#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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[lionessstephanie]

I have a serious question for Transfolk. What's next?

After there is global acceptance of trans people, after everyone is allowed to change their gender with no limitations. After it's put into laws that you can be trans, or genderfluid or non-binary, what's next?

What will changing your gender and refusing to be called a woman or man change. We'll still need a categorization for medical purposes, we'll need to know your sex when checking for symptoms of heart attack. You've created a more inclusive term "uterus havers", "menstruators" etc but how are these different from man/woman. Are uterus havers still not going to suffer from a gross misrepresentation in medical research, when they're in a car accident in a car that was trained on a penis haver dummy's body, will they not suffer like cis-women?

In a fight for more inclusive language regardless of equality/equity, are the people transitioning in and out not still sticking and benefiting/suffering from the same thing as their assigned birth gender. Rape statistics would just change to 90% of uterus havers instead of women. Already we see a difference between TW and TM when it comes to publicity and privilege, the patriarchy has automatically shifted to favour TW while TM only enjoy the reminiscent bystander privilege in the male class. When patriarchy accepts the existence of transfolk, it's just going to start benefiting people under a new name "penis-haver". Already the rapists, victim of rapists, incarcerated fellow for violent crime kind of follow the same pattern as their birth gender, when shelters for uterus havers who have suffered trauma from penis-havers pop up. What exactly is the difference? What exactly will change?

There's a push to normalize transwomen with dicks, feminine transmen, gender conforming nb people. No transition is needed to live your gender. Which is normal, a gender is not defined by clothes or structure but how is this different from the "boys can be feminine, women can be masculine" movement?

And what exactly is the plan to minimize the utter trainwreck that misogynists, capitalists etc are going to make of things while society makes a full transition. When a medication claims to be tested on both men and women and it was actually just tested on cis-men and trans-women and cis-women and trans-men suffer dearly. What language are we going to use to take them to court for violating the law?

[birbmonster]

Part 1 of screaming msm headcanons into the endless void of chaos and fandoms that is tumblr

Gonna have to explain this best as I can

Anyways, this one is about the basics of modern monster society

Firstly, all monsters are species, expect for Legendaries and Celestials. Wil touch more on those guys in a different one prob.

However, the epic variants of some species, like Kaynas, are so rare that there’s often only one existing at a time. Each species has anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand individuals, with the amounts of rares varying between species.

Like the monster handlers said that one time, the islands are waaaay bigger than they appear in-game. Most monsters on each island live in the castle, and inside it’s like a luxurious hotel/apartment building, with rooms of various sizes for everyone and various public spaces. However, a few might live outside the castle in other buildings, usually when there’s no room left for them.

They don’t sing all the time. They actually only do the song once or twice a day depending on the island, and also depending on the island is the time they do it. For example, Cold Island prefers to do it the moment the sun sets, Plant Island in the middle of the day when it’s warm and sunny, ect, just whatever time fits the vibe of the song.

Monsterlings do go to school. They learn the usual stuff, math, writing, history, but there’s also a lot of emphasis put on learning about as many species as possible.

There’s no defined ‘ruler’ of any of the islands as of right now (expect tribal, wait a second). Desciscions are made as a community and when an island-specific tradition, social norm, or law pops up or can end up staying for hundreds of years completely unchanged, until everyone just forgets why it’s even there in the first place.

The only expection to this is Tribal Island, which always has a chief that’s usually voted on.

There were, however, relatively short periods on history where islands did have leaders. For example, Fire Haven was ruled by a Kayna named Dawn when it was first founded after the cataclysm, and Magical Sanctum might’ve had some sort of Enchantling ruler at one point.

The monster world is generally super peaceful, with far fewer historical records of things like wars happening.

There is an economy in existence. Round, gold coins are used as the main currency, while the Pocket Dimension Islands (Magical Sanctum and Ethereal Island) use Shards.

All monsters are able to speak to each other and are fully sentient. They age at about the same rate as humans, though actual lifespan may be anywhere from 60-100 years depending on the species.

There’s no such thing as having a biological sex. Monsterlings are simply referred to with they/them pronouns until they’re old enough to figure it out. But there’s sometimes… questionable… parents who try to decide for their kids. Not cool 😤

As for breeding, it works quite similar to how it does in-game, with inter species cross-breeding creating children of a new species with the right elements.

However, though it’s not shown in-game, sometimes the breeding structure may malfunction and create direct hybrids, which look like an actual blend of their parents species. But these are a VERY, and I mean VERY rare happening, so there’s no way a hybrid could go under the radar anywhere.

And lastly, a bit about etiquette: when your talking to someone, and you need to say their name, but don’t know it yet because you just met them, it’s best to just replace it with species name, and they’ll usually just tell you. It’s considered a bit rude to ask “what are you?” and similar enquiries about someone’s species.

That’s all for now, I need sleep

[subliminallyroki]

I thought you guys might enjoy reading me infodump about my watcher and avian head canons, so uh here ya go! (This also relates to some of the hcs I have for Grian)

All avians are short (4-5 feet) and have bird-like double jointed legs. Their bones are hollow, but flexible, and their skeleton is more fit for to be streamlined. Specifically their skull has a less defined nose that allows for them to not suffocate when flying at high speeds. The muscular structure is and the muscles themselves are different from a regular human. For example, four pecs (two for arms, two for wings). Internal organs are switched around to make room for the expanded lungs and air sac. Avians have tail feathers and ear feathers and a second pair of eyelids. Their eyes also have a much higher shutter speed and depth perception. And the wings are large (to allow for lift and to avoid hitting shoulders) and attach on the lower middle back. Avians tend to be weaker than your average human because the muscle mass mostly goes towards the wings. And also because of their hollow bones. Their hands have harder keratin in the nails, but nothing too much. And a lot of other features, but these are the basic physical things. Avians are all different types so features can vary depending on the species of bird they are derived from. Avians also tend to have bird like instincts.

Watchers, on the other hand, absolutely defy every law of physics and biology. Their physical form has six sets of wings (the primary back ones, set further up the back, and the secondary lower back ones, then the trinary ear ones). The wings are iridescent and have been described as mesmerizing, likened to gazing into the void. It is hard to tell much about their genetic make up because they aren't really living things, they are gods. They do not necessarily have blood and flesh in their true forms. In their most recognizable form that can be imbibed by mortals the majority of the time is a tall, skeletal humanoid with vastly large wings (larger than an avian's). The wings sometimes appear to look like a cloak. They do not have tail feathers or taloned feet. Nor do they have the make up of an avian body. However, they have clawed hands that appear to be stained black. Strange. This form is clothed a purple cloak and robes and most often adorned with gold jewelry. And the iconic white mask. Often times, the area under the mask (which only covers the eyes) is stained purple. They bleed void and are basically made of it, they can't go anywhere without the void, but can still See even with no void. There are numerous eyes over their body and wings (most numbering on the primares, face, neck arms, legs, and torso) but are often closed and unseen. Watchers also sometimes have various tatoos of different symbols specific to them. They do not need to eat, sleep, breathe, or anything else that a living thing needs to do. But they do need the void. This form can be described as imposing and a harbinger of dread. Ethereal and godly and ominous. Watchers are known shapeshifters, condensing or expanding their forms to Watch. Watchers have admin abilities as well and can easily alter code.

How does this apply to Grian?

Grain was born an avain. When he got kidnapped by the Watchers, they basically ripped out his essence out of his body, made him into a watcher. But instead of forming a new vessel for his watcher form, he fought back into his original body. That body changed. He has ear wings, and his back pair sometimes switch to a magenta/white with eye patterns. He does have multiple eyes, but not as numerous and are closed. And his fingers are clawed. It was a struggle for him to breathe properly in that body because of being in the void and his avian-ness.

But he would not give it up. Because of using his original body, he was susceptible to much more human issues. Like pain, starvation, exhaustion, etc. And it hindered his watcher abilities. Like his shapeshifts into solid forms arent as smooth. But the Watchers thought it to be funny and sort of like a punishment. Once Grian had been with the Watchers for awhile, they planned to get rid of his body. Grian escaped from them and connected to Mumbo in his panic and got to hermitcraft. His watcher features might not be very distinguishable from an avain, but those who know what they are looking for can tell immediately.

Okay that's all! If you read all of this, you get a cookie of your favorite flavor. Here ya go! 🍪

[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.

[trans-axolotl]

I'm facing 6 months of compulsory treatment right now. How did you survive?

💜anon, I so deeply wish that this was not something that either of us have been forced to survive. I'll share what kept me going and I hope that some of it can resonate with you.

First: Always remember that no matter what they try to tell you, what ways they try to dehumanize you, what ways they try to convince you that you are inherently wrong, or broken, or need to be saved from yourself--you are always the expert on what it is like to live in your body and brain, and you always have the right to define your own narrative and truth and experience. there were many times while forcibly hospitalized where there was nothing I could do to actually change the things that were happening to me because I had no power. all I could do in those moments was hold onto the truth that I knew I didn't deserve this and that even if no one was listening, I believed myself and I was bearing witness to the fucked up things that were happening and that someday, i wouldn't be so incredibly trapped.

secondly: do whatever the hell you need to survive without judging yourself for whatever you need to do to get through it. you do not have to be a "good patient"--you can be a "terrible patient" and that doesn't mean you're a bad person. during these last 4 months I was instituionalized, there was times that it was too hard to process the fucked up power structures and everyday violations because I couldn't process it while it was still actively happening to me. some days i needed to shut down and pretend that I was fine with everything happening and follow the rules and not let myself feel any rage or dream of what it was going to be like when i got out. other times, especially when i was younger, the only way i survived was by breaking rules, being a terrible patient, and demanding my autonomy in whatever way was accessible to me. sometimes that looked like destroying my room, swearing at staff, self harming because that was the only thing i had any fucking control over at all. and letting go of judgment for what I had to do to survive helped me get through it. knowing that I had so very few options and was doing the best I could to feel like a person and that as much as they wanted to make me feel like shit for it, I was not a bad person for needing to feel human.

thirdly: know your rights and if possible, have a person on the outside who knows your rights and can advocate for you on the phone. knowing your rights doesn't always mean much because hospitals and psychs still sort of break the law anyway, but knowing what your rights are about how many times you see your treatment team a week, how long they can commit you, what the rules are about forced medication and forced antipsychotics, what the rules are about restraints, visiting--all of that can help you advocate for yourself and recognize when the people in power are lying to you.

fourthly: there still will be moments of joy, even while instituionalized, and holding onto those and keeping them close helped me more than any of the treatment I received ever did. for me, becoming close to the other patients was incredibly healing. not always easy when we're all in crisis and don't have tons of emotional regulation, but listening to others stories, goofing around and rolling down the hallway together, making fun of nurses--the bonds I have with the people i was instituionalized with were truly lifesaving and taught me so much about what it means to love and take care of people. if you can, reach out to the other patients and get to know each other and how to share space with each other. it helps more than i can say. other moments of joy to hold onto--art, whether a million coloring sheets or graffiting onto the hospital walls, the moments you look out the window and see the weather changing, sneaking in vapes, little things like getting new bedsheets or if there's chocolate ice cream or learning how to do a handstand. even amongst everything, there will still be joy + love, and letting myself have that saved me.

fifth: depends on the rules of the place you can go to what is considered contraband or not, but bring comfort items, lists of phone numbers of people you want to stay in contact with, a journal, fluffy blanket, stuffed animals, art supplies, candy, comfy clothes, anything that brings you some peace. it really helped me to do a journal entry every day so that I could have some record of what was actually happening so that I wouldn't forget when I looked back later. that made me feel more grounded and secure.

sixth: Embrace whatever healing you can find in there. this doesn't have to be the bullshit you hear in group therapy or ridiculous worksheets, but if the shit you hear in group therapy works, then by all means embrace it. if embracing your rage helps, hold onto it. if other patients coping skills resonate with you, use them. it is incredibly fucking hard to heal while being instituionalized and there is absolutely no shame if you don't feel like you're getting better, but it's okay to find those moments of healing despite it all and fight for yourself and fight for building a better life in whatever way that means for you.

overall just know that whatever you are feeling--rage, sadness, pain, relief, fear, panic, grief--you are allowed to feel all of it and feel it as deeply as you need. you are not alone in this. I am so sorry that you are facing the threat of compulsory treatment right now, and know that I believe that you will survive this. depends on the rules so I don't know if you'll have your phone while you're in treatment or not, but feel free to come back, ask for advice, complain as much as you want because it can really fucking suck. know that you are allowed to take up space, you are allowed to exist as a full person with wants, opinions, and desires, and that you are allowed to be struggling, wanting support, and that you never deserve to be locked up and be treated as anything less than the beautifully complex and worthy person that you are.

followers who have faced forced psych treatment before, if you have any words of encouragment or suggestions for anon, please add on <3

[missingn000]

tpg character mini-analysis: hajime kashimo + honor

i wanted to talk a bit about one of kashimo's defining traits that no other tpg character has: honor. after gojo meets them, he trudges away thinking kashimo has no moral structure, but this isn't...quite true. this quality shapes how hajime views the world as they evaluate others' actions based on a certain standard of conduct.

take a look at this line of theirs:

“What [the sorcerers] did back then in order to execute [Sukuna]…I can’t think of anything else so honorless. It doesn’t matter how many sorcerers he took down. There are some things you just don’t do.”

sukuna's yet-unrevealed backstory is incredibly devastating and tragic. in most people, it would evoke intense feelings of sympathy, sorrow, and anger on sukuna's behalf. others would say the people who did That to sukuna were heartless.

but instead kashimo says it was honorless. to them, this is the equivalent of the visceral reaction other people would've had. it's about perspective and priorities.

more below cut!

hajime continues to say:

They shake their head. “If the stories of what the sorcerers did to him back then are true...as far as I’m concerned, they deserved it.”

they deserved it. they DESERVED it? even mahito says he's surprised hajime would take sukuna's side. i'll say this conclusively about sukuna's backstory: the myth that after his failed execution, he wiped out an entire prefecture upon becoming a curse is true.

but hajime still thinks that punishment was deserved. what the sorcerers did to execute sukuna was so far beyond their rigid standard of conduct that such a fate was an appropriate punishment to them.

further, something that significantly annoys them about mahito is that he kills people who can't fight back. tpg 37 got long as hell, so i cut a few things, including this short snippet:

It’s not the violence that repulses them; that’d be illogical for someone whose body count is in the triple-digits. But there’s no honor in it, just slaughtering people who can’t even put up a fight. Kashimo’s fought more than their fair share of unsatisfying, ultimately one-sided battles, but that’s what they were: battles. Reciprocated killing intention. Of course weaklings deserve to die, but that’s a retroactive punishment.

they're repulsed at the idea of killing someone who's done nothing at all for no reason. killing the storehouse guards had a purpose: those people were in the way of their goals and actively fought back to try to stop them. but mahito frequently kills innocent people just for fun, which is completely honorless to them.

four hundred years ago, when sorcery was all about duels and death matches, honor existed in the place of laws or a legal structure. since death was a permitted end to a fight, there had to be something to keep sorcerers from just going around slaughtering people. honor is a form of social currency that earns respect and dignity within a community. conducting actions that fall outside its definition result in being hated and shunned.

however, despite mahito's misgivings, mahito is still rapidly becoming someone important to them -- the first person ever to be important to them. this does not fit in their current moral structure. take a look at what kashimo says when gojo is surprised they'd lay down their life to protect mahito:

Hajime flinches. “I made a promise,” they try. The glow beneath their eyes flickers, a store sign that can’t decide if it’s open or closed. “Breaking it would be honorless. I’d rather die than not be able to live with myself.”

Honor? No one has done anything strictly for honor in hundreds of years. “Is that really what you’re worried about?”

“Of course it is,” Hajime replies, after a delay too long to be entirely convincing. “I have no interest in forming bonds with others, least of all him.”

they're still pretty in denial regarding caring about mahito, so they're trying to convince themself it's about honor, because they can tie that to their existing values. since caring about someone is new, it's far more grounding to sort it into a value structure they already possess rather than face the horrifying ordeal of creating a new one that goes against their current worldview.

in that quote, they say they'd rather die than not be able to live with themself. honor is so important to them that the idea of acting without it is worse than death; they couldn't sleep at night. extreme, right? but i actually got this idea from canon.

take a look at this panel from hakari vs kashimo:

this. why did no one talk about this?? kashimo is someone who exists for fighting strong opponents. they let kenjaku brutally mutilate their body into a cursed object to incarnate four centuries into the future with the sole purpose of fighting sukuna. if hakari killed them here, that goal would not happen.

and yet.

they ask him to kill them. or rather, they think hakari should kill them. it was a fair fight. a fair loss of which they accept the outcome. therefore, they believe it is hakari's right to kill them. that's so, so interesting to me, and it really stands out against the backdrop of their otherwise shallow personality, so i just couldn't resist expanding on it.

their character will continue to develop throughout the story, so stay tuned. thanks for reading!

[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.

[talesgolden]

DES.CENDANTS FAE MASTERPOST

Let’s start with a disclaimer: these are all headcanons, drawing from a multitude of inspirations, and I have not read the books. These here are just my personal concepts. Anyone is welcome to adopt and use these headcanons! but I don’t demand/expect it, even if we write together.

edit: I completely forgot about the way I wrote all of this with a tab of an adjusted/headcanoned version of Auradon open. All of this builds directly with [this post] in mind!

ON THE REALM OF FAERIE:

  Faerie, as one might guess, is not a “land” or a “kingdom” but a realm. Something not quite of the world average Auradonians are familiar with. Though fae beings are often seen as mysterious (and, thanks to some of the more recent laws, dangerous) they are as part of the order of things as the sun in the sky and the wind in the leaves. This realm is home to, place of origin, and protected by the Fae, or -more politely- the Fair Folk. An age ago, when their lands had a name no one remembers anymore, the realm was as present and seen as the Kingdoms that make up Auradon as it is now. As titles shifted and kingdoms grew, as times changed and attitudes shifted and mortals came to distrust the magic of the fair folk, they made the decision to “set themselves apart” to a place unseen. In one act, one great shift, all of faerie became something slightly separate, yet still woven into the world. The humans felt safe, while the fair folk and their forests and rivers were safe from the damage the mortals seemed determined to do.

  Some places are closer to the realm than others: this is to maintain the connections between between the seen and unseen realms, a trade that keeps both well. If faerie were completely cut off from the seen world, both realms, faerie and mortal, would suffer for it. In these places where the realms connect, mortals can very easily travel between them, especially if they become lost. The connection is deep and seems to be a living magic - it enjoys being mischievous. (As well, there are plenty of fair folk who like to lead mortals off their known paths for one reason or another.)

  Once in the realm of Faerie, one can travel from the Moors to Schwartzwald without ever setting foot in the Auradonian kingdoms ‘between’ these places. Trying to explain how is pointless; you just can.  Faerie has no firm borders, no set or defined lands and lines the way the mortals like to divvy up land. As far as anyone can tell from a few failed attempts to map it, the coasts of Faerie do not line up with the coasts of Auradon even though both seem to be the same body of land. 

  There are some characteristics of the land that sets parts of Faerie into areas we’ll call regions. The regions aren’t for all the faerie of the world, just the faerie of Auradon:

The Moorlands / “Moors”: generally accessed from the southern regions of Auradon, especially in Solaria near the coast; temperate wetlands characterized by a mix of upland tree cover as well as a multitude of rivers, streams, and brooks feeding into the lowland lakes and marshes; historically a “wild”  region, there has not often been an organized structure to the prideful Moorland folk, and they tend answer to each other as a whole than any one individual ‘leader’ or ‘ruler’; they hold each other to a standard, and each upholds it as much as another. Maleficent was once well respected and looked to by the Moorland fae, but become overpowerful and greedy, leading them to push her out (and starting the conflict that saw her insulted by not being invited to Aurora’s christening...etc.)

The Underlands / “Wonderland”: generally accessed from Tirulia/Carrollton via “Rabbit Holes” and/or certain looking glasses; a region of ‘nonsense’ and change, Wonderland encompasses deserts and forests and mountains all within a relatively small area due to the folk who live there having been historically liberal with affecting the lands around them, resulting today in exaggerated, shifting landscapes, and folk who have since adapted to the madness by becoming equally as exaggerated and malleable; also features its own independent Queendom that has, by and large, set itself apart from the rest of the fae regions and realm.

The Summerlands / “The Enchanted Forest”: bleeds together with the central woods of the Summerlands -a kingdom that has adopted the old name of this region of Faerie- lending its forests a vaguely uncanny; filled with trees that are always green and meadows of ever-blooming flowers, leading to an ‘eternal summer’ that gave it its old name; the places where the two touch are often deep, dark copses of old, twisted trees that have been damaged or depleted in a way no one can seem to explain, though some say the Evil Queen is responsible, and the creatures there are wary and ofttimes aggressive, lending the passage between the two to feel threatening; it is exceedingly easy and incredibly dangerous for a mortal to cross between realms here.

Neverland: though it remains a “seen” region with no Auradonian kingdom having settled ‘over’ it, the Neverland is undeniably of Faerie - some say, even, the embodiment of the realm itself, an island as alive and willful as any person you could meet, and with love only for one little boy that it keeps, forever, happy and forgetful. The youngest of the faerie realms; heavily influenced by mortal children; primarily resembles a tropical jungle, though its weather is known to fluctuate easily and the wildlife found there is widely varied and includes animals not found in tropical regions. The pixies here have their own Queen and generally carry on with little to no regard for ‘mainland fae’; the merfolk of Neverland are similarly self-contained, and often contentious with the Neverland pixies.

The Hinterlands /  Schwartzwald : Similar to Neverland in that it is a “seen” region, it is still a region of faerie, and its presence as a seen region is vital to the balance of the other, hidden regions; passage there is closely monitored and protected by the people and kingdom at Winters Keep. Schwartzwald, “The Black Forest”, is older than any other landscape you can find in Auradon or the realm of Faerie and, if a very much has ever been known to mortals about it, that knowledge has largely been lost to the passage of time. The spirits who dwell there should not be trifled with.

The Highlands: bleeds into the Borderlands in many places, such as the circle of stones and many caves and other natural formations. Largely characterized by boreal forest rolling across mountainous terrain great swathes of moss clinging to the cool, rocky soil. The highlands are technically continuously connected to the The Black Forest of the Hinterlands, though this area has more clearings and is generally considered safer, a bit younger and lighter. The wisps found here tend to be mischievous and may try to lead unsuspecting folk from the Highlands into the Black Forest simply to see what unfolds.

Bald Mountain, though not it’s own region per se, is a point of connection. It is of a faerie nature, and rightly would have been set aside like the rest of the realm, except that Chernabog, an unseelie, refused to allow it. He enjoyed his proximity to the humans and the means of tormenting them that it gave him. He used his own magic and that of his followers to keep the mountain seen during the great shift, and was known to dwell there until he was confined to the Isle. His imprisonment -as well as Maleficent’s resurrection and imprisonment- have long been points of contention between Auradon and the fair folk (both Seelie and Unseelie)

The Olympian figures are entirely their own thing: Gods, not Fair Folk. 

Atlantica is a kingdom that has ties and origins to that of the Olympians, so while the merfolk of Neverland tend to be considered fair folk, the people of Atlantica are not, as they are descendants of Poseidon and Triton, etc.

ON THE PEOPLE OF FAERIE:

  “Fae” - technically accurate but sort of a no-no; “fairies” is often also used as a catchall, and opinions on this varies as well. Some may not care, others may take great offense.  ‘Fair Folk’ or ‘Hidden Folk’ or ‘Hidden People’ is better. When in doubt, Fair Folk is the safest bet!

  Fair folk are inherently creatures of magic. Even those that may not directly alter or “spell” their surroundings are, themselves, magical in some form. Cutting them off from this magic via a binding of some sort (i.e. a barrier like the one around the Isle of the Lost) causes a great deal of suffering and discontent, but will not typically kill them.

  Seelie vs. Unseelie goes here; fair folk of any of the later mentioned categories can belong to either court, though some species are generally more associated with one vs. the other. Partly to do with hidden folk politics partly to do with the way mortals perceive them. The Spring and Summer Courts are Seelie, the Fall and Winter Courts are Unseelie. Mortals tend to think of this as "good fae" and "bad fae" but that's very stupid and lacks nuance. Spring and Fall are growth courts, Summer and Winter are barren courts. The seasons balance themselves and the Seelie and Unseelie balance each other. It's all very interwoven.

The people of Faerie can be broken down, broadly, into a few categories:

Spirits/Elementals – such as the four who dwell in and protect Schwartzwald, these are generally very powerful fae with strong elemental magic(s). Appearances can vary, but most of these adopt natural forms -such as the water spirit, who appears very similar to a horse- or else loose, gauzy forms.

Trolls & gnomes (sometimes incorrectly referred to as 'dwarves')– distinct from each other in little ways, but very similar overall; wingless fair folk with ties to creating/building and divination. Infamously, the dwarves of the Summerlands are miners. They use the precious stones they unearth to trade as well as craft their own works.

Elves, brownies (etc). – broadly, wingless fae who aren’t trolls or dwarves; commonly associated with their natural villages and uniquely sprouted gardens.

Fairies – sometimes called ‘Pixies’ or ‘Sprites’ to avoid the Faerie/Fairy confusion; generally speaking these are winged fair folk, often with connection to light and air. The fairies of the Moorlands are known widely to be prideful of their free nature; they shun or shame those who would allow mortal being to command them. The fairies of Neverland aren't as prideful, and partial to mortal children, but can be snuffed by cruel words and disbelief through this connection.

“Whatever the hell Wonderlanders are” – imps and tricksters, generally speaking, with a variety of appearances and typically some ability to change their appearance at will; very often chaotic beings with little to no regard for ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

Merfolk – Selkies, rusalka, (others) and the oceanic folk of the Neverland are fair folk in finned shapes. Though often regarded as enchanting, they are often regarded as dangerous. Thought to be cold or heartless (literally: souless), and to take great amusement in drowning unsuspecting or otherwise spelled individuals. They tend to be thought of as Unseelie/"Bad", but many are in fact member of the Summer Court.

Devils, dreamwalkers, etc. – like Chernabog and his fiends and demons, these are fair folk often with darkness and dream-related abilities, and who typically rely on obtaining energy or other sustenance from mortals; not inherently evil but often regarded as such; some people say vampires fall into this category but others disagree that vampires are fair folk at all.

Lesser Fae – any creature-like being from Faerie with no organized society or evident ‘higher’ intelligence (unicorns and such. (Pegasi are Olympian though.))

ON FAIRIES (/pixies/sprites):

  FGM, Jane, Flora, Fauna, Merryweather, the Blue Fairy are all this type, as well as the inhabitants of Pixie Hollow in the Neverland. The Enchantress who first cursed King Beast may have been a fairy, or simply a magic-doer, but no one seems entirely sure. You could argue for Maleficent and Mal being classified this way as well, though they might also fall into the 'devils and dreamwalkers' category as "dragons". (focused on fire and transformation magics).

Though varied and plentiful, the are two “main” category of fairy: Mainland fairies and Neverland fairies

Mainland fairies generally (not always!) hail from the Moorlands, and some have said that they were originally born from the heavens, the stars themselves; Neverland fairies are the type born from the laughs of mortal children. Some Mainland fairies consider themselves of a “higher” or “nobler” order than the Neverland fairies for this (and other (petty)) reasons.

Mainland fairies are typically larger both in size and the scope of different species; Neverland fairies err on the smaller size and their ‘typing’ falls more into a matter of skills than physical attributes 

Mainland fairies do not use pixie dust/fairy dust to fly or do magic; all Neverland rely on dust for long flights and the casting of magical acts

Mainland fairies and Neverland fairies both have their own language; the languages are very similar, and can be spoken across to each other and be understood, but are not identical. It’s thought that both are derivative of the same, far more ancient language, but what that language might be is long ago lost to the stars. [In more recognizable terms, it would be like saying Mainland fairies speak french and Neverland fairies speak Cajun/creole french. Many of the roots are the same, but both have their own rules and pronunciations, etc.]

ON WANDS:

  No fae requires a wand to do magic, but those that choose to use one typically can do more focused and/or powerful magic with them. When an object (typically a wooden rod or, in wilder times, a branch, flower, or twig, depending on a fae’s preference) is chosen as a wand, the fae imbues that object with a power that, over time, becomes stored and independent of the fae. The wand does not give power to the faery creature, the faery creature gives power to the wand; eventually, the wand may become powerful on its own, and may even give the fae greater power than if they were not using a wand, but a fae will never be magicless without it. The danger of selecting and cultivating a wand is, of course, that anyone may use a wand once it has become a power unto itself.

Wands are common in flightless fae, who use the practice to make themselves less vulnerable; fae with flight are inherently harder to catch, so the flightless fae make up for their lack of maneuverability by increasing their magical ability through the use of wands.

Wizards and their ilk are thought to be humans who possess wands or other magical artifacts which allow them to spell objects and people, though some are descendant of lines with fae blood and have magic of their own. And no one's actually sure of this, really. It's just a theory.

ON NAMES

  Names are a secretive thing in fair folk circles, because fair folk are bound to their names and can binds mortals with their names. Giving a fae creature your full name is risky; they can use that to do strong magic. In a similar turnabout, though, knowing a faerie creature's name gives the person who wields it, mortal or otherwise, total control of that fae. This is less binding to, but still something half-fae feel. Technically, in the act of naming their children, some fair folk are performing a sort of name-bond. Most fae must obey their parents until a time as such their name becomes their own, rather than the one they were given.

  Fairy God-Mothers (Fairy God-Fathers, "family fairies", etc.) are, broadly speaking, fairies who have been bound to mortals with a true name bond. Often, a fairy will lose their name altogether with this happens, which is why well known fairies are often identified with titles (Jane's mother being 'fairy god-mother', the Blue Fairy) Many end up in contracts that are passed generation to generation, as fairies are always longer lived than mortals and, in many case, altogether immortal. Some made this bond willingly, others have been tricked or trapped into it. Once name-bound, a fairy is compelled to do as the person holding their name commands. They cannot act otherwise even if they would wish to, it is a fact of their nature. Only the holder of the name can restore it to the fairy in question. If they die without having re-bound the name bond to another person, then the fairy is released.

  FGM was bound to Ella's family, and had been for many many years. She acted as godmother to Ella's own mother, and her mother before that, so on. Most recently, it seems her name-bond might have been given over to King Beast during the alliance formation between mortal kingdoms. In theory it ought to have passed to Ben at his coronation, but given the way things went and how King Beast feels about magic, one wonders...