#or how it can define laws and structures that can live on when the thing that takes the blame is sacrificed

[betterbemeta]

A weakness I remember in my public school education in the northeast USA is that it was clear on what the US Civil War was fought over (slavery) but it didn't actually explain why.

Like, really really WHY.

I don't mean the obvious human rights issue of slavery. If anyone is enslaved it should be intuitive to a decent human being that action needs to be taken to secure their freedom. What wasn't discussed in detail was why people were enslaved.

And by 'why' I am not stopping at 'to do work on plantations'; we read about that and saw pictures in our textbooks of how people were packed in on slave ships and tortured with beatings and giant metal collars because it wasn't a choice 'to work on plantations.' I mean like, why human beings who DID choose things, decided to commit to enslaving other human beings.

The answer to that is that wealthy people liked slavery and didn't want to give it up.

Not just in the sense that it's cheaper to not pay someone than to pay them. The obvious inequality suits the wealthy landed class; they won't be removed except by force, and they keep slaves, so to exist in proximity all people must then adopt some kind of framework to subdue natural empathy for other human beings or else just... be unable to tolerate reality.

If you can get people to accept that 'some people are slaves', and that's the normal way of the world, you can get them to accept basically anything.

[tchiyya]

I've been asked before what my politics are, as in, what system of economic and/or government do I advocate for, and the problem is that so far I have yet to encounter one that doesn't ultimately rely on all people (or the overwhelming majority) choosing to do mostly the right thing most of the time even if it conflicts with their immediate personal interests, or alternatively, authoritarianism.

Capitalism fails because it is either darwinistic degrading to fuedalism or relies on uncorrupted, unbiased governments making laws and regulations in the best interests of the people at large and economic actors playing by those rules. There is no good mechanism for enforcing the latter except the former and nothing enforcing the former except the latter, so this often tends to degrade to fuedalism or authoritarianism.

Communism sounds great in theory but relies on everyone agreeing to accept only what they need (which unless the nation is highly resourced from the start is likely going to be a shared poverty,) as decided by whoever is in charge, and for the latter group to be fair, unbiased, and accurate in that distribution. Those with many more resources are unlikely to voluntarily surrender their surplus (especially when "surplus" is being defined by wanting a normal level of comfortable living rather than massive excesses of wealth) and for that redistribution to meet everyone's needs. The enforcement mechanism for this relies on those in charge to be uncorrupted, fair, and judicious with any use of force to strip the reluctant of excess wealth. This fails to account for the reality that people will seek these positions of authority in order to have some measure of control over deciding what they need instead of a third party and to enjoy any perks that come from being in charge.

Socialism looks to establish a more equal (if still imperfect) limit on wealth accumulation via scaled taxation, a robust social net, and governmental management of necessary resources such as healthcare, food, housing, transportation, communication, etc. This relies on the people in charge maintaining a true balance between governmental control and individual personal freedom, causing it to deteriorate into the same problems as capitalism and/or communism if those in charge are not restrained and fair in their use of governmental authority, while at the same time not being so hands-off that bad actors are allowed to operate with impunity. The enforcement of this is tricky because it has to be baked into the structure of the government itself, and then relies on those in power to maintain that enforcement even when it is detrimental to their immediate interests.

Anarchy relies on people collectively understanding the need for mutual aid and collaboration, and (once that has been established) their fear of retribution or retaliation should they act selfishly within that system. This works to an extent (here I'm thinking of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, for example) but has absolutely no authoritative means by which to protect weaker actors with less physical strength, numbers, and/or resources. This will inevitably lead to domination by those who know they can act with impunity due to this unequal size, strength, or access, and there is no authority (by design) that can force a redistribution (and, even if they could do this for some things, others are luck of the draw and impossible to reassign, such as productivity or physical strength.) International law interestingly enough works off of a lot of these types of principles, and you see how that is playing out so far.

And those are the systems that are trying to create a just and more or less equal society. There are other systems (e.g., colonialism, aristocracy, fuedalism, etc.) that are inherently unbalanced and designed to privilege some groups over others.

Social democracies seem to achieve the closest to a truly fair and balanced society, but still have their limitations, failures, unintended casualties, and atrocities.

The truth is that people are extremely difficult to organize on a macro level, at least in part because the larger the group, the greater the diversity of opinions and interests you have to account for. In this era of global travel, trade, and environmental impact, it is no longer possible to avoid thinking globally. That's 8.23 billion people and counting, with a stunning diversity of thought, culture, religion, experiences, power, language, and interests. Even if you focus on one nation or even scale back your aspirations to one local area, the reality is that this country will have to hold its own against empires and any localized control will have to answer to the nation in which it resides.

This isn't to say we shouldn't try. We should.

It's just... look, there's no silver bullet here and advocating for any existing system as the One Correct Path to a free, equal, and prosperous society is a farce. So I don't define myself as anything in particular except "what works in this setting using as close to an objective measure of that as possible?" And I think that answer likely varies nationally based on the peoples, cultures, and histories involved.

[cantsayidont]

When attempting to critique the values of a long-running franchise like STAR TREK, it's important to draw a distinction between superficial issues and structural ones.

"Superficial" in this sense doesn't mean "minor" or "unimportant"; it simply means that an issue is not so intrinsic to the premise that the franchise would collapse (or would be radically different) were it changed or removed. For example, misogyny has been a pervasive problem across many generations of STAR TREK media, which have often been characterized by a particular type of leering-creep sexism that was distasteful at the time and has not improved with age. However, sexism and misogyny are not structural elements of the TREK premise; one can do a STAR TREK story where the female characters have agency and even pants without it becoming something fundamentally different from other TREK iterations (even TOS, although there are certainly specific TOS episodes that would collapse if you excised the sexism).

By contrast, the colonialism and imperialism are structural elements — STAR TREK is explicitly about colonizing "the final frontier" and about defending the borders, however defined, of an interstellar colonial power. Different iterations of STAR TREK may approach that premise in slightly different ways, emphasizing or deemphasizing certain specific aspects of it, but that is literally and specifically what the franchise is about. Moreover, because STAR TREK has always been heavily focused on Starfleet and has tended to shy away from depicting life outside of that regimented environment, there are definite limits to how far the series is able to depart from the basic narrative structure of TOS and TNG (a captain and crew on a Starfleet ship) without collapsing in on itself, as PICARD ended up demonstrating rather painfully.

This means that some of the things baked into the formula of STAR TREK are obviously in conflict with the franchise's self-image of progressive utopianism, but cannot really be removed or significantly altered, even if the writers were inclined to try (which they generally are not).

What I find intensely frustrating about most modern STAR TREK media, including TNG and its various successors, is not that it can't magically break its own formula, but that writer and fan attachment to the idea of TREK as the epitome of progressive science fiction has become a more and more intractable barrier to any kind of meaningful self-critique. It's a problem that's become increasingly acute with the recent batch of live-action shows, which routinely depict the Federation or Starfleet doing awful things (like the recent SNW storyline about Una being prosecuted for being a genetically engineered person in violation of Federation law) and then insist, often in the same breath, that it's a progressive utopia, best of all possible worlds.

This is one area where TOS (and to some extent the TOS cast movies) has a significant advantage over its successors. TOS professes to be a better world than ours, but it doesn't claim to be a perfect world (and indeed is very suspicious of any kind of purported utopia). The value TOS most consistently emphasizes is striving: working to be better, and making constructive choices. Although this can sometimes get very sticky and uncomfortable in its own right (for instance, Kirk often rails against what he sees as "stagnant" cultures), it doesn't presuppose the moral infallibility of the Federation, of Starfleet, or of the characters themselves. There's room for them to be wrong, so long as they're still willing to learn and grow.

The newer shows are less and less willing to allow for that, and, even more troublingly, sometimes take pains to undermine their predecessors' attempts along those lines. One appalling recent example is SNW's treatment of the Gorn, which presents the Gorn as intrinsically evil (and quite horrifying) in a way they're not in "Arena," the TOS episode where they were first introduced. The whole point of "Arena" is that while Kirk responds to the Gorn with outrage and anger, he eventually concedes that he may be wrong: There's a good chance that the Gorn are really the injured party, responding to what they reasonably see as an alien invasion, and while that may be an arguable point, sorting it out further should be the purview of diplomats rather than warships. By contrast, SNW presents the Gorn as so irredeemably awful as to make Kirk's (chronologically later) epiphany at best misguided: The SNW Gorn are brutal conquerors who lay eggs in their captives (a gruesome rape metaphor, and in presentation obviously inspired by ALIENS) when they aren't killing each other for sport, and even Gorn newborns are monsters to be feared. Not a lot of nuance there, and no space at all for the kind of detente found in TOS episodes like "The Devil in the Dark."

[olis-inkwell-symposium]

5 Occult Concepts That Explain the World Better Than Science

Throughout my extensive research into occult philosophy, I’ve been fortunate to gain a ton of knowledge that has truly enriched my understanding of the world. This journey has been deeply personal, as it has allowed me to explore the hidden corners of my mind and connect with a broader spiritual and philosophical landscape.

What I’ve come to realize during this time is profound: if the world weren’t so rigid and complex, we could all live and practice our lives in such diverse and meaningful ways that are truly personalized to our unique needs and desires. This realization has inspired me to seek out a more balanced and harmonious existence, one that embraces the individuality and creativity that lie within each of us. It’s also motivated me to share this knowledge with you all, hoping to spark a similar sense of wonder and empowerment in your own lives!

Now don’t get me wrong; science is brilliant at breaking things down—atoms, ecosystems, the expansion of the universe. It gives us answers, solutions, and a framework to navigate the physical world. But let’s be honest: science often trips over itself when trying to explain the messy, intangible, and deeply human parts of existence.

The cracks where logic doesn’t fit? That’s where the occult slips in. Occult philosophy thrives on the edges of understanding. It doesn’t just ask “how”—it asks “why,” “what if,” and “what does this mean for me?” While science maps reality in clean, objective terms, the occult dives into the subjective, the mysterious, and the uncomfortable truths that can’t be measured in a lab.

Here are five esoteric concepts that, in their raw and provocative nature, offer a far more compelling explanation of the world than science ever could:

1. As Above, So Below: The Reflective Nature of Reality

This phrase is a cornerstone of hermetic philosophy, a cryptic little mantra that implies the micro mirrors the macro, and vice versa. In simpler terms: the structure of the universe can be seen in the structure of a single human life.

Science has its own version of this idea in fractals and self-similarity across scales—patterns that replicate endlessly from the molecular level to the cosmic. But where science stops at structure, the occult digs deeper.

As above, so below isn’t just a reflection of patterns; it’s a commentary on how everything—your struggles, desires, and choices—ties into larger systems. Your internal chaos mirrors societal chaos. A broken relationship might reflect a deeper imbalance in your worldview. It’s not just poetic metaphor; it’s a map for self-awareness.

When science shrugs at the meaning of human patterns, the occult says, Look closer. What’s happening out there is happening in here, too.

2. The Law of Correspondence: Connection Beyond Logic

Occult philosophy insists that nothing exists in isolation. Every force, event, or idea has a counterpart. Correspondence suggests that unrelated things—symbols, objects, emotions—are part of an invisible web of connection. You lose something important, and suddenly, you’re flooded with strange coincidences that feel almost intentional.

What science brushes off as statistical anomalies, the occult embraces as part of the design. For example, synchronicity—the idea that unrelated events can feel meaningfully connected—is often dismissed by science as cognitive bias.

Yet, anyone who’s experienced these “coincidences” knows they carry a weight science can’t quantify. Correspondence doesn’t just explain why these events happen; it dares to ask what they mean. It argues that your personal reality is shaped not just by physical actions but by symbols, metaphors, and the unseen forces tying them all together.

3. The Hermetic Principle of Polarity: Duality Without Simplicity

In science, opposites are defined by contrast: positive and negative, light and dark, heat and cold. The occult, however, sees polarity not as opposition but as two ends of the same spectrum. Hot and cold, for instance, are both expressions of temperature; they’re not enemies, just different manifestations of the same underlying force.

The principle of polarity teaches that extremes are always interconnected. Love and hate, joy and grief—they aren’t separate forces battling for dominance. They’re two expressions of the same energy. This doesn’t just help explain emotional complexity; it’s a tool for navigating life. Feeling overwhelmed by fear?

Polarity suggests that courage isn’t its opposite—it’s a reframing of the same energy. Science is great at measuring extremes, but it struggles with the liminal space between them. The occult lives in that in-between, showing how the line between opposites is much thinner than it seems.

4. The Rule of Threefold Return: Consequence Beyond Physics

Karma often gets watered down into a pop-culture idea of “what goes around comes around.” But the occult’s threefold law takes it further, suggesting that every action—good, bad, or indifferent—comes back with amplified force.

Cast harm into the world, and harm returns not as punishment but as a natural ripple of that consequence. Put good into the world, and its return carries exponential weight. Science traditionally examines phenomena through straightforward cause-and-effect relationships, often focusing on linear progressions where one event leads directly to another.

However, it often struggles to capture the complex and layered nature of our decisions, which can produce effects that multiply and interact in unexpected ways. Our actions as humans don't just create simple, predictable outcomes; they can initiate chains of events that grow in complexity and impact over time, creating a web of consequences that are difficult to predict or quantify using standard scientific methods.

Why does a single act of kindness resonate so deeply? Why does unchecked anger spiral into unforeseen consequences? The occult’s perspective on consequences isn’t moralistic; it’s mechanical. This concept is as much about accountability as it is about empowerment. It forces you to think beyond the immediate result of your actions, asking: What are the ripples I’m setting in motion?

5. The Alchemical Process: Transformation as a Cycle

Alchemy is often reduced to the pursuit of turning lead into gold—a quaint historical footnote in science’s evolution. But true alchemy was never just about metal. It was—and still is—a philosophy of transformation. Lead and gold are metaphors for the self. The base material (lead) represents the parts of you that are raw, unformed, and heavy. Gold is the refined self—lighter, brighter, and forged through struggle.

Science can tell you how cells regenerate, how the brain processes trauma, how habits form. But alchemy explains the why behind transformation. It frames struggle not as a problem to be solved but as an integral part of growth.

Calcination, dissolution, and coagulation form the stages of a chemical journey that mirrors the human experience of transformation and self-discovery. The process begins with calcination, a fiery purification that strips away the unnecessary, burning away the dross to reveal the essential core beneath. This is a time of intense reflection, where one begins to cast aside the illusions and impurities accumulated over time.

Next comes dissolution, a stage of deep introspection where old structures and beliefs are broken down. It is a time for letting go of outdated habits and ideas, much like dissolving bonds that once seemed unbreakable. This phase requires courage, as it involves dismantling one's protective barriers, leaving behind comfort zones to explore the unfamiliar.

Finally, there's coagulation, the phase of reconstruction. Here, from the remnants of the past, something new and robust is forged. It's the alchemical rebirth, where a person emerges transformed, having integrated the lessons learned from the previous stages. This rebuilding is not simply a return to the original state, but an evolution into an entity more aligned with one’s true self.

Through each stage, the journey can be deeply personal, reflecting a unique path of self-awareness and growth. Calcination, dissolution, and coagulation are not merely chemical stages but serve as a profound blueprint for personal evolution, guiding one towards a deeper understanding of themselves and the world around them.

This transformative cycle encourages embracing change, fostering resilience, and celebrating the unfolding of a renewed identity. Where science provides explanations, alchemy offers profound meaning. It asserts that transformation isn’t merely possible—it’s inevitable, provided you’re willing to endure the transformative fire.

Why the Occult Makes You Ask Better Questions

Science excels at answers. It gives us the tools, cures, and frameworks to navigate the tangible. But answers, for all their value, are useless without the right questions. This is where the occult shines. It doesn’t care about tidy conclusions; it cares about pulling you deeper into the unknown, daring you to challenge what you think you understand.

Occult principles don’t aim to replace science—they simply just… fill in its gaps. They explain not just the mechanics of life but the meaning, the purpose, the strange and chaotic connections that defy logic.

They don’t seek to fix the world; they ask what the world is asking of you. And sometimes, just by asking the right question; life is far more enjoyable than always trying to find the answers.

taglist ; dm or reply to be added 🫶🏾

@slenders1ckn3ss @lucistarsfire @mai2themai @fond-illusion @p00lverinecentral @ambidextrousarcher

[pinkbirddiaries]

I don’t know if I’ve already written this so please bear with me as a do a deeper explanation on how I think the Phantom Dimension works.

Part of this theory is going to be HIGHLY speculative this is do the nature of the subject that we will be discussing. Since I am not a physicist please bear with me as I explain to the best of my understanding how the Phantom Dimension is an alternate universe the is accessible through time travel. All sources will be at the end.

To travel through space is to travel though time. This is supported by Einstein work in special relativity. “An object in motion experiences time dilation, meaning that when an object is moving very fast it experiences time more slowly than when it is at rest.” We see this when we send astronauts to space. While time travel in rotation around the earth versus time spent on earth is negligible but the closer you get to the speed of light the more noticeable the difference is; think interstellar. “Imagine a 15-year-old leaves her high school traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light for five years (from the teenage astronaut's perspective). When the 15-year-old got back to Earth, she would have aged those 5 years she spent traveling. Her classmates, however, would be 65 years old — 50 years would have passed on the much slower-moving planet.”

Moving forward Stephen Hawking’s Multiverse Theory, stems from Quantum Mechanics. I will not pretend to understand this concept but I will explain to the best of my ability. Prof. Hawking and Prof. Hartle created the theory of Quantum Mechanics to explain how the universe originated from nothing. This created a problem of course, how could the universe only do this once? It didn’t. The Big Bang in theory would have created an infinite amount of universes. All similar and slightly different from our own. According to Prof. Hartle “The laws of physics that we test in our labs did not exist forever. They crystallised after the Big Bang when the universe expanded and cooled. The kind of laws that emerge depends very much on the physical conditions at the Big Bang.” (BBC News) To my understanding, it’s kinda like when you make something out of clay. The universe is the clay and you have infinite possibilities but once it drys the clay must stay that way.

Hopefully all of that made sense. Now you might be wondering, “Bird, how tf does that connect to SBG?” And I’ll tell you.

It’s established early in and mentioned constantly that there is a time difference from the Phantom Dimension (PD) and the Human Dimension (HD). Whether that time is one minute or seven is negligible because the effect is still the same. The Graveyard Kids (GKs) are experiencing time dilation. Time dilation is defined as “a physical phenomenon that occurs when two clocks show different elapsed times due to a difference in gravitational potential or relative velocity” The clock for the GKs being their internal clock unfortunately since things in the PD don’t visually affect the HD.

The GKs are in the PD for 7 hours and wake up to a world where next to no time has passed. They are still living and experiencing this time. This is shown through how the kids heal. Remember how earlier we established that each universe can have its own unique set of rules and laws in physics. The could mean that in the PD universe healing based on mental state is just a law of the universe.

“But Bird! How tf did they get to the PD?” I hear you asking. Don’t worry we’re getting there.

What if these “Rifts” as they are called in SBG are actually “Wormholes”. Wormholes (as defined by Einstein) are “a hypothetical structure that connects disparate points in spacetime.” It is often visualized as a tunnel with two ends at different point in spacetime. Spacetime being different locations, points in time, or both. I believe that the Rifts are Wormholes and when the GKs visited the Sorrel Weed house they accidentally fell through one.

The contact is the bridge of the Wormhole which allows travel in between with the human and the Phantom being the two points in space time. The two points being both the Phantom (in a universe with an accelerated time) and the human (in a universe assumed to be similar to ours). So not only is it a different place but time moves differently.

From this point on I have no more sources to support me. I only have speculation.

I believe that when they fell through the Wormhole; alternate bodies were created in the PD universe. The contact between the Phantom and the Human (as referenced previously) is what creates the alternate body (the clone). The GKs consciousness gets transported there for seven hours every night, while we don’t know precisely why this happens we can infer why. I believe it is due to their new bodies not being able to function fully without the HD consciousness.

@crayfee had brought up a good point while we were taking about this. They suggest that maybe these newly created bodies, since they were created for the PD are part Phantom. This could suggest why the clones seen in Logan/Ashlyns dream as well as in the finale look human but operate as Phantoms. Even going to far as to have Phantom like features when the GKs consciousness is not present in them. They could be attempting to take the GKs place in the HD because as of right now they are trapped in the PD.

Speaking of trapped in the PD. Let’s talk about how the parents and the coma patients fit into this.

For whatever reason, the GKs were able to escape the Rift (Wormhole). When we see the kids at the Rift in the Sorrel Weed house the Phantom is seen grabbing Ashlyn’s arm but she manages to pull away and escape. I believe that the parents and coma patients were grabbed by Phantoms but did not escape. It’s safe to assume that do the lack of clones we see for the parents that their consciousness is trapped in the PD.

We’ve seen what happens when someone loses a fight with a Phantom in the PD. They become an infected in the HD. These infected then can turn around and pass the Phantom inside them (or perhaps a new one) into another individual. I believe that the Phantom that is inside the humans HD body is creating a sustained Wormhole inside the body of the infected human. This could explain why it appears that the life is draining from the infected body. It’s not taking on the look of a Phantom but rather it’s dying. A Wormhole would take a lot of energy to sustain and that could be why the Phantom is trying to move bodies in the HD.

This is all I have for know on this theory. If you have anything to add please tell me. (Don’t be mean. I’m not a physicist, I’m a medical humanities student)

But to recap, to move through space is to move through time. To move to another universe is to move through space. Another universes rules become set once it’s created and to travel there you must have a body that abides by these rules. The contact being two points creates a Wormhole that can be traveled through.

[gilberttheguy]

Locality and belonging in Interview with the Vampire

I find the focus on place and habit to be really interesting in IWTV, in highlighting the outsider narrative of vampirism. How would we identify with norms and rituals if we no longer had to as a matter of survival? Would we actually make different choices around the things that hurt us if we didn't have to? How much are our habits dictated by need?

Louis, at the start, is deeply rooted in his community. Yes, he's a pimp, but he's known and respected, and he engages in the rhythm and ritual of that community. Taiye Selasi has an incredible TEDTalk about the specificity of locality vs the generalisation of being from a place, and she talks about locality being defined by rituals, relationships, and restrictions. Briefly, rituals encompass the mundanity of living: where you buy your food, how you get to work, the patterns that you follow. Relationships are pretty self explanatory, but it's specifically about the day-to-day relationships that make a place feel like home. Family, friends, co-workers. Restrictions then shape the context of your locality - do racist housing policies determine where you live, or where you're allowed to go? Is it unsafe for someone with your identity to walk in certain neighbourhoods?

Being from somewhere doesn't tell us near as much as specific locality. However, in many ways, vampirism erases locality, or at least the need for it - you no longer need the rituals of living, your relationships mutate, if they don't end outright, and the restrictions become supernatural laws and the social norms that you choose to still obey, rather than physical barriers or threats to your safety. Locality becomes a choice with far fewer costs, rather than a fact of life and survival. For people that were already outsiders, would you choose to buy into a structure that had already caused you harm?

As a vampire, Louis is from New Orleans, but is he local to it? Killing Alderman Fenwick further divorces him; even though he tells Lestat that he did it for 'my city, my people,' it's unlikely he would have done something like that when he was human. This is both due to physical restrictions (breaking in and surviving being shot), but also because he was enmeshed in his community and would have known what murdering Fenwick would bring down on them. Lestat refers to it as 'public art' and it's very much a performance of Louis' former locality.

Claudia's subsequent turning is also performance - Louis views her as a link to community, family, and humanity, even though she's pretty adamant she shouldn't be the one to safeguard Louis' humanity, and her turning isn't any sort of saving. 'Daddy Lou said I had been away from people too long. I didn't know how to behave right anymore.' Raising Claudia with human ritual and relationship can be seen as trying to assimilate into a society and community that does not want them. They do perform certain habits (the park bench, the theatre), but Louis takes less and less joy in them - both as his relationship breaks down with Lestat, but also as his connection to community fades.

New Orleans then becomes the site of a slow and painful separation from community and locality - the place that harmed and nurtured, the place where Louis learned to feel guilty around the truth of himself, the place he knows like the back of his hand, the place that he ultimately has to flee from to survive. When he returns, he's no longer a local in the sense I talk about above. Sure, he knows the streets, and the accent comes back, but the rest of it is gone, and his rituals and relationships are tied to a new place. You can never go home again.

(This is pretty stream of consciousness, feel like i had seventeen points jumping around in the back of my head and didn't really manage to actually pin any of them down lmao)

[syrena-del-mar]

Selfish Desires and the Class War: Dead Friend Forever

Ever since @nyxelestia's great additions to my tags about how Phee has been able to process his grief in comparison to Tan, and succinctly stated how class theorists regard poverty as a type of violence, I can't help but take a bit of a socio-economic look at the DFF's group of friends. Particularly, episode 10 really served to solidify my theory on the underlying commentary DFF is making regarding selfishness and the different abilities to skirt punishment dependent on class.

For this one, I'm going to break this down in a couple of categories: first, I'm going to explain Hobbes' theory on human nature and Marx's theory on class wars. Then I will be listing out the 'class types' each one of the DFF boys are in (sans White). Finally I will be analyzing the THC gang with Non, then Phee and New.

Keep in mind that here I will be defining 'selfish desires' as to the innate human inclination to prioritize one's own needs, wants, and interests over that of others. Meanwhile class war/conflict will be in reference to the societal divide into different classes dependant on their relationship to their means of production and value.

Human Nature According to Hobbes

In Hobbes' 'Leviathan', he delves into understanding human nature. His conclusion is probably best summarized by his most known phrase, "'the state of nature." In this state of nature, where Hobbes hypothesized about a life where there is no government, no laws, or state of order, just simply individuals that are able to live without constraints. Hobbes found that life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, short, and brutish."

Hobbes' comes to the conclusion, that absence of societal constraints, humans are driven by desire to secure their own survival and fulfill their desires. Hobbes states that there is an universal, fundamental drive for self-preservation that leads to a state of equality among humans. Yey, instead of being able to live in harmony, the equality, particularly in vulnerability to harm and death, breeds competition since it is human nature to scrounge, secure, and vie for resources— even when it means taking advantage of one another.

Central to Hobbes' theory of human nature is fear—fear of others, fear of harm and fear of uncertainty. Without structure, humans are trapped in a perpetual state of insecurity, creating a 'war of all against all'. Hobbes acknowledges that individuals have natural rights, particularly the right to self-preservation but with a lack of governing authority, the enforcement to this right is essentially meaningless.

Tldr; there are four main components to human nature: self-preservation, fear and insecurity, equality and competition, and natural rights.

Theory of Class Wars

Now, enter Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and we have the theory that a society is divided into two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariats. The bourgeoisie, own the means of production and are able to explore the labor of the proletariat for profit, which ends up leading to human alienation and inequality.

When it comes to the relationship of selfish desires and class war, at its core, the idea instills that a capitalist system incentivizes and rewards the selfish pursuits among the bourgeoisie. The accumulation of wealth and exploitation of labor and the quest for profit are the driving forces between constructing and maintaining class inequalities.

Dead Friends Forever: The Intersection of Social Class Divide and Selfish Desires

The thing about Dead Friend Forever is that there is a visible class division between Por and Non, which drowns out the undercurrent class differences between the rest of the DFF gang.

Por: He is born into power and higher class. His mother ever states "Do you think I'll be in trouble for kind of thing?" He is born into awareness of his status and the privilege.

Jin: Just from the house that he lives, you can tell that he is relatively well off. The finishes in the house both interior and the exterior show that his family, while not as rich as Por, are likely more than financially stable.

Phee: His dad is a police inspector, which likely provides decent money, as he is able to send his son to a private school on a single household income.

Fluke: We're given enough information that we know he wants to be a doctor and make his mom proud, he's attending tutoring classes and there's no mention of money issues.

Top: No mention of struggling for money, can safely assume that he lives comfortably.

Tee: Struggling, has a lot of debts to Uncle Joe in order to keep his dad alive.

New/Non: Their whole family is struggling even before Non went missing. What little money they had was sent over to New, even taking on debts to be able to provide for him abroad. They were one paycheck away from losing everything, which they eventually did.

Non and the THC Gang

Aside from Tee, the main group are all born into various levels of wealth and privilege, whether it be purely monetary or with the jobs of their parents, so they're able to navigate their life with an air of entitlement. Their desires are all shaped by the comforts and opportunities that their status affords them. Por's family alone was able to get their high school film reported on and with a viewing, merely with the mother's flippant mention of the project. Not to mention that Por's mother explicitly sets the tone of how she would be treated compared to Non's mom. It's a stark contrast, Non stands out as the outsider, not only due to his lack of friends in the school, but also marginalized by his lack of wealth and social standing in comparison to the rest of the gang. And in an odd way, it's likely why he felt a certain degree of kinship with Tee, who is the only other individual visibly struggling to survive, even if he mostly keeps his money troubles away from his group of friends.

The whole reason Non even gets involved with the group is because the group, particularly Por and Fluke, are driven by their hunger for success and recognition. Por likely wanted his parents to find some pride in him and Fluke needs it to round out his resume when applying to medical school. They desperately want to win the sponsorship, so they need and use Non— not as an equal but as a means to an end. They exploit his talent in scriptwriting and they use him as a pawn, not even inviting him to the presentation when its Non's script their using. Hell, they barely could stand being close enough to take a picture with Non. They quite literally use him as a pawn, an easy exploit, reminiscent of Hobbes' notion of self-interest as a driving force.

As the show continues on, the exploitation of Non takes on darker shades, echoing Hobbes bleak depiction of the state of nature. The initial bullying, that is rooted in class-based prejudices, transforms into a calculated campaign of cruelty. While Tee might be struggling financially, he's actually the true leader of the group. Sure, Por may have the money, but the guys only follow what Tee wants. Top and Tee use Non's marginalization against him, almost as if vultures feeding on the weaker. Top doesn't have to pay for the camera and Tee is able to find Uncle Joe's next victim for the horse accounts, a complete parallel of Hobbes' description of the strong dominating the weak in the absence of a social contract. In doing so Non, the 'marginalized' becomes fodder for the selfish desires of Tee and Top, initiating a chain-reaction event to Non's detriment.

While Por, Tee, and Top have the more obvious benefits with how Non is treated, so does Fluke. Fluke, in the hierarchy of status within the group, is at the bottom rung. With Non there he's able to be treated better and he no longer is the scapegoat. He admits it in this episode. He needed Non to be mistreated, because he feared being targeted by the rest of the THC gang, and having Non around kept everyone else's attention off of him. He was no longer the one being harrassed. He's able to sacrifice Non for his own benefit.

The thing about Fluke is that he doesn't overtly try to harm Non, not in the same way that the others do. No, his covert damage that he causes Non is in his silence. He sees Top destroy the camera, Tee come up with the idea to target Non, he sees Jin film Non and Kru Keng, he even questions Jin's intentions to film, but he's spineless. He cares more for himself, he prioritizes his self-preservation. He maintains the status quo and utilizes Non's weakness so that he isn't the next target.

Initially, Jin's treatment of Non seems to defy the expected narrative of class exploitation, since out of the group he's the one that is the most compassionate and understanding. From a Marxist perspective, this initial compassion could be understood as an acknowledgment of the inherent inequalities that exist between the affluent and the marginalized. Jin's actions might suggest a fleeting moment of solidarity, recognizing and acknowledging Non's humanity beyond his status. However, his demeanor shifts dramatically when he realizes that Non doesn't reciprocate his romantic feelings and worsens when he sees him with Kru Keng.

Hobbesian human nature, which is driven by the pursuit of power and self-interest, comes to the forefront as Jin's wounded pride and sense of rejection fuel his actions. In Hobbes' state of nature, individuals are driven by their desires and fears leading to betrayal and conflict. His change in behavior to Non reflects this as he seeks to assert dominance and control in the face of perceived rejection by punishing Non. Jin's betrayal of Non's trust and kindness underscores the harsh realities of class divides, where compassion can quickly give way to exploitation. Hobbes argued that individuals in the state of nature are in constant competition for power and self-preservation, here Jin's realization that Non does not reciprocate his feelings leaves him feeling vulnerable and exposed.

Non's role as a commodity within the framework becomes clear as filming continues. His talent is valued solely for its ability to bring profit and success to the friends. Yet, despite his contributions, Non remains alienated from the fruits of his labor, he's always the worker and never the leader. Continuing this trend of being a pawn in group's quest for recognition. Marx's concept of false consciousness is evident, since Non remains unaware of the true nature of his exploitation until its too late.

The group needs to get rid of Non, because he's become a lose cannon. Tee needs him delivered to his Uncle, so that he can survive and continue to receive the payments he needs to keep his dad alive. The depths of their depravity are laid bare and echoes both Hobbes' and Marx's grim assessments of human nature intertwined with class conflict. Non becomes a victim to their cruelty, to their selfish desires, and the stark reality of coming from a poor family. He disappears into the abyss of the mafia, while the rest of the group continue to live their lives unperturbed, shielded by their wealth and privilege.

Interestingly enough, every single one of the guys that come from a better socio-economic status have begged for Non's forgiveness while under the influence of New's hallucinogens. The only one who doesn't is Tee. Yes, he is under the distress of confessing his crimes since Fluke is holding White hostage, but he's the only one that is willing to admit fault and ask for forgiveness without having to hallucinate Non's face or his voice. All this leaves me asking, what depths of betrayal and exploitation were the THC gang willing to sink to in their quest for dominance? Did Tee's penance begin when attempted to help Non escape his Uncle Joe? Was Non actually able to escape or had they sent him to his death?

2. Phee and New/Tan

Even through Phee and New, we can see Hobbesian and Marxist themes in their different versions of grief they experience over Non's disappearance.

New embodies the the essence of Hobbesian human nature, bringing around the idea of 'war of all against all'. His relentless pursuit of revenge becomes a primal instinct for survival, since he has lost everything good in his life. His brother, his childhood home, his education, his mother, and finally his father, in that very order, over the span of three years. New's grief over the disappearance of Non becomes a consuming force that propels him into a world of darkness. In Hobbes' state of nature, individuals are typically driven by self-interest and the pursuit of power, which New's quest of revenge reflects this fundamental aspect. His quest against the friends responsible isn't solely about revenge, but it's a desperate attempt to assert agency and justice in a world that has denied his family both.

Marx argues that in a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie will exploit the proletariat for profit, perpetuating class struggles. Non was exploited for his script, but New represents the proletariat, the oppressed working class fighting back against the forces of oppression. His revenge is a revolt against the oppressive structures of class inequality that have marginalized his whole family. In Marxist terms, his journey is a symbol of the proletariat struggle against exploitation and injustice, which echos the revolutionist spirit of Marxism.

On the other hand, Phee, who is financially well-off and still has his father, represents the privilege and the detachment from the struggles of the proletariat. He never fully understood why Non wasn't receptive to his help, similarly he's not completely understanding New's own thirst for revenge. While Phee is initially driven by a desire to uncover the truth about Non's disappearance, and while he still loves Non, it's mostly driven by guilt and grief within the context of privilege. Phee has things, people, in his life that still matter outside of Non. Yes, he loved Non, but he's able to move on from his grief, reflecting the detachment and apathy that can settle in with privilege. Under Marx's critique of the bourgeoisie, who exploit the proletarian, it's because Phee still has his Dad and other things he loves in life that he is able to move on from the type of anger in grief that New finds himself overwhelmed in.

It's going to be interesting where Phee and New's friendships heads in the last two episodes. Will it New and Phee collide in a violent confrontation that mirrors the clash between the oppressed and the privileged? Is DFF trying to make a comment on the class war where New's relentless pursuit of revenge against the THC gang represents the proletariat's revolt against exploitation, while Phee's detachment echoes the bourgeoisie's indifference to the plight of the marginalized? Or it will show that Phee and New are able to put their social status aside in order to find revenge against the true bourgeoisies, in this case the THC gang, that exploited Non for all his worth until ultimately destroying him.

Final Thoughts

While this episode may feel significantly weaker in comparison to the last five, I think it's providing us with the necessary exposition as we head into our final two episodes. We're seeing the destruction of the 'bourgeoisie' by their own hands with just a little nudge from the sole proletariat. As Hobbes would likely agree, it's a dog eat dog world in that cabin. It always had been with Top, Por, Tee, Fluke and Jin. There was an equality between them, but now with an outside force, their bonds are breaking and they are willing to kill each other just to survive.

Dead Friend Forever is going beyond the standard slasher genre, even beyond horror. I truly think it's making social commentary regarding the classes and human nature. It's going to be interesting to see who comes out the survivor of this party from hell, if there is anyone.

Tagging @slayerkitty for DFF's meta round up.

[vaspider]

Yo, so this is less so a specific ask and more me having the need to verbalize some stuff with the option of getting input from someone with a more knowledgable perspective. I have been thinking a fair bit about Judaism and dabbling with the idea of converting to it. I don’t think it’s something for me, but I am tentatively thinking about the option.

The thing is. I assume you’re familiar with the difference between hard magic and soft magic systems in writing. (If not, the tldr is hard magic is defined with hard rules and limitations and soft magic is more ambiguous and fluid.) And I think my basic thing is that I am very open to what you could call soft spirituality and faith, but unable to jell with any hard beliefs.

For example I can never get myself to really entertain the idea of an afterlife being set up in a very specific way with specific rules and where you know what is happening and why. But I saw that tweet that went around a while ago that was like “I hope that death is like being a child at a party and falling asleep, so somebody carries you to bed and I hope when I die I can still hear the laughter from the other room” and that fucked me up beyond words.

I have gone through a couple religions and beliefs over my life and never found a framework that really fit with me, but in the past couple of years I have developed a lot and realized I have a yearning for spiritual things. My current view could probably best be described as a pantheist leaning agnostic enamored with the idea of belief and experience shaping purpose and giving structure… sort of. As well as the power of belief and to change the way you see the world for the better. It’s hard to explain specifically the angle I like.

The reason I am caught up on Judaism rn is that in a lot of ways it seems to be based around a lot of soft spirituality. I am absolutely in love with the idea that god, or the divine, or spirit, whatever one may call it is not something concrete, not one existence, but more of a force like the laws of physics, or the rules of math. I adore the idea of little rituals and rules to bring god into your life and through that connecting you to culture and history and people and community and spirituality. I love the idea you talked about some time in the past of the four kinds of jews, based on studying the scriptures and following the rules, and that even those who do neither are still a vital part of the jewish people and are needed for it to be whole. There’s so many little details that appeal to me so strongly, because they’re exactly the kind of stuff I am yearning for.

But I feel like the hard aspects keep me away. I love the idea of rules and rituals to shape your life, but I don’t think I could follow the rules of Judaism, because having a preset set of rules feels too hard for me. Similarly I love the idea of studying the texts and the never ending pursuit of decifering the meaning and arguing about it, but I don’t think I could get interested in ever doing it, because having a specific text to do it with is too hard.

So I feel very conflicted, because the way Judaism feels to me from the outside, it shows me both the soft aspects of spirituality I absolutely adore and yearn for, and at the same time the hard aspects that keep me away from religion. And they feel very connected and interwoven.

And it feels like especially as a convert being a part of it is connected with a huge amount of the hard aspects and a lot of work that goes into those. I’d have to first figure out if there is even any jewish denominations (is that the right word?) near where I live that don’t do circumcision and that aren’t on the conservative side (I have no idea how the situation is where I live) and then do all the studies and the entire process involved in converting (which I admittedly don’t know very much about either, so I might be overstating this) to be part of something I would immediately take a half step away from because I’m only really interested in the ideas behind the actual elements of it and not as much the elements themselves if that makes sense?

I guess this is pretty rambly, but maybe you have some input, or something smart to say and if not I hope I’m not coming across as this guy right now:

I think that in the process of writing this ask, you seem to have figured out that this isn't for you right now. If you get to a point where all of those things aren't standing in your way but are a to-do list, that will be when you know it's for you.

And they're generally called movements, not denominations.

[teenidleadultgirl]

i dont dream of violent revolution, i would prefer nobody have to die actually i dont think having laws is racist either and policing society to make sure all are being treated equally and fairly is not a conservative mentality to have

being so unwilling to change the worldview you inhabit by daring to imagine what an equal and just society looks like without bloodshed of humans who dont conform to your mentality is the conservative mindset we are trying to change.

"just let people figure it out themselves and dont help anyone because they're all looking for a way to exploit you" is not the solution to society's ills.

community, trusting your neighbor is a good person even if you dont like them or interact with them, wanting everyone around you to not suffer and also thrive is the only way we are going to be happy.

too many of you think violence is the answer.

your reason for violence doesn't matter when the question we are asking is how to create a fair and just society.

that's what you have to grapple with.

you cannot remove people you don't like from society without violence.

they have a right to exist a happy and safe life just like you, even if you live next door to them and can't stand their guts.

people have the right to ask for help from their community when they are struggling and it's not criminal to want to help out even the most despicable humans you can conjure in your head because at your core, to be a progressive person is to believe in the human capacity for change.

we are capable of change. we are capable of teaching ourselves empathy and kindess for each other. we can make horrible mistakes and they do not have to define us. we need to see our mistakes head on and be accepted for noticing them and trying to change our behavior before causing even more harm to others around you.

change is what it means to be human is the core belief of progressivism. you can change people for the better, change the structure of society if its not working to maximize happiness for all humans, change how we do things once we realize they no longer work for us.

and to be conservative is to reject change. to believe that humans are born a certain way and you cannot change them so the only option to kill the evil ones before they can procreate.

this is the central question that humanity struggles with in this society and that is what we need to ask ourselves. are we willing to change when people tell us we are hurting them or will we kill them to silence their opinion of us before it harms our reputation?

[vaalthus]

The Mana Core (Spoilers)

Oh boy have things escalated quickly.

I have to say I like the brief gander through the Project Casca laboratory. It reminds me all too well of sequences in other video games, in which, characters finds themselves in dreary or primitive settings only to find highly advanced sterile white rooms indicating they are in the presence of something that completely contrasts the settings they've been in prior that tells them immediately that something is either very off or that the world around them is much bigger than they realize.

Unfortunately, in the case of the Magesterium's little white room, we learn that we should very much be in a state of unease when learning the consequences of their use of this facility. To learn that the Mana Core is not self-replenishing is very concerning, as it makes manaphages more terrifying, and it's alarming that the Magesters are more than fine with continuing to take pieces of the Core if it means they can have a stranglehold on their empire and how far it reaches if no alternatives can be substituted for the Core. I'm curious as to whether or not they would have brought Lore to the very brink before giving up on this resource and I feel like we already know the answer to that.

and speaking of alternatives...

Rather interesting to learn that the Exalted did, as suspected, come across MQ based technology and incorporated into their own works. What I find interesting is that one of these remnants was used in the creation of the Exalted Artillery. It certainly explains why the Exalted were able to forge a weapon capable of harming the Aequilibria to begin with as there has been a bit of consistent theme of mechquest related structures, or entities, being able to kind of just break the rules of reality. I wonder, in looking upon this revelation, if Notha would be proud she followed in similar footsteps of the Exalted when it came to incorporating and manipulating technology.

Which of course explains why Akanthus can't be bounded by the rules of magic in this world and is incredibly strong. Not only is he accessing the vast well of mana that the Magesters so desperately wanted to tap into for themselves one day, which grants him a strong body, but he is also slipping past the laws of the magic that governs Lore. Or perhaps more accurately, those laws are overlooking him so to speak. Either way, the world just doesn't know what to do with something like him or rather what he's been connected to.

I genuinely do love the amount of self-pitying Akanthus does in this moment. Yes, it does suck that Sobieslav was effectively raised up alongside other children to be experimented upon until they achieved a state that they were rendered effectively magicless in a world defined by magic and that they might just fade into the Ether once they die but it doesn't justify all they did after they were exiled by the Magesterium. It doesn't justify all those he killed or allowed to be killed in the Land of Dragons nor all the suffering he caused under the guise that he was achieving the peace the Rose claimed it offered.

He implies his lack of mana is what made him a monster, inhuman, but it's not. It was his selfishness, brutality, and apathy towards the lives of others. You were human Akanthus. You just chose to be the worst of what we had to offer.

For a moment, I thought this was going to be the most terrifying moment in this quest...

I even thought perhaps this was going to be that moment, but no there was something much worse waiting to happen. Also screw this guy for putting his hands on the dragon child!

*Ahem* No what was actually terrifying was this moment.

The Aequilibria, the gods of this universe, reawakened. Imagine my utter horror at the fact that it wasn't Jaania trying to weave herself into the Core or the doom bomb being the cause of this moment but us bringing Draco, one of its creation, being the reason why the gods woke up to see what was going on in their world.

Curiously enough, they bare the face of Sk'aar prior to turning back to the eight elemental stars we can see at the top of the Exaltia tower when fighting the Engineer in the Inn. This seems somewhat odd given that Sk'aar seemed to be implying they wanted to awaken a separate entity alongside us which seemed to be the Aequilibria itself.

I just love how this moment proved my suspicion that the eight eyes of Sk'aar we saw in AdventureFriends were supposed to be representative of the Elements which makes sense given the only reason we had that dream in the first place is because the love potion we drank had Quintessence in it, something that clearly contains all eight prime elements within it.

Curiosities on the visage of Aequilibria aside, what follows next is a pitiful sight.

This seems a narrtively fitting end for Akanthus if he can't be harmed. For the longest time, Akanthus viewed himself as an abomination cheated out of his rightful place in the world alongside everyone else and committed countless atrocities in his quest to regain that place. Going as far as waking up the gods of this universe to grant him his way. Upon awakening, they confirm that he is indeed an impurity to the natural order of the world but they do not grant him the connection he seeks. No instead, they remove him even further from the world itself and they contain him in a way only a god can when killing isn't an option. I don't know if this farewell for good to Akanthus since his soul still exists but if so I say goodbye and good riddance to bad rubbish.

With Akanthus finally neutralized, we turn our attention to the elephant in the room:

Our gods are analyzing the state of their creation.

And they are not pleased with the current status of Lore one bit.

All of Lore has just been marked for death because a frozen arch magus and one big metal butthead couldn't leave stuff alone.

Interestingly enough it seems like Aequilibria was referring to the twin cycles when they asked if it was time to start anew. This makes me wonder if Draco themselves aren't necessarily the true destroyer that is meant to wipe clean Lore but merely responsible in alerting Aequilibria when it times to refresh the system and Fluffy in turn is meant to alert them when its time to create life again. It seems somewhat unlikely, especially if they meant they were only waking up because the cycle has gone so wrong, but the Aequilibria makes it sound as if they were supposed to be woken up at set intervals.

What concerns me most though is the way they speak. Others have already pointed out that they talk very robotic in nature, very similarly to how Sk'aar spoke in one of the AdventureFriend routes, and their decisions are very straight to the point and seemingly without any trace of nuance.

Connections to MQ aside, this is very much a being that expects order and nothing but order in the system they have created and if it deems its creation has deviated too far from the system it will conclude to destroy it. I do not have high hopes for being able to reason with such an entity. It took the resources of all the Exalted to force this thing out of commission for a period of time so we are in some serious trouble.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Megan Gafford

Published: May 9, 2024

There is nothing wrong with constructing our own human meaning, without invoking a god. But the risks involved are captured by a pithy insight attributed to G.K. Chesterton: “When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything.” As people have argued since at least 1790, when Edmund Burke published his Reflections on the Revolution in France, sapping society of traditional religious belief can prepare the way for new ideologies controlled by murderous totalitarians like Robespierre—and later, Stalin and Mao.

In “Our Search for Meaning and the Dangers of Possession,” Jungian analyst Lisa Marchiano details how a misplaced religious urge can derail both individuals and societies. She opens with variations on Chesterton’s theme:

“There is no such thing as not worshipping,” wrote novelist David Foster Wallace. “Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.” C.G. Jung would have wholeheartedly agreed. He posited that psychic life is motivated by a religious instinct as fundamental as any other, and that this instinct causes us to seek meaning. “The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not?” Jung wrote in his autobiography. “That is the telling question of his life.” There is empirical evidence that backs up Jung’s idea of a religious instinct. Researchers have found that the less religious people are, the more likely they are to believe in UFOs. “The Western world is, in theory, becoming increasingly secular—but the religious mind remains active,” writes psychology professor Clay Routledge, in The New York Times. He notes that belief in aliens and UFOs appears to be associated with a need to find meaning.

As the famous UFO poster from The X-Files put it, “I want to believe.”

Maria Popova has described the atheist’s need for meaning as equal parts poetic and tragic:

How do we manufacture this feeling of meaning given we are the product of completely austere impersonal forces and we are transient and we will die and return our borrowed stardust to this cold universe that made it?

Popova is riffing off astronomer Carl Sagan’s famous pronouncement that, “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” The original Sagan sentiment is all starry-eyed wonder; Popova’s variation emits the agony of a sentient being balking at mortality. For some of us, having an expiration date imbues the search for meaning with both urgency and desperation. How we choose to cope defines our lives.

Marchiano cautions that worshipping the wrong thing can have dire consequences. She quotes David Foster Wallace:

The compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. Traditional religions do have features that make them less likely to become devouring. They draw on ancient traditions that are often philosophically rich, and they are knitted into the social structure of our society.

Famous atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali heeded this warning when she declared in November 2023 that she is now a Christian—an apostate from apostasy. The first reason she gave for converting to Christianity is her new-found conviction that liberal democratic civilisation depends on the legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition:

That legacy consists of an elaborate set of ideas and institutions designed to safeguard human life, freedom, and dignity—from the nation-state and the rule of law to the institutions of science, health, and learning. As Tom Holland has shown in his marvelous book Dominion, all sorts of apparently secular freedoms—of the market, of conscience, and of the press—find their roots in Christianity. And so I have come to realize that [Bertrand] Russell and my atheist friends failed to see the wood for the trees. The wood is the civilization built on the Judeo-Christian tradition; it is the story of the West, warts and all. Russell’s critique of those contradictions in Christian doctrine is serious, but it is also too narrow in scope.

And the second reason Hirsi Ali gave is that she ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable:

Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life? Russell and other activist atheists believed that with the rejection of God, we would enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism. But the “God hole”—the void left by the retreat of the church—has merely been filled by a jumble of irrational, quasi-religious dogma.

Hirsi Ali concludes that “the erosion of our civilization will continue” without “the power of a unifying story.” And in this regard, she pronounces that, “Christianity has it all.” Notably absent from her road to Damascus moment is any profession of belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ—her religious urge is bound up with her distress at the dire consequences of worshipping the wrong thing.

Her friend Richard Dawkins has responded that atheists have many avenues for finding meaning and purpose. First among them, for the evolutionary biologist, is science:

Then there’s human love, there’s the beauty of a child, a tropical swim under the stars, a ravishing sunset, a Schubert quartet. There’s the art and literature of all the world. The warmth of an intimate embrace. But even if all such things leave you cold—and of course they don’t—even if you feel a ravenous need for more, what on Earth does that have to do with the truth claims of Christianity or any other religion? Even if life were intolerably bleak and empty—it isn’t, but even if it were—how could you, how could anyone, twist a need for solace into a belief in scriptural truth claims about the universe, simply because they make you feel good? Intelligent people don’t believe something because it comforts them. They believe it because, and only because, they have seen evidence that supports it. No, Ayaan, you are not a Christian, you are just a decent human being who mistakenly thinks you need a religion in order to remain so.

Marchiano challenges the strength of what Dawkins calls the “poetry of reality” with a series of case studies of individuals under the grip of “psychological possession,” a state in which “the conscious personality comes to identify with a powerful archetypal idea or image, becoming inflated and dangerously out [of] balance.” Those individuals either disregarded the poetry of reality or found it insufficient to satisfy their religious urges.

Marchiano’s first case study concerns Timothy Treadwell, whose life and death among Alaskan grizzly bears is documented in Werner Herzog’s 2005 film Grizzly Man. Treadwell was eaten alive by the bears in 2003. Marchiano writes:

Enthusiasm comes from the Greek meaning “possessed by God,” and Treadwell’s rapture as he describes grizzlies has a religious fervor. … Treadwell developed a distorted sense of mission, believing that his presence in Katmai was necessary to protect the bears from poachers. Protecting bears was his “calling in life,” and he became convinced that he had been singled out to do this work. “I’m the only protection for these animals,” he states emphatically in the film. In fact, there is no evidence that the bears in Katmai were under any threat from poaching. Nevertheless, the sense of mission Treadwell felt in relation to the bears gave him a sense of a special destiny. Bears carry an undeniably numinous energy and have forever been associated with the divine in various traditions. Treadwell had indeed made contact with the infinite. However, he lacked any structure to ground these experiences.

Like Treadwell, the ground-breaking primatologist Jane Goodall lived among the mighty creatures she studied. Defying the scientific community’s norms, Goodall gave the chimpanzees names instead of numbers, and described them in human-like terms, often attributing their behaviours to emotional states and ascribing to them a theory of mind. This was considered insufficiently objective. Her habit of socialising and making physical contact with the apes is also considered improper today.

But unlike Treadwell, Goodall did not become “possessed.” Far from developing delusions of intimacy with the chimpanzees in Tanzania’s Gombe National Park, her familiarity taught her how readily they could become violent.

Goodall discovered that chimps are not vegetarian, as had been assumed, but hunt other animals for their meat. She observed a war break out between different chimp factions that dragged on for four years. After a particularly violent chimp assaulted her and almost broke her neck in 1989 (towards the end of her thirty years among the animals), Goodall began travelling through their territory with two bodyguards.

Whereas Treadwell’s psychological possession blinded him to the danger posed by grizzly bears, Goodall retained a lifelong fondness for chimpanzees while fully comprehending their capacity for cruelty.

Her greatest discovery was that chimps could fashion tools—an ability previously believed to be a unique, defining feature of humanity. Goodall showed that chimpanzees are more like humans than people had previously realised. Treadwell believed that grizzlies shared in his humanity (or that he shared in their bear-ness), but lacking Goodall’s ability to love animals as they are rather than as he wished them to be, his obsessive and unrequited love led to a foolish death.

So, was there something that inoculated Jane Goodall against psychological possession? If Marchiano is correct that traditional religious belief can be like a vaccine against “becoming inflated and dangerously out [of] balance,” then it is notable that Goodall professes belief in a higher power. In a 2021 interview, she claimed that “religion entered into me” at the age of 16, and: 

What I love today is how science and religion are coming together and more minds are seeing purpose behind the universe and intelligence. … We don’t live in only a materialistic world. Francis Collins drove home that in every single cell in your body there’s a code of several billion instructions. Could that be chance? No. There’s no actual reason why things should be the way they are, and chance mutations couldn’t possibly lead to the complexity of life on earth. This blurring between science and religion is happening more and more. Scientists are more willing to talk about it.

Dawkins would stridently disagree that the complexity of life on earth could not arise from what Popova called “austere impersonal forces.” Indeed, Goodall argues with Charles Darwin himself, who wrote in On the Origin of Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.

How curious that the scientist who discovered the kinship between humans and chimpanzees disagrees with the bedrock idea upon which the entire field of evolutionary biology is built: that the complexity of life on Earth results from an eons-long succession of tiny, incremental changes. Goodall uncovered a biological truth while denying a fundamental biological mechanism.

Darwin’s theories have long been at odds with religious belief. Could it be that by rejecting a fundamental aspect of evolution in order to safeguard her traditional religious belief, Goodall protected herself from psychological possession, thereby enabling her contribution to science?

Marchiano might find that argument compelling. She writes:

How do we worship without being eaten alive? A genuinely religious attitude in the psychological sense is an antidote to inflation. The word religion may come from the Latin religare, which means to bind fast, or place an obligation on. In contrast to puffed-up inflation, a religious attitude binds us to something larger, and puts upon us a sacred obligation to the infinite. An awareness of our dependence upon that which is larger breeds the humility without which wisdom is not possible. It reminds us that our ego is just a small part of us, and is dependent upon—and easily influenced by—irrational, unconscious forces that are beyond our full understanding.

If it is true that few people can safely satisfy their religious urge by simply appreciating the “poetry of reality,” then the pursuit of meaning and the pursuit of truth will sometimes be at odds. Or at least, humanity may come at truth obliquely, or embrace it only partially. Even as we appreciate how religion may safeguard against psychological possession, we should recognise the trade-off: we may have to sacrifice objective truth to the need for psychological or—for people like Hirsi Ali—social stability.

And yet, psychological stability is clearly necessary if we want to pursue truth. It is the difference between a Timothy Treadwell and a Jane Goodall. Some—perhaps many—people may only be able to discover certain truths (the violent behaviour of chimpanzees) by denying others (evolution by natural selection). Atheists will need to swallow that paradoxical and bitter pill. And yet, the religiously minded should not feel too pleased, either. Whatever protection their faith affords them has its limitations.

As Marchiano wisely notes, traditional religions can also become devouring. Conservative intellectual Jonah Goldberg agrees with both her argument and her caveat in his recent essay, “The Messianic Temptation”:

My theory of the case held that believing Christians and other traditional believers are partially immune to such heresies precisely because they don’t have holes in their souls to be filled up by secular idols. The space for God is filled by God. I still believe that. What I failed to fully account for is that the religious can fall for false idols and false prophets, too. After all, that’s the moral of the golden calf in the first place.

Goldberg describes how he once enjoyed poking fun at some American leftists for discussing Barack Obama in messianic terms—only to discover that many on the American right now talk about Trump delivering salvation. Goldberg recognizes that these are merely new incarnations of an old phenomenon:

At the beginning of the 20th century, champions of eugenics, nationalism, socialism, etc., claimed that Jesus was, variously, the first eugenicist, the first nationalist, the first socialist. Now Jesus is MAGA. It’s all very depressing. And annoying. But it isn’t really new. A New York Times correspondent covering the 1912 Progressive Party convention, described it as a “convention of fanatics.” Political speeches were interrupted by the singing of hymns and cries of “Amen!” “It was not a convention at all,” the Times reported. “It was an assemblage of religious enthusiasts. It was such a convention as Peter the Hermit held. It was a Methodist camp meeting done over into political terms.” The delegates sang “We Will Follow Jesus,” but with the name “Roosevelt” replacing Jesus. Roosevelt told the rapturous audience, “Our cause is based on the eternal principles of righteousness. … We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”

Sometimes people think they are serving their god, when they are really making their god serve a politician—a mere mortal in a famously corrupting line of work. Though they didn’t build their own temples from scratch, these people have rearranged the building blocks to incorporate a cause du jour. In such cases, traditional religious belief was an insufficient prophylactic against worshipping the wrong thing.

Nevertheless, Marchiano argues convincingly that traditional religion is one way that people can worship without being eaten alive, because it might inspire humility:

An awareness of our dependence upon that which is larger breeds the humility without which wisdom is not possible. It reminds us that our ego is just a small part of us, and is dependent upon—and easily influenced by—irrational, unconscious forces that are beyond our full understanding.

But Dawkins is right that a sense of wonder is a healthy outlet for atheists with a religious instinct. Scientists like him, as well as laypeople enthralled by what science teaches us, can find humility by studying the natural world. After all, Darwin’s theories were not just an affront to some religious doctrines but also to human pride. People didn’t much care for the idea that humanity was the result of eons of evolutionary nudges rather than divine decree. Believing that we are God’s special creation strokes our ego; believing that we fill an evolutionary niche, neither more nor less successfully than a house fly fills its position in the web of life, does not evoke pride.

Different types of people will be attracted to the theist and atheist options for combatting hubris and the lure of psychological possession. Likewise, there will always be some people who succumb to either the theist or atheist way of being eaten alive. Humility does seem to be the antidote to this, but unfortunately there is no universally guaranteed method for cultivating it.

==

I still wonder myself why I was immune to Critical Social Justice ideology when so many atheists got sucked into the woke cult.

[ahopkins1965]



Open navigation menu

Advice Home

Family

Six Family Types And Their Unique Dynamics

Medically reviewed by Andrea Brant, LMHC

UpdatedNovember 12th, 2024byBetterHelp Editorial Team

Different family types are not only common but also much more accepted than they were in the past. To define family types, we categorize families based on their structure and dynamics, such as single-parent households, nuclear families, and extended families. It's not uncommon to be raised by a single mother or be part of a mixed family. Each family type (there are six main ones that people agree on) has a unique family dynamic. 

Learning about your family type and thinking about how it affects your family dynamic can help bring you clarity about your family challenges or give you insight into the process of going through a big shift in your family structure. Looking at family type and dynamics can also give you a better idea of the strengths and weaknesses that your family is likely working with. 

Some people may also choose to begin parenting classes or online therapy to deepen their understanding of family dynamics.

Six different family types and their unique family dynamics

Though the exact definition of a family depends largely on individual interpretations and cultural norms, there are some sources that define at least six unique family types that follow their own set of dynamics and structures.

1. Nuclear family

Nuclear families, also known as elementary or traditional families, consist of two parents (usually married or common law) and their children. Nuclear families typically have one or more children; they may be biological or adopted, but the main idea is that the parents are raising their kids together in the family home.

Though nuclear families seem to be on the decline, a 2016 U.S. Census study shows that 69% of children still live in nuclear families. This is the most commonly depicted and explored family type.

Nuclear families can be strong and successful, with both parents being great examples for their kids. These kids often have many advantages over other families with less, which can help them get ahead in life. However, like any family, nuclear families have their struggles to face. For example, if parents shut out grandparents and other extended family, chances are their support system will not be strong and getting through hard times can be challenging.



Want to work with an expert to improve your family dynamics?

Match with a family therapist online

Strengths of nuclear families

Financially stable, both parents usually work now

Children raised in a stable parenting situation

Consistency

Emphasis on health and education

Focus on communication

Weaknesses of nuclear families

Exclusion of extended family can lead to isolation and stress

Can struggle with conflict resolution

Nuclear families can become too child-focused, resulting in self-centered children and families neglecting other important things

2. Single parent

Single-parent families consist of one parent with one or more kids. In these cases, the parent either never married, widowed, or divorced. A paper by Ellwood, D.T., and Jencks, C. (2004) talks about how single-parent families have been on the rise since the 1960s when divorce rates started going up (and so did births happening out of wedlock). They suggest that these changes could be due to many different factors, from leaving behind outdated gender roles to feeling comfortable being independent and achieving the goal of raising a child, regardless of the presence of a spouse or not.

Someone who is single parenting and raising kids alone is not that uncommon anymore, and like any other family type, single-parent homes have their pros and cons. Being a single parent raising kids can be hard. It can also be hard being a kid when your parents are split up or if you grew up only knowing one parent. In this situation, families need to make the best of what they have and rely on each other for love and support. 

Strengths of single-parent families

Family can become very close

Learn to household duties

Children and parents can become very resilient

Weaknesses of single-parent families

Families may have difficulty getting by on one income

It can be difficult for single parents to work full-time and still afford quality childcare

Getty/MoMo Productions

When you are struggling with family conflict, how do you find solutions?

Talk to my family to find a solution togetherReach out to someone I trust (outside of family)Ignore the conflictDo a fun family activity

Total votes:0Your vote has been added.

3. Extended family

While most people in the U.S. would identify nuclear families as being the "traditional" family type, in different cultures, extended families are much more common and have been around for hundreds of years. Extended families are families with two or more adults who are related through blood or marriage, usually along with children. This often includes aunts, uncles, cousins, or other relatives living under the same roof.

Typically, extended families live together for social support and to achieve common goals. For example, parents may live with their children and their children's grandparents. This gives the family the ability to provide care for their elderly, and in turn, the grandparents may be able to help with childcare while the parents are at work.

In North America, extended families living together isn't that common, but it does happen occasionally. What's nice about extended families is how close they can be and how they give each other a lot of support. That doesn't mean that so much family living together is always easy, though. There can be differences in opinion in extended families, and some people might live this way because they are obligated, not because they want to.

Strengths of extended families

Things like respect and care for the elderly are important

More family around to help with chores, child care, in case of emergencies, etc.

Social support

Weaknesses of extended families

Financial issues can occur if parents are supporting several other adults and children without any extra income

Lack of secludedness depending on the living environment

4. Childless family

Childless families are families with two partners who cannot have or don't want kids. In the world of family types and dynamics, these families are often forgotten or left out (even though you can still have a family without children). In the past, growing up, getting married, and having children was the norm, but in today's world, more people are choosing to postpone having children or deciding not to have any.

These unique families include working couples who may have pets or enjoy taking on other people's kids (like nieces and nephews) for the day occasionally rather than having their own. They could also be adventurous couples who don't feel like kids would be a good fit for their lifestyle. These relationships can be between wife and husband, husband and husband, wife and wife, or partner and partner.

The decision of whether to have kids is a difficult and highly personal one. Having kids isn't for everyone, and some families do great without them. Still, it's important to remember that some childless families are not childless because they want to be. Be kind before you assume about someone's family unit, as a number of people may be in a childless family due to infertility, or have sensitivity regarding the topic of children in general.

Getty

Want to work with an expert to improve your family dynamics?

Match with a family therapist online

Strengths of childless families

Typically have more disposable income

No dependents to take care of

Have more freedom to travel, go on adventures, pursue different careers or education

Couples get to spend more time together

Weaknesses of childless families

Couples can feel isolated or left out when all their friends/family start having kids

If you like kids, you can feel like something is missing

Infertility can force a family to be childless, which can be hard for couples

5. Stepfamily

A stepfamily is when two separate families merge into one. This can go several different ways, like two divorced parents with one or more children blending families, or one divorced parent with kids marrying someone who has never been married and has no kids.

Like single-parent families, step-families have become more common over the years. Like all these different family types, stepfamilies also have a unique set of strengths and weaknesses that they need to deal with.

Going from a nuclear or single-parent family to a stepfamily can be a tough transition. It can be hard letting new people into your family dynamic, especially welcoming in a whole other family. Over time though, some children will come to accept their stepparents and step-siblings as part of the family and form strong bonds. This often also requires co-parenting of adoptive kids and can increase the number of people each partner has to look after or care for in the family unit. 

Co-parenting is somewhat different from parallel parenting. Even if both procedures allow both parents to be in charge of custody and parental obligations, co-parenting entails cooperation, plenty of communication, and a collaborative approach to parenting, compared to parallel parenting wherein there's limited direct contact with each other. Step-grand-parents might also be involved in this dynamic, as there are many variations and a wide spread of how far a stepfamily can go.

Strengths of stepfamilies

Children get the benefit of having two parents around

Children and their new siblings or step-parents can form strong bonds

The benefit of having two incomes compared to single-parent families

Weaknesses of stepfamilies

Adjustment can be difficult for parents and children

Parents can run into problems trying to discipline each other's kids

May lack discipline or be inconsistent

6. Grandparent family

The final family type is the grandparent family. A grandparent family is when one or more grandparent is raising their grandchild or grandchildren. While uncommon, according to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, grandparent-headed families are on the rise. They that, "Census study indicate that in the United States approximately 2.4 million grandparents are raising 4.5 million children."

This situation happens when the parents aren't around to take care of their kids or are incapable of properly taking care of their kids. For example, the parents might be incarcerated, too young to provide, may have a substance use disorder, or possibly due to the parent’s death. Thankfully, in these situations, the grandparents step up and act as parents to their grandchildren. This family unit can happen regardless of being wealthy, poor, or middle-class. 

If you are struggling with substance use, contact the SAMHSA National Helpline at (800) 662-4357 to receive support and resources. Support is available 24/7.

It can be hard for grandparents to raise their grandchildren. In most cases, they probably thought they were done raising kids and might not have the health and energy to do so. Still, when needed, many grandparents step up and do what's needed. 

Strengths of grandparent families

Grandparents and grandchildren form a close bond

Keeps children from ending up in foster homes or other situations

Weaknesses of grandparent families

Grandparents may not work or have full-time jobs, may struggle with income

Depending on their health, it may be difficult for them to keep up with young children or discipline them as they get older

Takeaway

Therapy (family or individual) can help those struggling with changes in family type/dynamics. Online counseling services like BetterHelp can provide an outlet for people who are going through a difficult time with their family. Whether you want to know more about the psychology behind family dynamics, about polygamous families, or just find a place to discuss what category you think your family fits into, online therapy is a great place to start.

Online therapy can be an especially good option for families for whom travel is difficult or who would rather meet in the comfort of their home to discuss their concerns and work together to improve their family dynamics. Research suggests that online therapy is just as effective as its in-person counterpart for a range of concerns and treatments, meaning that you don’t have to compromise on the quality of your care for its convenience.

Whether you are in a same-sex family, have interracial relationship history, a binuclear family, a multigenerational family unit, or have parents who are polyamorous, have a large family, or have a small one, each family is unique in its own way.

Read more

Was this article helpful?

Not helpful

Very helpful

Previous Article



Birth Order Theory: Insights Into Your PersonalityMedically reviewed by Karen Foster, LPC

Next Article



How Domestic Violence Impacts SocietyMedically reviewed by Melissa Guarnaccia, LCSW

Helpful mental health resources delivered to your inbox

EmailEmail

Sign up

Seeking to explore family concerns in a supportive environment?

Meet with a licensed therapist online

The information on this page is not intended to be a substitution for diagnosis, treatment, or informed professional advice. You should not take any action or avoid taking any action without consulting with a qualified mental health professional. For more information, please read our terms of use.

SearchSearch

Get the support you need from one of our therapistsGet started

Top categories

Family

General

Therapy

Relationships and Relations

Depression

See all categories

Try BetterHelp

If you are in a crisis or any other person may be in danger - don't use this site. These resources can provide you with immediate help.

Home

Business

About

FAQ

Reviews

Advice

Careers

Find a Therapist

Online Therapy

Contact

For Therapists

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Sharing Settings

Web Accessibility

© 2025 BetterHelp

[dandelionh3art]

We get so bogged down in the daily stream of atrocities committed by Israel that it's easy to lose sight of the big picture.

At the end of the day the reason why it matters so much, besides it being an affront to our most basic humanity, is because whatever we collectively let happen - or not - will define the fundamental structure of the international order for decades to come.

Why, and how?

The most important thing to remember about the period we're living in is that we're in a transition between world orders. We're exiting US hegemony - it's over already - and entering an new order.

Such transitions happen rarely, once a century or so. The last time was the end of the Cold War when we transitioned from a bipolar world order to US hegemony, or "Pax Americana" as it was known (which wasn't "pax" at all given the millions violently killed in U.S. wars, which is the very reason why it was so short-lived... but that's besides the point).

But this transition is extra special, because for the first time in 300+ years, we have non-Western states such as China becoming preeminent powers. As we all know, ever since the Industrial Revolution, it was the West dominating the system. Transitions occurred but between Western states: Portugal to Spain, Spain to the British, the British to the US.

So that's the backdrop. Now how does Israel fit in and why does it matter?

Orders are based on principles, and founding historical events matter enormously to underwrite these principles.

Go back to the past, when the West started colonizing the planet, at first timidly (a few "trading posts" in Africa in the 15th century) and then more and more boldly, all the way to claiming entire continents. Why? Because they could, they were writing the principles (or lack thereof) of a new West-dominated world order.

Or if you want a closer example, take NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, one of the founding acts of the US hegemony era. Completely illegal with regards to international law or even of NATO's own treaty (Serbia didn't attack and wasn't preparing to attack a member state of NATO), so much so that - it's funny to recall today - even Ariel Sharon at the time called an act of "brutal interventionism". Looking back, it premised the entire US hegemonic order: a time of unilateral, hubristic and brutal interventionism with little regard for international law. The message was "we do whatever the hell we want"... And this first act was timid compared with what was to come afterwards and the millions killed in the post 9-11 so-called "war on terror".

Now I'm obviously not suggesting that Israel will be a preeminent state in the new world order, it's way too small for this. What I am saying is that the actions we collectively permit today will echo for decades to come and define the larger battles that will shape our future.

And everyone can see that the precedents that we're setting are beyond horrifying: some of the principles Israel breaks were established for centuries such as the illegality of bombing embassies, or the killing of medical staff. Even in the Middle-Age we knew better not to do that stuff.

People don't realize just how consequential this is: what's at stake is quite simply everything. If we let the future of the international order be based on the murder of Palestinians, and now the Lebanese, we're paving the way for the most unprincipled and nihilistic order we've ever known, where virtually anything goes.

I see many people, some of them I believe sincere, defend Israel on the basis that it's a "fight for civilization against barbarism". It's in fact the EXACT CONTRARY. Israel is literally destroying everything civilization is based upon: sovereignty, the rule of law, human rights, freedom, etc. If you care about any of these things and if you truly understood what's happening, you'd be an ardent defender of the Palestinians and Lebanese.

Many people cheered Israel on its "daring" actions against Hezbollah, including the killing of Nasrallah, on the basis that these were "terrorists" (remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...). What fewer people know is that the reason why Israel did those actions wasn't at all because they were "terrorists", which is always just a propaganda label for the gullible public: according to Israeli officials themselves as quoted by NBC (nbcnews.com/news/world/liv…) they did it because Hezbollah refused a side deal that abandoned the Palestinians and let Israel continue its its land grab and ethnic cleansing unimpeded. In other words the "terrorists" of Hezbollah were the only ones who actually decided to make Israel face accountability on what all UN resolutions and the immense majority of the international community have been calling for ceaselessly. They're the only ones who decided to actually enforce the rules we supposedly have. THAT is why they're getting bombed and killed.

All in all, if you genuinely care about the principles that underlie civilization, the Palestinian cause should be THE priority cause for you, because of the precedents that are being set.

Another non-trivial group of people defend Israel because they're essentially supremacists, wanting "the West" to crush those "Muslims" (notwithstanding the fact many Palestinians and even more Lebanese are Christian) for daring to rebel against their subjugation. But even if that's your case, if you were to take a step back and use a modicum of common sense, you'd see that in the grand scheme of things this is absolutely not in your interest.

Again the key characteristic of the emerging world order is the rise of non-Western powers: by supporting Israel's actions, you're effectively setting the rules of engagement for what may be done to you... Also if you're a supremacist, I imagine that you're not very fond of immigration: in Lebanon alone, one million people have already been displaced from their homes by Israel. As is the case with so many wars (remember Syria, Libya, etc.), Israel's actions are triggering yet another immigration crisis.

Or think about this: if you're a supremacist you by definition think that Western values are superior... Doesn't it disturb you in the slightest that objectively speaking what Israel is doing violates just about every single one of these values and thereby destroys the very basis of this supposed superiority? That endlessly, from now on, whenever you'll start your spiel about Western superiority, the immediate answer you'll receive is "yeah but Gaza though..."?

So all in all, no matter where you come from on this, once you start thinking through it, the larger implications become impossible to ignore. Every one of us bears responsibility for the world we're creating through the actions we let happen. Do we want a world underwritten by "anything goes" and "might makes right", do we want to step into an unprecedently nihilistic order? Or do we want a world with a vision for a shared future for mankind, underwritten by common principles, a world that makes us somewhat proud to be human? That's what's at stake with Israel today.

[sorcave]

Finished all the anime eps so far so here goes.

Kunikida is a man of ideals - a quality that he wastes no time asserting once he takes center stage as early as Season 1. He strives to live a life of virtue and has planned out every step of it in his notebook, from his dreams and aspirations to his love life and even just his daily schedule. It's a rigid structure to live, but one which Kunikida views as a guiding light to not only live his best life but to live in a way that benefits society and upholds justice.

So, naturally, this detail-oriented man with a diligent work ethic finds his sense of equilibrium frequently shaken by the eclectic oddballs comprising his friends and co-workers. Resultingly, he's not quite as stoic of a leader as Fukuzawa. For all his composure, he is prone to bursts of comical anger, most often directed at Dazai, whose mischievousness and carefree attitude are his antithesis.

It's no secret why Dazai is such a beloved character and the mesmeric core of the story. He's on the side of good, but his past and layered personality suggest a dark side that makes him extremely compelling. People love bad boys, but it's worth noting just how pivotal Kunikida is in making Dazai such an effective character. If there wasn't a straight-laced "good cop" bouncing off of Dazai's witty jabs, the banter wouldn't have the same charm.

In the pre-Chuuya Nakahara era of Bungo Stray Dogs, Kunikida was the perfect foil to Dazai, hence their being partnered up at various points in Season 1. Episodes 6 and 7 were adapted from the very first Bungo light novel, a story which originally was set two years before the series began. Instead, the anime places this story after Atsushi has joined, which works just as well and, in fact, significantly benefits Kunikida's character.

It's not difficult to see why Kunikida might slip under the radar for some fans when considering favorites among the cast. He's a Lawful Good character and the trouble with them is that they can be received as boring because they play by the rules and audiences like characters who break rules. After all, sometimes the audience wants to break the rules themselves, so it's cathartic, while also yielding a flawed protagonist that might be more relatable.

These are generalizations, of course, but one doesn't have to hate Kunikida or the Lawful Good archetype to demonstrate indifference based on such surface-level qualities. And make no mistake, it's only the surface-level qualities that set Kunikida even remotely apart from a large cast known for consistently bold introductions. If Kunikida is overlooked compared to the rest of them, then it stands to reason that he's lacking a certain something.

Finding out what is a conundrum because what makes a character someone's favorite can be anything from the biggest plot points to the most subtle moments. Ranpo's backstory in Season 4 made an already great character even better, same with Yosano that same season. All it takes is a single good episode to become obsessed with someone who, up until that point, might have been just another character. Lucky for Kunikida, he got two early on.

The Azure Messenger story is very much the defining tale of his character; one that challenges the ideals that define him, through the return of an old case that's come back to haunt him. It's a story that ends in tragedy and which leaves him furious and frustrated. Next to Season 2's Dark Era arc, it's one of the first dramatic moments where Bungo gets serious in a way that demands pause. Yet, despite not reaching a favorable conclusion, Kunikida stands firm.

Another thing that - again, on a surface level - can be frustrating about Lawful Good characters is how their conflicts can be rooted in their innate goodness. Thus, the villains, human nature, or even the universe at large, endeavor to tarnish it and "break" the hero. A less charitable interpretation of such a character might conclude that they lack a substantial flaw.

The trouble with this conclusion is that it sort of eschews the point of a character arc. If a more relatable, flawed character is compelling, it's because they are challenged to confront said flaws, either fixing them or giving in. In the same way, an idealistic character is useful because their conflicts challenge their propensity to be the kind of person that the audience should hypothetically strive to be.

Kunikida is a compelling character because he represents how hard it is to live up to ideals, and the importance of striving to despite the impossibility of never faltering. And it isn't a conclusion that he comes to without a struggle. The best part of the Azure Messenger case is how it affects him throughout the rest of the season. Despite his assertions, Kunikida becomes more jaded, which leads him to discourage Atsushi from trying to save Kyouka.

But Atsushi doesn't give up, and Kunikida noticeably has some of that faith in his ideals restored. One of the best creative choices the anime made was adapting the first light novel as they did. It allowed the climax of Season 1 to be even more impactful by giving Kunikida a complete arc, the drama of which would be echoed in future seasons.

Truth be told, the most pressing reason why Kunikida has faded from the discourse is his seeming lack of relevance since Season 3. Between the underrated Episode 25 and the Cannibalism arc, Kunikida cements his place as a leader. However, the death he witnesses in that same arc is a harrowing event that has yet to truly take hold and push his story forward.

There have been suggestions of an inner conflict, like in Kunikida's scenes with Jouno of the Hunting Dogs, but as of the end of Season 5, they haven't amounted to much. With any luck, Bungo Stray Dogs' next arc will have something exciting in store for him, because it would truly be a tragedy not to see this man's search for ideals end prematurely. Although I feel a lot of this is remedied once I read through the manga along with the light novels.

[pitythefool888]

“Your existence is not impossible, but it’s also not very likely”

In geological time we are nothing but a blip, blink and you could miss an entire human lifespan, even all of humanity accumulated. We are of two minds, the one that can comprehend the vastness of the universe and our relatively small place in it, coming up with models of the universe and ideas like “Deep Time” which serve to let the mind comprehend this immensity, and also of the one that is used to go about our daily lives. Humans are unique creatures in that we have the ability to back step from our lives and take an outsider perspective. At the same time there is no escape from these lives except by death. We have somehow found ourselves in the position of the mind experiencing itself. The Law of conservation of Mass explains that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. If this holds true, every state of being from the beginning of time consists of the same matter being infinitely reorganized into new formations. Same soup just reheated, if you will. We are of the universe, not situated apart from it. We share the same chemical elements with the stars, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen. I have often asked myself, if we share the same chemical components and have developed complex enough brain functions to be aware of our place in the cosmos, does that make the world like clay in our hands? Looking at all we have deciphered and built over the ages, I would argue that it does. But just like the first time you learn how small you really are in this world, reckoning with what we are capable of can be overwhelming, daunting, and even downright scary. It’s a lot of potential power and a lot of responsibility. I think placing this burden of truth elsewhere is one of the ways we try to cope with this. Faith is put in countless ideas and concepts larger than ourselves and always has been. From the first creation myths to modern religion to maths and physics to rulers, leaders and governments, it seems there is always a default to structures of power. We act in servitude to the entities larger than ourselves because without them the burden falls on the everyday person to work out the meaning of it all, and I reckon that gets in the way of trying to live a normal life, a happy and healthy life full of tiny little things we love so dearly. But in every ideology about the structure of the universe sits an assemblage of millions of lives and generations. In a single lifetime one could only begin to speculate on all the things to consider that makeup an individual existence, much less the existence of all things, but in the thousands if not millions of tangential deities, cosmologies, and sciences that groups of people have oriented themselves to, their is the accumulation of millions of lifetimes of thinkers, from those revered to those who died unknown. All of these lives spent in one way or another looking for the governing pattern and larger plan.

Everyone partakes in meaning-making processed in their own lives at some point or another. I would go as far as to speculate every human beings has at one point asked themselves “what is this all for?”. If that is the case, why hasn’t anyone cracked the code yet? Perhaps it's because there isn’t one. No larger plan, no proper order of things, just chaos we are left to live through and try to make sense of. This would explain why our lives seem so full of absurdity, because that’s the natural state of existence. Yet through all of this we trudge forward. We make lives, make friends, find jobs, homes, fall in love, travel the world, examine and experience. We experience, then we process and dissect, then experience again, process some more, and over time attribute all this thinking and processing to a larger scaffolding that we call a life. When there was no grander scheme to attribute meaning to, we created our own, and defined our lives by those constructions. The indomitable human spirit ringing out across the ages. 

If absurdity is coincidence, and we are the universe experiencing itself, maybe Plato was right when he said you can only be wise when you accept you will never know everything. Maybe you can only find peace when you accept that you will never receive an answer to the biggest questions in existence. But even the ungoverned state of chaos in the cosmos can’t stop us from asking. It may be impossible to know everything, but it’s not impossible to know some things, even a lot of things.  If I truly know nothing in the grand scheme, then how can I rely on my own certainty that there is no larger plan? How can I know the laws of the universe won’t have become a viral, civilization changing phenomena tomorrow? I don’t, and that’s the exciting bit. We can speculate all we want but at a certain point it becomes meaningless if we don’t actively engage in the world we spend so much time thinking about. Even as I began to put pen to paper sitting atop my garage roof, exploring a stream of consciousness exercise on the absurd, I felt I was going mad. I felt I could be sat up their writing forever as I followed each idea down the bend of the river, but then my butt started to get sore and my hand started to cramp and I was forced to tend to those things, unable to write forever. Our physical bodies ground us in the world by ensuring we experience it, and I posit without the physical, if we were just consciousness, we would be driven mad by the immensity of thought, we would end up lost in isolation inside our own minds. 

Absurdity and happenstance are inextricable from existence. There is no way of telling with certainty what is going to happen in the future, be it an hour from now or a thousand years. Expectation and reality are bound to clash against one another, and this is the most important fact of life. If things always went exactly as planned there would be no learning, no variety, no being left speechless and dumbfounded, no state of awe. Without those things one is left in a state of stagnation. Never growing, never changing, never improving. Without absurdity there would be no hope and no humanity, and there never would be. Absurdity is the external factor pushing progress. It is the lifeblood of all existence.

-MD

[mariacallous]

What’s happening with LGBTQ+ rights in Russia?

On November 30, the Russian Supreme Court granted the Justice Ministry’s request to ban the “international LGBT movement” as an “extremist organization.” According to the Justice Ministry, which filed its lawsuit on November 17, the so-called “LGBT movement’s” activities showed “signs and manifestations of an extremist orientation, including the incitement of social and religious discord.”

Meduza first published this analysis on November 17. It was updated on November 30 after the Supreme Court’s decision.

Russian authorities have been discriminating against and persecuting LGBTQ+ people for many years. In 2013, Russia banned “gay propaganda” among minors, and in 2022, they passed a law prohibiting “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations and pedophilia” among people of all ages. Bookstores and libraries removed books affected by the law from their shelves, and mentions of same-sex relationships were cut from TV shows and games. Those who didn’t comply faced fines.

In July 2023, Putin signed a law banning “gender change,” which prohibits both changing gender markers in passports and preforming gender-affirming surgeries. People who’ve already changed the gender marker in their passports aren’t allowed to adopt children.

2

How does the Supreme Court define the ‘LGBT movement’?

We don’t know. Obviously, there’s no such thing as an “international LGBT movement” that was somehow “operating” in Russia.

Valeria Vetoshkina, a lawyer for the human rights group Department One, told Meduza that there’s no such organization registered in Russia and no documentation that would identify a “single-entity” LGBTQ+ movement.

(A group of activists and human rights advocates did register an organization under the name “International LGBT Movement” on November 28, but they did this in an attempt to thwart the Justice Ministry’s strategy; when the ministry filed its lawsuit on November 17, there was no such entity.)

3

Can they really ban such an abstract structure?

Yes — there have already been similar instances in Russian judicial history.

In August 2020, the Supreme Court designated the AUE movement as an “extremist organization.” The General Prosecutor then announced that “participants in the AUE movement committed extremist offenses and mass riots.”

In February 2022, the Supreme Court designated the “Columbine international youth movement” as a terrorist organization. The hearing wasn’t open to the public, since “the case contained information related to state secrets.”

4

So, the Justice Ministry can just invent ‘extremist’ organizations?

Theoretically, no.

LGBTQ+ rights lawyer Max Olenichev, who collaborates with Department One, notes that the federal law on “countering extremist activity” only allows structures that actually exist to be recognized as extremist. A public association may be unregistered, but for a movement to exist, it has to meet three criteria:

holding a founding assembly

approving a charter

electing governing bodies

Since the “international LGBT movement” doesn’t exist, it’s obvious the Justice Ministry can’t present evidence that it meets the necessary criteria, says Olenichev.

5

What were the Justice Ministry’s arguments in court anyway?

Unfortunately, we don’t know. Just like in the case of “Columbine,” the hearing wasn’t open to the public. “The decision won’t be published and the lawsuit also won’t be available,” explains lawyer Valeria Vetoshkina.

Another lawyer who spoke to Meduza under the condition of anonymity brought attention to the case number — AKPI23-990c:

By all accounts, it’s classified. Classified cases end with a “c.” So we won’t even find out the reasons why the “LGBT movement” was declared extremist.

6

So now, will LGBTQ+ people who don’t hide their sexual identity be considered extremists and be prosecuted for it?

Yes, this is more than likely, according to lawyers who spoke with Meduza. One lawyer, who wished to remain anonymous, says that since the Supreme Court considers “participation in the activities of an extremist organization” to be any “deliberate actions aimed at achieving [its] goals,” meaning any public LGBTQ+ activism could qualify.

Lawyer Max Olenichev says that if a person positions themselves as an LGBTQ+ activist, the authorities may start to pay increased attention to them: investigate their social media and gather information about their activities. Then, if the authorities associate these activities with the non-existent “international LGBT movement,” they could bring charges against the person.

Once an organization is declared “extremist” and banned, “participating in” or “organizing” its activities, as well as financing its operations becomes illegal. Violations of these rules can lead to lengthy prison sentences and inclusion on a list of terrorists and extremists. Once on the list, a person’s bank accounts will be frozen.

7

Who can now be designated a ‘participant’ or ‘organizer’ of this non-existent association?

We don’t know for certain — it’ll only be clear after the first court decision. But by evaluating the judicial practice related to the AUE movement, we can conclude that people who speak about LGBTQ+ rights, either in public or in private conversations, would be at risk.

One lawyer, who asked to remain anonymous, told Meduza:

The average person doesn’t often run the risk of saying something that could lead to them being associated with the AUE movement, which is aimed at prison subculture and street youth subculture. But with LGBTQ+, it’s easier. Anyone, even someone who doesn’t identify as LGBTQ+ themselves, can say that LGBTQ+ rights are human rights.  

In addition to “participants” and “organizers,” the fictitious "international LGBT social movement" may also have "supporters," whose rights will be restricted by the authorities.

8

Who could be considered an ‘LGBT supporter’?

According to the authorities, “supporters” are those who are “involved in the actions of” “extremist” organizations. This could be anyone who helps such organizations by donating, giving advice, or providing other forms of assistance. Involvement can be considered participation in activities or even just making supportive statements.

Supporters can be banned from running for office, as was the case for Alexey Navalny and his Anti-Corruption Foundation, which was designated an “extremist” organization. This applies retroactively to anyone who was involved in the activities of an organization up to one year before they were labeled “extremist.” In other words, anyone who has in the last year spoken out about LGBTQ+ people on the Internet, demonstrated for their rights, or donated money to an LGBTQ+ human rights organization may be banned from running for office at any level.

9

Will members of the LGBTQ+ community who aren’t involved in activism be affected?

Most likely, yes. One lawyer said he was confident that problems may arise for everyone — even if a person isn’t an activist, but has merely expressed the opinion that LGBTQ+ people should have the same rights as other people. At the same time, he doesn’t think it likely that they “will start getting rounded up in the streets,” but says anyone seen in any “public activity” that could be construed as related to LGBTQ+ is at risk.

Experts from the human rights organization Public Verdict also write that “there are risks that some forms of statements about one's orientation may be seen as recruitment or involvement in [extremist organization] activities.” Even wearing LGBTQ+ symbols could qualify.

Lawyer Max Olenichev says that the lawsuit (and resulting ruling) will make it much harder for groups to provide legal and psychological support to LGBTQ+ people and that it will further stereotypes and prejudices in society, “creating an atmosphere of fear and violence.”

10

Will the media also not be able to write about LGBTQ+ topics?

It’s already challenging now: for “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations,” which is very vaguely defined, media outlets can already be fined up to 400,000 rubles (about $4,500).

After the Supreme Court’s decision comes into effect, it will become even more difficult: mass media, bloggers, and ordinary people on social media will be required to mention that the Russian authorities have declared the “international LGBT movement” an “extremist organization” and banned it. Those who don’t will face fines. 

The law also prohibits the media from disseminating “extremist materials.” In Russia, there’s a federal list of these materials compiled by the Justice Ministry (using court decisions). If any materials from the so-called “international LGBT movement” end up on the list, their distribution will be punishable by a fine of up to one million rubles (about $11,100) or even suspension of media activities for up to three months.

11

Are there any other risks?

Unfortunately, there are. On September 28, Russia’s State Duma approved the first reading of a law that punishes “the justification or propaganda of extremism.” They plan to supplement and rename an existing law that prohibits publicly calling for extremism, an offence carrying a potential five-year prison sentence.

The authorities plan to punish “justification” and “propaganda” of extremism the same way they currently punish calls for extremist activity. Those who do so on the Internet (or in the media) can face up to five years imprisonment. Unfortunately, this can also affect those who speak out about LGBTQ+ issues.

12

When will the Supreme Court’s decision come into force?

Only after the statutory period for appeal has passed. According to Russia’s administrative code, this period lasts for one month (even if no one appeals the decision). Human rights group Department One says this would happen on January 10, 2024.

13

How should LGBTQ+ people in Russia prepare for this nightmare?

Experts from Public Verdict recommend checking through social networks for any information and symbols that the authorities might consider “subversive” and removing them before the Supreme Court’s decision comes into effect.

Here’s what else the experts that Meduza spoke to advise:

If possible, delete accounts from social networks controlled by the Russian authorities

Do not use or keep LGBTQ+ symbols at home (e.g., rainbow flags)

If you aren’t prepared to deal with the government, lawyer Valeria Vetoshkina advises removing all mentions of sexual identity from social networks

Use a VPN when asking for help or communicating about LGBTQ+ issues. “People and initiatives that managed to leave the country have already established their work and are ready to provide legal, psychological, emergency, and social support to LGBTQ+ people in Russia. Don’t hesitate to ask for such help,” says lawyer Max Olenichev.

Psychologists from the Sphere Foundation point out that taking care of yourself is an intentional task. Most likely, it won’t be possible to feel stable without doing something. It’s important to remember that you haven’t done anything wrong. You have the right to be yourself and to feel what you feel. Right now, it’s especially important to take care of yourself and do what makes you happy. “You can do this — and it means you’re in control of your life and continuing on despite everything,” explain the psychologists.

At the same time, lawyers interviewed by Meduza agree that the decision to leave the country should be an individual one — not everyone has the resources or desire to do so. However, every LGBTQ+ person in Russia will now have to regularly assess the risks — and build their life with them in mind.

14

Would calling yourself an ‘equal rights activist’ instead of using the abbreviation LGBT help at all?

It’s unlikely. In certain cases, it could help to avoid attracting attention to your activities. But if law enforcement gets involved, it won’t take much for this shield to come down, explains lawyer Max Olenichev:

Unfortunately, Russian courts often use police officers’ operational reports as admissible and reliable evidence. That’s why in the reports they can call someone an LGBT activist, attaching, for example, screenshots from social media.

That said, I’m not calling for panic. Everyone should assess their own individual risks. If necessary, consult with relatives, colleagues, and lawyers. And only after that decide how to continue with your work or with expressing yourself outwardly as an LGBTQ+ person.

The fact that the authorities plan to designate the “international LGBT movement” — rather than LGBTQ+ — as extremist won’t help either, explains lawyer Valeria Vetoshkina:

On the one hand, LGBTQ+ is definitely broader than LGBT. But on the other hand, no one will ever be able to prove to security forces that you’re actually part of the “Q+” and the authorities will have trouble understanding the difference between the abbreviations.