNGKNDFG HELP