#plural reshape

[yureipunk]

Plural Reshape - a more permanent shift in identity/personality/etc. caused from plurality.

etymology: plural, reshape (link)

[ID: a rectangular flag with 9 stripes, coloured as such from top to bottom: very dark pink, purple, dull purple, purple-blue, white, blue-green, spring green, light yellow-green, pastel yellow. in the centre of the flag is two curved black opposing arrows with white outlines. End ID]

[interstellarsystem]

You ever just see fanart of a series and have this inherent knowledge that either someone in your system has a kintype as one of these guys or you're going to get a fictive within a week of watching it?

[ngdrb]

"The Growing Dangers of the MAGA Movement"

A Growing Threat to American DemocracyIntroductionThe "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, which coalesced around Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and has persisted beyond his presidency, represents one of the most significant political and cultural forces in modern American history. What began as a catchy campaign slogan has evolved into a broad ideological movement with tens of millions of devoted adherents.

While supporters view it as a patriotic effort to restore traditional American values and strength, critics see the MAGA movement as an existential threat to democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law in the United States. This essay will examine the origins and evolution of the MAGA movement, analyze its core ideological tenets and tactics, and explore the various ways in which it poses growing dangers to American democratic institutions and social cohesion.

By synthesizing research, expert analysis, and recent events, we can better understand the nature of this movement and the challenges it presents.

Origins and Evolution of the MAGA Movement

The roots of the MAGA movement can be traced back to long-standing currents of populism, nativism, and anti-establishment sentiment in American politics. However, it was Donald Trump who managed to coalesce these disparate threads into a potent political force during his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump's promise to "Make America Great Again" resonated with millions of Americans who felt left behind by globalization, demographic changes, and shifting cultural norms.

His brash, outsider persona and willingness to buck political correctness attracted those who were disillusioned with conventional politicians. Trump tapped into feelings of economic anxiety, cultural displacement, and resentment toward coastal elites to build a devoted base of support.

After his surprise victory in 2016, the MAGA slogan transformed from a campaign catchphrase into a full-fledged movement and identity. Trump supporters eagerly adopted the MAGA label, proudly wearing red hats and using the hashtag online. The movement took on a life of its own, with Trump as its figurehead but extending well beyond just one man.

Throughout Trump's presidency, the MAGA movement continued to evolve and radicalize. As Trump faced investigations, impeachment proceedings, and constant media scrutiny, his base became increasingly defensive and hostile toward perceived enemies.

Conspiracy theories like QAnon found fertile ground among MAGA adherents. The movement adopted an increasingly apocalyptic and militant tone, portraying itself as the last line of defense against sinister forces trying to destroy America.

The movement reached a crescendo - and a dangerous breaking point - on January 6, 2021, when thousands of Trump supporters violently stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This event crystallized the growing extremism within the MAGA movement and its willingness to subvert democratic processes. Even after Trump left office, the MAGA movement has endured as a powerful force in American politics. It has reshaped the Republican Party in Trump's image and continues to exert enormous influence through primaries, fundraising, and setting the terms of political debate on the right.

Core Tenets and Ideology

While the MAGA movement encompasses a range of views, several core ideological tenets have emerged as central to its worldview:

America First Nationalism: The movement advocates an "America First" foreign and economic policy, rejecting globalism in favor of national sovereignty and protectionism.

Anti-immigration: Restricting both legal and illegal immigration is a top priority, often couched in nativist rhetoric about preserving American culture.

Cultural traditionalism: MAGA adherents push back against progressive social changes, championing traditional gender roles, religious values, and a nostalgic view of America's past.

Deep state paranoia: The movement is deeply distrustful of government institutions, mainstream media, and other power centers, believing them to be corrupt and working against the interests of everyday Americans.

Cult of personality: Loyalty to Donald Trump personally is a defining feature, with the movement portraying him as a messianic figure fighting dark forces.

Anti-"wokeness": The MAGA movement positions itself in staunch opposition to progressive ideas about systemic racism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other social justice causes.

Election denialism: Following Trump's lead, much of the movement refuses to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 election results, pushing baseless fraud claims.

Conspiratorial thinking: The movement is prone to embracing and amplifying conspiracy theories that support its worldview, from QAnon to COVID-19 misinformation.

These ideological pillars form the foundation of the MAGA movement's grievance-fueled politics and its antagonistic stance toward democratic institutions and norms.

Tactics and Strategies

The MAGA movement employs a range of tactics to advance its goals and expand its influence:

Social media mobilization: Savvy use of platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and newer alt-tech sites allows rapid dissemination of messaging and coordination of grassroots action.

Alternative media ecosystem: A network of right-wing news outlets, podcasts, and influencers creates an insular information bubble for supporters.

Intimidation and threats: Movement figures often use violent rhetoric and veiled threats to intimidate opponents and critics.

Litigation and legal challenges: An army of pro-Trump lawyers file dubious lawsuits to challenge election results and other perceived slights.

Primary challenges: The movement targets "disloyal" Republicans with primary opponents to enforce ideological conformity.

Propaganda and disinformation: Coordinated campaigns spread misleading narratives and outright falsehoods to shape public opinion.

Protests and rallies: Mass gatherings serve to energize the base and project a show of force.

Infiltration of local offices: The movement has pushed supporters to take over low-level government positions like election boards and school boards.

These tactics have proven effective at solidifying the movement's power within the Republican Party and exerting outsized influence on the national political conversation.Growing Dangers to DemocracyThe MAGA movement poses several interconnected threats to the stability and functioning of American democracy:

Undermining faith in elections

Perhaps the most immediate danger is the movement's persistent efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of U.S. elections. By pushing baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and refusing to accept unfavorable results, MAGA leaders are actively eroding public trust in the democratic process.This delegitimization of elections has several alarming consequences. It provides justification for new voting restrictions that disproportionately impact minority communities. It increases the risk of political violence, as we saw on January 6th when MAGA supporters felt empowered to use force to "stop the steal." And it creates a permission structure for future attempts to overturn legitimate election results.If a large segment of the population no longer believes in the basic mechanics of democracy, it becomes nearly impossible to have peaceful transfers of power or to solve problems through normal political channels.

2.Assault on the rule of law

The MAGA movement has shown a troubling willingness to disregard the rule of law when it conflicts with their goals. This manifests in several ways:

Refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas and oversight efforts

Pardoning political allies convicted of crimes

Interfering in ongoing investigations for political purposes

Calling for the imprisonment of political opponents without due process

Flouting ethics rules and profiting from public office

By treating the law as optional or applicable only to their enemies, MAGA leaders set a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundations of constitutional governance.

3.Embracing political violence

While not universal among supporters, there is a strong current of militancy within the MAGA movement that views violence as a legitimate political tool. This mindset has led to increased threats against public officials, journalists, and even fellow Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal.The events of January 6th represented a shocking escalation, demonstrating that a significant portion of the movement is willing to use force to achieve its ends. Even more concerning is the way many MAGA leaders have subsequently downplayed or justified the Capitol attack.This normalization of political violence profoundly destabilizes democracy and makes peaceful resolution of differences far more difficult

4.Undermining truth and shared reality

The MAGA movement's loose relationship with factual reality represents another serious threat to functional democracy. By embracing conspiracy theories, rejecting scientific expertise, and creating alternative information ecosystems, the movement erodes the possibility of having good-faith debates based on a shared set of facts.When a large segment of the population lives in a completely different epistemic reality, it becomes nearly impossible to find common ground or craft effective policy solutions. This rejection of truth and expertise also leaves followers vulnerable to manipulation and extreme ideas.

5.Weakening of democratic institutions

MAGA leaders have waged a sustained assault on the legitimacy of key democratic institutions like the justice system, intelligence agencies, the press, and career civil servants. By portraying these entities as part of a nefarious "deep state" working against the people, the movement weakens public trust in the very institutions needed for democracy to function.This institutional erosion creates a vicious cycle, as weakened institutions are less able to serve as a check on abuses of power, leading to further deterioration.6.

Personality cult dynamics

The MAGA movement's intense devotion to Donald Trump personally introduces instability and irrationality into the political system. When loyalty to an individual trumps commitment to principles or the national interest, it opens the door to significant abuses of power.The personalization of politics around Trump also makes it more difficult to resolve political differences through normal democratic means. Policy debates get reduced to whether one supports or opposes Trump as an individual.

7.Minority rule tendencies

There are strong anti-democratic currents within the MAGA movement that seek to entrench minority rule through a variety of mechanisms:

Extreme gerrymandering

Voter suppression targeting Democratic-leaning groups

Exploiting the electoral college and Senate's rural bias

Court packing to lock in a conservative judiciary

Calls to repeal the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators)

These efforts to insulate MAGA power from the will of the majority represent a fundamental threat to the principle of popular sovereignty.

8.Scapegoating and demonitiization

The MAGA movement's rhetoric often seeks to divide Americans into "real" patriots versus dangerous "others" - whether immigrants, racial minorities, liberals, or the nebulous "elite." This deliberate "us vs. them" framing corrodes social cohesion and paints political opponents as existential enemies rather than fellow citizens with differing views.Taken to extremes, this dehumanization of the opposition can be used to justify anti-democratic actions or even violence in the name of defending the "real America.

Potential Future Trajectories

Looking ahead, there are several potential paths the MAGA movement could take, each with significant implications for American democracy:

Moderation and reintegration: In this optimistic scenario, the movement gradually moderates its views and tactics, allowing for its reintegration into normal democratic politics. This would likely require new leadership and a rejection of its most extreme elements.

Continued radicalization: The movement could continue down the path of escalating extremism, embracing more conspiratorial thinking and explicit calls for anti-democratic action. This risks further political violence and democratic backsliding.

Splintering: Internal divisions could cause the movement to fragment into competing factions, potentially diminishing its overall influence but also creating space for even more radical offshoots.

Institutional capture: The movement could succeed in taking over the Republican Party entirely and gaining control of key government institutions, allowing for the implementation of its agenda through official channels.

Authoritarian takeover: In a worst-case scenario, MAGA leaders could leverage a crisis or electoral victory to rapidly dismantle democratic guardrails and institute authoritarian rule, similar to what has occurred in countries like Hungary.

The trajectory the movement takes will depend on a variety of factors, including the actions of MAGA leaders, the response of democratic institutions, economic conditions, and unforeseen events that could reshape the political landscape. Responding to the Threat Given the serious dangers posed by the MAGA movement, a robust democratic response is necessary. Some potential strategies include:

Strengthening democratic institutions: Shoring up the integrity and independence of bodies like the Justice Department, election administration, and civil service to withstand political pressure.

Civic education: Improving public understanding of democratic processes and values to build resilience against anti-democratic messaging.

Media literacy: Equipping citizens with the tools to critically evaluate information sources and resist disinformation.

Bipartisan coalition building: Forging alliances between Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans to present a united front in defense of democratic norms.

Economic policy: Addressing the legitimate economic grievances that fuel support for the movement through inclusive growth policies.

Legal accountability: Ensuring that violations of law and democratic norms face appropriate consequences, regardless of political affiliation.

Depolarization efforts: Investing in initiatives that bridge partisan divides and rebuild social cohesion at the community level.

Election reform: Implementing reforms to increase faith in election integrity while expanding access to voting.

Countering extremism: Providing off-ramps and support for those at risk of radicalization into anti-democratic ideologies.

Conclusion

The MAGA movement represents one of the most significant challenges to American democracy in generations. Its potent mix of grievance politics, personality cult dynamics, and anti-democratic tendencies poses a multifaceted threat to the stability and functioning of the country's political system.

While the movement taps into some legitimate frustrations with the status quo, its proposed solutions and tactics risk undermining the very foundations of constitutional governance. The normalization of political violence, erosion of truth, and delegitimization of democratic institutions create a volatile situation with the potential for severe instability.

Responding effectively to this threat will require a clear-eyed understanding of the movement's appeal and tactics, coupled with proactive efforts to strengthen democratic guardrails and rebuild civic cohesion. The future of American democracy may well hinge on the ability to successfully navigate this challenge in the years to come.

Ultimately, preserving a healthy democracy requires constant vigilance and renewal. The MAGA movement serves as a stark reminder that even long-established democracies are not immune to authoritarian impulses. By understanding the nature of this threat, Americans across the political spectrum can work to uphold the principles of democratic self-governance for future generations.

[up2123753theories]

Identity

Definitions

The fact of being who or what a person or thing is

A close similarity or affinity

Rem Koolhaas: National Identity In Architecture

As said on ‘Psychology today’, a person’s “identity encompasses the memories, experiences, relationships and values that create one’s sense of self”. As much as this quote is in reference to a person’s identity it can also be related to architecture. For example, the style of buildings and placement in certain countries and cities can be seen as part of that locations identity as sometimes architects use a places’ history as inspiration for new buildings. Identity plays a large role in everyday life, from personal identity to a companies identity to a nations.

Utilities One explains the link between architecture and personal identity: “Physical spaces and places play a significant role in shaping our well-being and personal identity.” This quote really shows the importance of our surroundings and how it affects our identities. A colourful surrounding could make some very colourful and happy but it could also make others almost ‘rebel’ and dislike colour.

Even though identity is usually recognised within people it is also applicable to buildings, objects and places. Everything has different memories and characteristics which identify them.

Quotes:

“Identity encompasses the memories, experiences, relationships and values that create one’s sense of self” – Psychology Today “Physical spaces and places play a significant role in shaping our well-being and personal identity” – Psychology Today “It should be people-specific and should also represent the way of life of such people” – Chukwuali “Architecture As Identity” – Abel

References:

Abel, Chris. Architecture and Identity : Towards a Global Eco-Culture. Oxford England ; Boston, Architectural Press, 1997.

Adebayo, Anthony, et al. “Architecture: The Quest for Cultural Identity.” Facta Universitatis - Series: Architecture and Civil Engineering, vol. 11, no. 2, 2013, pp. 169–177, www.researchgate.net/publication/274829351_Architecture_The_quest_for_cultural_identity, https://doi.org/10.2298/fuace1302169a.

C. B. Chukwuali, "The influence of cultural pluralism on architectural practice in Nigeria: The content,

the context and the imperatives", Journal of Nigerian Institute of Architects, Enugu State Chapter, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2005, pp 13-20.

“Construction Spaces and the Influence on Personal Identity and Self-Expression.” Utilities One, 6 Nov. 2023, utilitiesone.com/construction-spaces-and-the-influence-on-personal-identity-and-self-expression. Accessed 20 Jan. 2024.

“Identity | Psychology Today.” Www.psychologytoday.com, www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/identity#:~:text=Identity%20encompasses%20the%20memories%2C%20experiences.

Oxford Dictionary. “Oxford Languages.” Oxford Languages, Oxford University Press, 2023, languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/.

WA Contents. “ Rem Koolhaas: National Identity in Architecture,” WorldArchitecture.org, 26 Mar. 2014, worldarchitecture.org/article-links/pmezp/rem-koolhaas-national-identity-in-architecture.html.

During my research on identity I came to the realisation that even structures have their own identity and that they also help to create the identity of a place. For example, New York wouldn’t be the same without all its skylines which use their height to show off the powerful and wealthy identity of New York.

Chris Abel is a writer and educator who focuses on architectural practices, based in Malta. He has visited and taught in many big universities across the world. He is the author of a book called ‘Architecture and Identity’ which consists of a variety of his key essays that look into cultural and technological changes that are reshaping modern architecture. ‘Architecture and Identity’ is separated into three separate parts: Science and technology, Critical Theory, and Regionalism and Globalization. Within the section on Regionalism and Globalization he has a sub-section called “Architecture as Identity”. Within this chapter Chris looks at how architecture is used to show a places’ identity.

I strongly agree with, “Architecture as Identity” as a quote itself. This is because it shows that our architecture will and has always been used as a way to show a society or communities identity and what they find important and what they believe in, which they have done for centuries through the use of temples, churches and houses, etc.

I believe that as much as our personal identities are important, the identity of our architecture and what it tells others is and has always been equally as important. It shows off power, beliefs, religions and how our society works with each other.

Throughout my research I found that identity is such a broad subject that it is fairly tricky to pin point it to one specific topic. I tried to focus on identity within architecture as best I could to avoid going completely off-topic.

[classpectpokerap]

Give meq tgat fefat <> roxy stuffff please

alright bear with me for a second i gotta paint a word picture

imagine youre roxy lalonde, right.

you just entered the game. youve got a bottle of momslime. your modus was literally built to hold ectobiologized goo. youve been feeling the weight of destiny on your shoulders -- YOU ARE GOING TO MEET HER. she might be dead but you are going to meet her.

and you get to your sprite,

and theres just

a fucking

CLOWN

and two corpses that he throws into the kernel.

(the first homestuck fic i ever read, Conference Call, has a version of the erisolsprite prototyping. they fought gamzee and got their fuckin asses kicked. its great.)

and then youre left with just. Some Alien Bitch. and its like the universe is teasing you, because she's partially the DIRECT DESCENDANT of the fishwitch what killed your mom, and also a cat???? you are so sick to death of cats. you have been up to your fucking ass in cats. its just too much

and then she just. talks to you

and you slowly start to listen

you hear about her lives on alternia. what it was like being a princess, what it was like being the pauper. how they weren't even really friends, before -- they ran in different circles.

but they're one person, now. one person dedicated to *helping you.*

we never find out how roxy quit drinking, or who helped her through it

(it was fefeta)

and fefeta *loves* you. she listens to you talk about boys. you talk about your mom. fefeta never really spoke to her... but her nepeta half *knows what happened to your kitty frigglish* after he died. and frigglish said that your mom was okay.

that everything was going to be okay

and it's just. jane had her shit. jake was up in his shit. dirk had fucked off with his shit. and roxy really only had fefeta!!!!!!!!

and i think they were moirails and i think they loved each other so much. frankly. tbf.

roxy is a trans woman, fefeta is newly plural. they have a lot in common. tbqh. its like. its very beautiful. in my eyes. in my vision.

and then

she dies

and this is like. this is a really big fucking deal honestly?

fefeta's death is like. a huge thing. its one of the only things she tells john about when summarizing the entirety of her session.

and this isnt something she magically gets back in the post-retcon timeline, either

like... when fefeta dies, there isnt a post-retcon fefeta. (we'll GET TO YOU JASPROSE.) it's just roxy who remembers fefeta's existence at all -- her friends dont have any connection to her. *nobody alive in all of reality* remembers her.

fefeta isnt just dead, dude, shes Fucking GONE. shes the goner ever. shes fuckin erased.

but honestly

on a level? good for her.

we've seen what being in homestuck does to people. it warps them, reshapes them. (see the new hsbc upd8 for some cool imagery about it.) fefetasprite was never a real part of the story. she got away with being silent -- her words are hidden from us. she was never in LE's clutches.

and why would LE even want to clutch her

she's the sword that's going to kill him, after all

:3

i call fefetasprite the "cat fish witch" for a very important reason. a) its cute BUT B). if you look at caledfwlch, dave's sword, and just sorta. squint at the word. it looks like cat fish witch. that's fefeta. she Iss the cat fish witch.

so what does her death mean?

well it's not like dave used an UNBROKEN sword to fight LE.

feferi is the part of the sword still left in the stone. the part we forgot and left behind.

which leaves Nepeta, the other half of this broken sword, of the Cat Fish Witch

to kill the shit out of Lord English. B33

the sword was always going to kill him!!!!!!!! fefetasprite was the sword!!!!!!!!!!! NEPETA WAS ALWAYS FATED TO DEFEAT LORD ENGLISH!!!! AM I CLINICALLY INSANE? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anyway. all this to say.

i wrote a fic about this.

check out the second work in the series for roxy processing the emotions that none of her post-retcon friends remember her moirail. it's some good stuff i think!!!!!!! also hal is there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anyway jasprose is just roxy's initial dream of reviving her mom in her kernelsprite brought to life through the most roundabout and indirect and stupid way possible. send POST

[xxx-mundiemudsnapper-xxx]

Aside from the year of the rabbit plushie you couldnt find, what's the oldest plushie you have? (or plushies plural if you feel like it)

Bubbles! She’s an original 1999 Play by Play Blastoise plush I got at a convention for pretty cheap all things considered. It was very odd though when someone came up to me and admitted he wanted it just to resell it for way more 😨

Maybe it’s sacrelige of me to do but I took out most of the styrofoam stuffing and replaced it with proper polyfil — first because the texture was bad, but also because it was old and I wanted to make sure this critter was CLEAN. Also because I was worried for her structural integrity and all that. Plus I also wanted to reshape/restuff some rough spots, but all in all I presume she’s in very good shape now! :)

[hushpuppy5-blog]

I found this document called "The Asexual Manifesto" and thought it was interesting in how it addressed asexuality amongst women in some 1970s feminist groups:

The Asexual Manifesto (1972) was recently found by Caoimhe Harlock on Twitter.  It is available as a pdf.  I have transcribed it below for better accessibility.  The format mimics the original, except for the placement of the footnote on the first page. The Asexual Manifesto was also excerpted in Shere Hite’s book, Sexual Honesty (1974); I have separately transcribed the excerpt and noted what was left out.  Feel free to use this in any way.

--Siggy, 6/22/2019

I wrote an article explaining some of the context of the Manifesto. --Siggy, 8/9/2019

The Asexual Manifesto

Lisa Orlando, Asexual Caucus, NYRF *

* In September 1972, the Co-ordinating Council of New York Radical Feminists formed caucuses based on similarity of sexual orientation.  Each caucus was to explore its members' personal and political attitudes about their sexuality and communicate these views to the larger group.  Barbie Hunter Getz and I realized that we would not feel comfortable in any of the proposed caucuses (heterosexual, Lesbian, bisexual) and formed our own.  Out of this caucus came a paper of which the “Asexual Manifesto” is a revision.  That the paper’s plural form has been retained does not imply that all the views expressed in this final version necessarily reflect the views of both the original co-authors.

I. Origin and Definition.

Our experiences with sexuality have not been congruent with our feminist values.  As our consciousness became raised on this issue we began to see how sex had permeated our lives and the lives of others.  We categorized our relationships in terms of sex ----- either friends or lovers.  We engaged in a "sizing up" process, however subtle or subconscious, with each new person, accepting or rejecting her/him as a possible sexual partner even if we never intended to become sexually involved.  We arbitrarily rejected whole groups of people as unsuitable for intimate relationships because we assumed that such relationships, by definition, necessarily included sex.  Often we chose to spend time with people simply on the basis of their sexual availability (the “bar scene”).  As we became aware of this in ourselves, we became painfully aware of how we were being objectified by others.

Asexuality is an outgrowth of this consciousness.  It is a concept we have come to employ out of the wish to communicate ----- not merely through being but also through language ----- our struggle to rid ourselves of sexism in our personal lives.

In this paper we have used the terms “sex” and “sexual” to describe any activity one goal of which is genital excitation or orgasm.  Physical affection and sensuality (including kissing) are not, by this definition, sexual unless they are directed towards the goal of genital excitation.

We chose the term “asexual” to describe ourselves because both “celibate” and “anti-sexual” have connotations we wished to avoid: the first implies that one has sacrificed sexuality for some higher good, the second that sexuality is degrading or somehow inherently bad.  “Asexual”, as we use it, does not mean “without sex” but “relating sexually to no one”.  This does not, of course, exclude masturbation but implies that if one has sexual feelings they do not require another person for their expression.  Asexuality is, simply, self-contained sexuality.

II. Philosophy

Our philosophy of asexuality grew out of our personal ethics, which have been reshaped by our feminist consciousness.  To us, as to many other women, feminism means more than the fight against sexism.  It means "sisterhood" ----- a new way of relating, perhaps a new way of life.  Feminist morality, at this stage in history, can only be defined as antithetical to the oppressive values of our society (e.g., competition, objectification).  On a personal level, it is reflected in our beliefs that: we should attempt to relate to others in their totality as much as possible and not view them as objects existing for the gratification of our needs; we must not exploit others ----- that is, use them “unjustly or improperly” ----- nor allow ourselves to be exploited; we must not be dishonest with ourselves or those we respect.  In addition, we believe that we each have the responsibility for examining our behavior, determining how it has been affected by sexist conditioning, and changing it if it does not meet our standards.

As feminists we had decried the sexual exploitation of women by men without seeing that we too had used others “unjustly and improperly”.  Interpersonal sex is not an instinctive behavior pattern; it is behavior we have learned to use for the satisfaction of a need (for orgasm) which we can easily satisfy for ourselves.  We came to see this use of others as exploitative and realized that in allowing others to use us in this way we were acquiesing in our own exploitation.

In our attempt to be honest with ourselves, we tried to determine what our real needs are.  We saw that we have needs for affection, warmth, skin contact, which we had been taught to satisfy through interpersonal sex.  As we began to satisfy these needs in our "friendships," our need for and interest in sex diminished.  We also realized that we had a need for intimacy, a state we had always seen as "completed" by sex.  In retrospect, we realized that we, and others, had used sex as a means of self-deception, as a way of avoiding real closeness rather than achieving it.

We had struggled against our conditioning in many ways, especially in terms of roles, but we had avoided examining the basic conditioning which had shaped our sexuality.  It is difficult even to speculate on the nature of "ideal sexuality" (uninfluenced by sexism) but we are certain that it would not occupy as much of our lives as it does in this society.  We live in a culture of "fetish-worshippers" who regard sex with an extreme and irrational amount of attention.  Just as many of us were conditioned to direct our energy into the preparation of lavish meals, creating a fetish out of a simple need to avoid confrontation with the emptiness of our lives as women, so we were conditioned to seek sexual satisfaction in convoluted and circuitous ways.  Since our involvement with feminism, our lives have been increasingly meaningful and we no longer feel the need for fetishes.

In examining our experiences relative to our values, we have come to asexuality as a stand and a state of being concurrently.  Interpersonal sex is no longer important to us, no longer worth the distorted and often destructive role it has played in relationships.  It no longer defines our relationships or in any way constitutes our identities.  As asexual women, we do not (1) seek, initiate, or continue relationships in order to experience interpersonal sex, (2)use others for the satisfaction of our sexual needs or allow ourselves to be so used, (3) attempt to satisfy other needs (e.g. for affection, warmth, intimacy) through interpersonal sex, or (4) perceive others according to their potential, or lack of it, as sex partners.  In essence then, our asexuality reflects a rejection of interpersonal sex as long as it cannot meet our conditions: that it be both congruent with our values and totally incidental and unimportant to our relationship.

III Politics

Basic to the liberation of women is the destruction of sexism, one manifestation of which is the sexual exploitation of women by men.  Asexuality is a step towards achieving this goal at the personal level, as it eliminates one means by which men oppress us.  Through our asexuality, we have excluded sex as a goal and, essentially, even as a possibility in any relationships we may happen to have with men.

Because of the patriarchal culture which has resulted from institutionalized sexism, the exploitative behavior, standard in such a culture, has made it extremely difficult for women to realize their own independent, more humane style of relating.  Most women consequently reflect, in their relationships with each other, some of the exploitative behavior patterns characteristic of our male oppressors.  One area where the oppression of women by women may occur is, again, the sexual; this oppression too must end before we can be truly free. Through asexuality, we have rejected sex as a goal in our relationships with women, thus avoiding the sexual objectification, exploitation, and oppression of our sisters.  Here too, we reject any possibility of sex unless our conditions are met, and we thereby prevent ourselves from being sexually exploited and oppressed.

To destroy a particular culture’s basic myths is to undermine its very foundations.  Patriarchal culture, based as it is on sex differentiation, has constructed some of its strongest myths around sexuality.  We believe it is of prime importance that feminism direct itself to the exposure and destruction of the current patriarchal mythology which, through deception, reinforces our oppression.  Those myths most responsible for the distorted role sex plays in women's lives are:

Interpersonal sex is essential since the sex drive is a powerful force in human life and, if unsatisfied (through interpersonal sex), tends to produce unhappiness or possibly illness,

It is important that any sexual excitation always and/or immediately be satisfied,

Sex is essential for closeness in a relationship, no relationship being complete without it,

The ultimate closeness in a relationship occurs during sex and/or orgasm,

The needs for physical affection and sex are basically the same,

It is almost impossible satisfactorily to express affection physically without sexual excitation also occurring,

Women who have little interest in interpersonal sex, or who rarely if ever reach orgasm, are somehow inadequate.

While all these myths may not be credible to all women, some women believe some of them some of the time.

Finally, we see a conflict between, on the one hand, the time and energy necessary to our struggle as feminists, and, on the other hand, the time and energy necessary to develop and maintain relationships in which sex is a goal.  If we would use our energy efficiently, a choice seems indicated: to struggle against sexism or to struggle for satisfactory sex.  Although it may be said that to turn one’s back on a problem is not to solve it, we think the truth of this statement is relative to the importance one places on the problem.  If we saw interpersonal sex as important, asexuality would be a cop-out; since we do not, it is instead a means of withdrawing our energy from an area in which we feel it is being wasted.  

We see asexuality as an efficient "alternative life-style" for revolutionary women but we do not claim that “asexuality is revolution.”  We call ourselves “self-identified women” but we do not demand that all feminists adopt this title.  Our statement is simply this: as a result of examining the nature of our sexuality and reclaiming it from the sexist misconceptions surrounding it, we are able to form and maintain relationships in a way which both reflects our values and is effective in our liberation struggle.  For us, asexuality is a committment to defy and ultimately to destroy the baseless concepts, surrounding both sex and relationships, which support and perpetuate the patriarchy.

[kitchen-light]

For myself, working between two languages as far apart as English and Chinese, I cannot help but feel my visibility when I make choices as fundamental as assigning temporality where it is ambiguous in the source (Chinese has no tenses), deciding whether there are one or many of a given object (Chinese has no plurals), or choosing the gender of a protagonist’s pet (Chinese uses a single gender-neutral pronoun for most animals). As a translator, I am very much not the “pane of glass” that Norman Shapiro evokes (“You only notice that it’s there when there are little imperfections”). As a translator of plays, I am often present in the rehearsal room, reshaping the dialogue in collaboration with actors and a director. Working mostly with writers who don’t speak English and editors who don’t speak Chinese, I am frequently required to mediate editorial conversations. I supply translator’s notes and footnotes, the latter of which Heather Cleary locates, in 'The Translator’s Visibility', “at the intersection of two contradictory mandates: the fidelity of ‘subordinates, slaves, and foreign annotators’ and the autonomy of the commentator, who occupies a position of critical distance”—an in-betweenness I am naturally attracted to.

Jeremy Tiang, from his essay “Now They See Us | On translators’ labor and invisibility”, published in The Margins - Asian American Writers Workshop, March 29, 2023

[acorpsecalledcorva]

The neuroplasticity (or lack there of) of CDDs is really interesting in how it manifests over time. Because in so many ways I really am still a 5 year old child quietly crying myself to sleep, or a 17 year old girl desperately trying to establish an identity of my own in a world that feels like it has no place for me awash a sea of hormonal changes (second puberty really hits so different and yet so similar). But it also really does afford the room for real growth and change.

That change comes at a cost though, which is that I constantly feel alienated from my past selves. I cannot remember what I used to think, or why I thought it, only what I did and said and maybe what I was interacting with and try to work out my thought process from that. It's like most people are playdough, constantly being reshaped to a lesser or greater degree but still containing all that they were, while I'm Lego, I can be disassembled and reconstructed, but the pieces are solid, adding new bricks as needed and discarding those that are not (or putting them in storage at least).

We are also, of course, products of our environment. When your life is marred by identity uncertainty, we look to our surroundings to give us clues of who we might be. When I was on Reddit and browsed /r/all I would see the occasional tumblrinaction post about the plural community, fictionkins, and IRLs and think "well that's definitely not me. Discovering I was trans and coming to terms with being a marginalised identity, it was discord communities that taught me what that could mean and what I should be ready to fight against. On twitter I was lucky, I found the traumacore/empty spaces community that helped me to process the images I saw in my head that I didn't understand, and use my trauma as a tool of creation.

Taking part in the system community, it was the older focused communities that helped me to understand myself. I honestly don't know what my syscourse stance was back then, if I even had one. There are aspects of the wider online community that just don't vibe with me, some were a little damaging, others were simply incomprehensible to me. Joining Tumblr definitely shoved it in my face though.

The only thing I can imagine is that I must have thought that endogenic plurality was this "other" thing, I knew about DID, what switching and fronting and host and protector and system meant in that context, but endogenic plurality was something else that didn't concern me and I hadn't really come across it yet. So I was absolutely confused as fuck when I came here and saw people using all those "DID" words to mean something else. When anti-endos said "you can't form a system without trauma" that made absolute sense to me at the time because system meant DID and that's caused by trauma, why are people claiming to have DID things and using DID words while also saying that they don't have DID? Actually I do still kinda think the terms should be separate but it's not a battle I can be fucked to argue about anymore.

Because the point is that while online spaces might not change all that much, and there will always be people who join those spaces and be influenced by the culture in them, there are always other spaces that will influence them differently. So while it's absolutely frustrating as fuck to see anti-endos repeating the same horrible origins discourse, and endos saying fucking awful stuff like "I think traumagenic systems cling to trauma as a cause because they feel insecure about being a system", we need to accept that it will still keep happening while the spaces exist and remember that the people from those spaces are the ones with the opportunity to change. To learn, to see things from a different perspective, and most importantly grow.

And if they refuse to? If they keep spouting the same points over and over and over again, refusing to back down or learn, reigniting old arguments and digging stuff up from the past because they just can't let go of it? Just leave them to it I guess, we'll all be off making ourselves and each other better ^^

[sophieinwonderland]

We're starting to think that some of us may be accidental tulpas? Like, our 'original' gave us names and personality traits and told us we had to be different from her because she wasn't allowed to feel these things.

Would that be traumagenic or endogenic do you think?

It could always be both...

Like, while traumagenic headmates are usually not consciously created, I think they definitely could be. It seems more than plausible that someone might make headmates somewhat intentionally (even if they don't understand what headmates are) to help cope with trauma.

But I also think young headmates can be more suggestible and be... let's say "sculpted." Like, if consciousnesses were clay, and you separated a ball of wet clay off from the rest. Then that clay can be reshaped into something new before it solidifies.

That seems like another possible scenario, where you may have existed first in some form due to trauma, but then the original giving you names and personality traits caused you to become more elaborated.

There are a lot of gray areas and things we just don't understand about plurality and the brain. I say identify however you feel comfortable. There are important distinctions between trauma holders and non-trauma holders for therapy, but a created headmates can still be trauma holder. I really don't think "endogenic" and "traumagenic" labels are things that matter too much themselves outside of syscourse.

So, you do you!

It's perfectly okay to not know for certain, and to just pick the label you feel most suits you best. 💖

[syscultureis]

plural culture is, before system awareness, mistaking an alter for an OC idea, making this miraculous OC idea into your TTRPG player-character for a campaign that lasted a year and a bit, and THEN at an unknown date, forming an introject of the TTRPG character inspired by your original non-fictive alter. who then reshaped himself into Ferdinand von Aegir and wont let anyone forget it. and to top it off the original non-fictive split from Jake fucking English LMAO. plural culture is having hilarious internal 'family trees' like this

.

[lightofthemoon19]

i genuinely need someone to just explain to me how endo systems think their systems/brains work. not spiritual systems, but like ones who claim to have just been a system from birth, or that they created their alters or developed it at some point in life. who knows, maybe our stance on syscourse will change. this isn’t me trying to be confrontational or anything, i’m just genuinely asking, systems who claim to have formed without trauma, how does that work biologically/scientifically?

systems that claim to have formed through spiritual/religious origins, we personally are not religious in any way and don’t believe in things like souls, so this doesn’t really apply to you because whatever explanation you have my response is pretty much just…cool, but not possible/real according to my beliefs lol, you do you though, everyone’s allowed to have their own ideas about that sort of stuff (but please don’t claim your experiences are in any way shape or form similar to those of a DID/OSDD system).

i mostly just find it interesting that people talk about being a system/being plural as though their brain just…didn’t do or stopped doing a very basic life function; integrating one’s self-states into a singular personality. and if your system supposedly developed later in life, have you just somehow figured out how to overpower the very way that your brain works so that different parts are working, thinking, and experiencing things at different times, completely separate from each other? do you have amnesia from each other, and if so, how? brains, according to my knowledge and understanding at least, can’t just…do that? DID/OSDD system’s entire brains function and work differently, they’ve developed differently, and they conduct basic functions such as storing memory and taking in sensory input differently, due to the intense amount of trauma/stress they experienced completely reshaping how their brain’s work. and i’m really curious how that complete reshaping of the brain’s functions allegedly works /gen.

[sandra-journals]

Paddling Through NYC’s Past: Kayaking the Waters That Shaped the City

As New York City celebrates its 400th anniversary, a unique way to explore its remarkable evolution is by kayaking the rivers that helped build it.

Near Inwood Hill Park, the last vestige of Manhattan’s original forests, the city's usual din fades away, replaced by the serene sounds of nature. Paddling along, I marveled at the gnarled tree roots and ancient boulders left by the Ice Age, and watched a great blue heron land gracefully on a sandy cove—perhaps a scene that early inhabitants of the island might have recognized.

This year marks four centuries since the Dutch founded New Amsterdam, which would grow into one of the world’s most iconic cities. As New Yorkers reflect on this milestone, the challenge has been balancing celebration with recognition of the city’s complex history.

Russell Shorto, author of The Island at the Center of the World, notes that this Dutch settlement was the birthplace of “the world’s first modern city,” characterized by pluralism and capitalism. “Manhattan is where America began,” Shorto asserts, highlighting its role in shaping the nation’s ethos of diversity and opportunity. Yet, the Dutch also contributed to the displacement of Native peoples and the importation of enslaved Africans, adding layers of complexity to the city’s legacy.

In light of this, the city's quadricentennial events are designed to acknowledge both its achievements and its darker chapters. “We are viewing this anniversary more as a commemoration than a celebration,” said Sarah Cooney of the Holland Society of New York. A picnic on Governors Island, where the Dutch first landed in 1624, will mark the occasion.

Manhattan’s development from a fur trading post to a global metropolis is deeply intertwined with its waterways. “The entire city is about the water,” says Captain Jonathan Boulware of the South Street Seaport Museum. The harbor's natural advantages—its depth, its wide expanse, and its connectivity—were crucial in transforming New York into a major commercial hub.

When Henry Hudson explored the region in 1609, he uncovered a natural harbor that would become a gateway for trade and growth. The Dutch quickly recognized its potential and established a thriving trade center, which later evolved into the bustling, multi-ethnic city we know today.

As Manhattan expanded, its original landscape was dramatically reshaped. The 1811 grid plan leveled hills and filled marshes, paving the way for modern development. The Erie Canal, completed in 1825, linked New York City to the Midwest, cementing its status as a key player in global trade and immigration.

Today, as I kayak around Manhattan, the city’s deep connection to its waterways is both a reflection of its past and a guide for its future. This journey through the city’s rivers serves as a poignant reminder of how Manhattan's natural environment played a critical role in shaping its history and identity.

[ebelal56-blog]

Rewriting India's History: A Battle for Identity

provoking video. History is a tapestry, woven from countless threads, each representing a culture, a belief, a moment in time. In India, this tapestry is particularly intricate, colored by the vibrant hues of diverse civilizations, languages, and religions. Yet, in recent years, there has been a concerted effort to pull at those threads, to reshape the narrative into something more palatable for a particular ideology. The rewriting of history in India, especially under the influence of Hindu nationalism, is not just an academic exercise; it’s a battle for identity, a struggle for the soul of a nation. Take the Aryan Migration Theory, for instance. For decades, scholars have posited that the Aryans, those ancient Indo-European speakers, migrated into the Indian subcontinent around 1500 BCE. This theory connects Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas, to a broader family of languages, including Latin and Greek. But for many Hindu nationalists, this narrative is an affront. They reject the idea of migration, instead championing the "Out of India" theory, which posits that Aryans originated in India and spread their culture outward. This isn’t merely a scholarly debate; it’s a declaration of indigenous pride, an assertion that the roots of civilization lie firmly within the subcontinent, not outside it. Yet, in this fervor to reclaim history, the rich tapestry of interaction and assimilation between Dravidian and Aryan cultures is often overlooked. The traditional narrative celebrates the blending of these cultures, a beautiful confluence that has given rise to the diverse and vibrant society we see today. But the current discourse seeks to downplay these distinctions, to present a monolithic view of a continuous Hindu civilization. This simplification erases the complexities that define India, reducing its history to a singular narrative that fails to capture the essence of its pluralism. Then there’s the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, periods that have been pivotal in shaping India’s cultural landscape. These eras were marked by Muslim rule, yet they also brought forth remarkable contributions to art, architecture, and governance. The Taj Mahal, a symbol of love and architectural brilliance, stands as a testament to this rich heritage. However, the narrative pushed by some Hindu nationalists frames this period as one of foreign domination, a time of resistance against invaders. In doing so, they diminish the contributions of Muslim rulers, casting aside the achievements that have become integral to India’s identity. The implications of this selective memory are profound. By minimizing or reinterpreting Islamic contributions, the narrative risks alienating significant portions of the population who identify with these legacies. It’s a dangerous game, one that threatens to fracture the very fabric of Indian society. The arts, literature, and architecture of the Islamic period are not mere adaptations of Hindu traditions; they are distinct expressions of a rich cultural dialogue that has shaped India’s identity. Supporters of this rewriting argue that for too long, Indian history has been viewed through a colonial lens, one that undermines the continuity of indigenous traditions. They believe that reclaiming this narrative is essential for fostering national pride. But at what cost? In the quest to restore a sense of cultural identity, are we not at risk of erasing the contributions of non-Hindu communities?

[dan6085]

### The Treaty of Westphalia: A Pivotal Moment in European History

The Treaty of Westphalia, concluded in 1648, is widely regarded as a cornerstone in the development of modern international relations. This treaty, or more accurately, a series of treaties, marked the end of the Thirty Years' War in the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years' War between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It is celebrated not only for ending one of the most destructive conflicts in European history but also for laying the groundwork for the principles of state sovereignty and diplomatic practice that continue to influence global politics today.

#### Background and Context

The Thirty Years' War, which began in 1618, was a complex and multifaceted conflict involving many European powers, including the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden, and the Dutch Republic. Initially sparked by religious tensions between Catholics and Protestants within the Holy Roman Empire, the war quickly escalated into a broader struggle for political power and territorial control. The devastation wrought by the conflict was immense, with entire regions depopulated and economies shattered.

As the war dragged on, it became clear that a diplomatic resolution was necessary. The negotiations that led to the Treaty of Westphalia were extensive and involved delegations from numerous states. The talks took place in the Westphalian cities of Münster and Osnabrück, beginning in 1644 and culminating in the signing of the treaties on October 24, 1648.

#### Key Provisions and Significance

The Treaty of Westphalia consisted of several key provisions that collectively had a profound impact on the political landscape of Europe:

1. **Recognition of State Sovereignty**: One of the most significant outcomes of the treaty was the formal recognition of the sovereignty of over 300 German principalities and states within the Holy Roman Empire. This acknowledgment of state sovereignty laid the foundation for the modern international system, where states are considered independent and equal entities with authority over their territories and domestic affairs.

2. **Religious Tolerance**: The treaty included provisions for religious tolerance, granting legal recognition to Calvinism alongside Catholicism and Lutheranism within the Holy Roman Empire. This was a significant step towards religious pluralism and the reduction of sectarian conflict in Europe.

3. **Territorial Adjustments**: The treaty resulted in significant territorial changes. France gained control of Alsace, Sweden acquired territories in northern Germany, and the Dutch Republic's independence from Spain was formally recognized. These adjustments reshaped the balance of power in Europe and contributed to the emergence of France and Sweden as major players on the continental stage.

4. **End of Habsburg Dominance**: The treaty curtailed the ambitions of the Habsburgs, particularly the Holy Roman Emperor, by limiting their ability to exert centralized control over the various German states. This decentralization weakened the Habsburgs' influence and contributed to the decline of the Holy Roman Empire as a dominant force in European politics.

#### Long-Term Impact

The Treaty of Westphalia's legacy extends far beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities. It established principles that have become cornerstones of international law and diplomacy. The concept of state sovereignty, enshrined in the treaty, remains a fundamental principle of the modern international order. The idea that states have the right to govern themselves without external interference has shaped the conduct of international relations for centuries.

Moreover, the treaty's emphasis on diplomatic negotiation and collective decision-making set a precedent for future conflict resolution. The Westphalian peace process demonstrated the importance of dialogue and compromise in achieving lasting peace, influencing subsequent treaties and the development of international organizations such as the United Nations.

#### Conclusion

The Treaty of Westphalia was a watershed moment in European history, bringing an end to decades of brutal conflict and reshaping the political landscape of the continent. Its recognition of state sovereignty, religious tolerance, and the importance of diplomatic negotiation laid the groundwork for the modern international system. As such, the Treaty of Westphalia remains a pivotal reference point in the study of international relations and the evolution of statecraft. Its enduring legacy continues to inform the principles and practices that govern global diplomacy today.

[tmarshconnors]

Man with Far Too Much Power?

The 2024 General Election has ushered in a dramatic shift in the UK's political landscape. With Labour winning a staggering 411 seats, Keir Starmer's rise to power marks a turning point for the nation. However, this overwhelming victory raises critical concerns about the implications of such a dominant position for the Labour Party and the future of British democracy.

Labour's Landslide Victory: A Vote Against the Conservatives

It's essential to understand the context behind Labour's triumph. After 14 years of Conservative rule, many voters were simply exhausted by a party that seemed increasingly detached from its core principles. The Conservatives, once known for their staunch defence of traditional values and fiscal conservatism, appeared to have capitulated to what some critics describe as a left-wing, "woke" agenda. This perceived shift alienated a significant portion of their base, leading to a widespread desire for change.

For many, voting Labour was not an endorsement of Starmer's vision but a protest against the status quo. The Conservative Party's internal divisions, policy U-turns, and scandals only fuelled the public's frustration. The electorate's decision to swing towards Labour was less about embracing socialism and more about rejecting a party that had, in their eyes, lost its way.

Keir Starmer: A New Era or a One-Party State?

With Labour's commanding majority, Starmer now holds unprecedented power. While his supporters argue that this mandate allows him to implement much-needed reforms, critics fear that such a concentration of power poses a significant threat to democratic checks and balances. The spectre of a one-party state looms large, with concerns that Starmer's government could potentially stifle opposition voices and erode democratic institutions.

Starmer's critics warn that his leadership style, characterised by pragmatism and a focus on discipline, could lead to an authoritarian approach to governance. The sheer number of seats Labour controls in Parliament reduces the ability of opposition parties to effectively challenge and scrutinise government policies. This situation risks creating an environment where dissent is marginalised, and political plurality is weakened.

I shall NEVER stay silent and I will always call out injustice wherever it lies. 

As Keir Starmer's government takes the reins, it is crucial for all citizens, regardless of political affiliation, to remain vigilant. The health of a democracy depends on the active engagement and oversight of its people. While Starmer's tenure may bring about significant changes, it is imperative that these changes are made transparently and with respect for democratic principles.

Ensuring that the media, civil society, and opposition parties can freely operate and hold the government accountable is essential. The potential dangers of an unchallenged administration must not be ignored. Starmer's leadership will be tested not only by his ability to govern effectively but also by his commitment to maintaining the democratic values that underpin British society.

The 2024 General Election has undeniably reshaped the political landscape of the UK. While Keir Starmer's Labour Party enjoys an overwhelming majority, this victory comes with the heavy responsibility of upholding democratic integrity. The electorate's desire for change must be balanced with the need for robust checks and balances. Only time will tell whether Starmer's leadership will bring about the positive transformation many hope for, or if it will lead to a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of one man.