#so many of the things they say contradict themselves

[kdinjenzen]

I am at a confused crossroads and was wondering if you could help me untangle it? I firmly believe there is a problem with the fetishization of trans women and it should be called out and opposed like any blatant oversexualization of women should be.... but as I transition myself, I want to be overtly sexual. I want to show off the body I am earning as I become more in line with gender identity. I want to admire other trans women embracing themselves similarly. I want to enjoy the freedom to be as slutty and pervy as I feel with myself and other consenting adults. I want to wear revealing or skintight outfits and cosplays as I get the body for it. I know these two views can co exist and are not mutually exclusive but I am having a lot of difficulty separating the two from colliding as hypocritical contradictions within my own view. Have you run into this yourself and have you found any way to reconcile it for yourself if you have?

Going to cut right through everything and say this:

Sexuality =/= fetishization

Being slutty or perverted =/= fetishization

Wearing revealing/skimpy styles of clothes =/= fetishization

Fetishization = Objectification

I need to remind people that you can fetishize a culture, a person/group of people, and anything in general without it being sexual in nature.

When you de-person someone and focus only on the objectification of them/an aspect of them/their culture/etc, that's fetishization.

Legit just respect yourself as a whole person, respect others as whole people, put time into understanding them beyond just thing. That's all ya gotta do it's really simple tbh.

It's almost blatantly obvious when someone is fetishizing something/someone when you really get down to it.

And the only reason you're feeling this way about this kinda stuff is because of how trans women have been objectified EN MASSE by so many people/medias/etc and you fear that because you find things about trans women to be beautiful, endearing, to have qualities and such that you love, to want to see yourself in that same way you fear that you're going to be fetishizing (objectifying) yourself and other trans women in doing anything that revolves around sexuality or being overtly sexual because trans women are shamed for existing outside of being treated as objects.

Just treat yourself and other trans women with respect. S'all ya need to do.

[fakenewsfactcheck]

A lot of the shit Trump says is shit he has zero power to actually do.

A lot of the shit he does is ALSO shit he has zero power to actually do. Which is why (as of Feb 9) there are already literally dozens of lawsuits delaying MANY of his executive orders.

Announcing that the United States is going to own Gaza, raze the rest of it to the ground, and take its time building whatever it wants on that land, while the 2.3 million people in Gaza get divided evenly between the Arab League countries or whatever, is absolutely one of the things he has zero power to actually do.

He's actually accomplished something amazing: he's found the one thing that literally everyone involved can agree on.

Whether you're Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Jewish, American, far left, far right, or something else entirely, absolutely no one thinks this is an acceptable idea.*

* (Not literally "no one." I'm sure Jared Kushner has wished for this very thing while blowing out his birthday candles each year. But like, no one BESIDES Trump's small group of cronies.)

In the wake of Trump’s press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt quickly walked back the idea of forced permanent resettlement, saying instead that Gazans should be “temporarily relocated” for the rebuilding process.

Similarly, Netanyahu asserted during interviews over the weekend that under Trump’s plan, Gazans would eventually be able to return home after being screened. “Give them an option to relocate temporarily while we rebuild the place physically and while we also rebuild it in terms of radicalization. You want to come back? You have to disavow terrorism, but you can come back,” the prime minister said. Opposition Leader Yair Lapid also said Monday that he does not believe the proposal involved forcing anybody to leave against their will but rather allowing those who wish to relocate to do so freely. “I’m against transfer and expulsion by force,” the Yesh Atid leader said.

Even those people in Gaza who say they'd be interested in VOLUNTARILY immigrating elsewhere don't want to go Egypt or Jordan; they would want to go to countries where they see a future for themselves, within other Palestinian communities.

(There are plenty of Palestinians in Egypt. And especially in Jordan, which is estimated to be about two-thirds Palestinian, and was formed from 78% of the land in the Mandate for Palestine. BUT that doesn't automatically mean the people of Gaza want to live there.)

I knew that Trump was going to end up destroying Gaza and Palestine, but seeing him actually say it in a press conference… I don’t even have words.

I’m going to the link the press conference here and here.

The context is that Trump is going ‘reconstruct’ Gaza and in the process tear it to the ground. And that he wants to displace over 2 million Palestinians in the process. He implies that’s it’s a business opportunity. I knew it was going to be bad, so I can’t say I’m surprised. Just horrified at everything the Palestinians have been put through and continue to have to face.

[feelyourno1z]

you'll forever be a cringey immature straight girl no matter if you call yourself a he or a xim or a identify as a table leg, no matter how many bone-eroding cross-sex hormones you take or whether you amputate or boobs or not. biologicallly you will always be a female heterosexual since that's what you were born as. neuroscience proves that heteros aka opposite-sex attracted people have distinct brain phenotypes from gay people, regardless of if they identify as trans or not. heterosexual aka male-attracted 'transmen' have the same brain chemistry as any normie het woman, proving both that sexuality is only determined by sex and that transness isn't innate the way homosexuality is. you can larp as whatever, call neuroscience and basic knowledge on sexuality 'stinky doo doo opinions' like a petulant child who just realized santa isn't real. the only thing you're doing is embarrassing yourselves in front of anyone with the slightest cerebral functionality because you're mad we're calling out your gay-fetishizing homophobic anti-scientific bs for what it is unlike the tras who pretend to see you as 'gay' 'men' because they feel sorry for your mentally ill ass and your internalized misogyny. sure you het women will never be in an equal relationship with a male because straight men see you as throwaway sex toys and free domestic servants but this isn't an excuse for you to fetishize gay men and pretend to be them, certainly not an excuse to expect them to go along with the charade and put up with you het weirdos preying on them. het males aren't dumb when it comes to manipulating women for easy p*ssy which is why they're already on grindr with your het ass, pretending to be QWeEr and non-binary to get that mentally ill gullible cooch. no actual gay male will look at you and have any other emotion aside from anger and pitiful laughter. even if you 'pass' completely, they'll be disgusted after learning you have female genitalia and lose any attraction they may have had because het sex is abnormal and undesirable to gay people, not falling for and not wanting to fuck the opposite sex is the literal essence of our sexuality which you are diametrically opposed to. you'll just rub your nub away to yaoi like any other fujo who is either an ugly woman or understandably disillusioned with men but the only outcome is that you'll be a bitter p0rn sick lonely coomer just like those crusty basement-dwelling straight men who can't get laid. the worst part is that nearly any het woman like you can get laid, that's no achievement, het men will even pretend to be bi or gay to use you as a fleshlight but no gay male will ever want your musty homophobic vag, they want none at all and deep down you know it. that you'll never be loved and wanted by a gay man, that you'll never be seen as gay or male by anyone. you'll never know the ultimate compatibility and sublime equality that only exists in same-sex love. and now that you've ruined your straight woman privilege, only the most abusive and weird straight men will go after you, whose only purpose is to take advantage of you. what a sad existence, foaming at the mouth at gay people for standing up for ourselves when you fake progressive breeders try to brainwash your fellow homophobes into your heteronormative bioessentialist homophobia, insisting gay people could be bisexually attracted as long as you wear 'boy clothes' and cut your hair off. congrats on alienating the very people you pretend to be, most of us were 'trans allies' just a few years ago before you went full crackhead and started pretending sexuality is based on a made-up gender not biological sex. enjoy withering away in your early menopause knowing no gay person will ever love or desire you, knowing you'll never be us and should be grateful since you couldn’t stand a day of real oppression. choke on as much d*ck as you'd like, it only proves what a wanton female hetero you are and that straight males would stick their d*ck in anyone female

Bro, do you need a hug?

[rjalker]

just because you can sometimes purposefully pretend that bad writing is just due to characters acting a certain way--

(IE: "This mixup of the holiday dates is clearly the author's fault for not paying attention to their own worldbuilding, which isn't even complicated, and she literally just had them correct not even twenty pages ago, but for the sake of my sanity I'm going to pretend this character is just lying to be an asshole")

--does not mean that bad writing is always "the character's fault". And the above "for the sake of my sanity I'm going to pretend this is the character's fault" is for your sake only. It's not to be brought up to defend the writing itself, which you know is filled with inconsistencies and wouldn't know the meaning of "continuity" if it bit them on the nose.

If someone is specifically asking for in-universe explanations for the glaring and painfully obvious continuity errors, then you should feel free to offer all the convoluted explanations you've come up with.

but these are not a substitute for actually acknowledging that the author has made mistakes and there are in fact a ton of continuity errors in the text, not because "it's the character's fault", but because the author wasn't paying attention or didn't understand what they were saying, or just straight up doesn't give enough shits about their own setting to bother with silly things like not screwing up timelines in ways that make no sense. (*cough* Jaxom *cough)

You can come up with in-universe explanations for the continuity errors.

But you shouldn't let those get in the way of admitting "Yes, the continuity errors exist because the author wasn't paying attention/doesn't understand what they're saying/doesn't take their own story seriously/has a problem with making all the protagonists Mary Sues/Ect.".

[1seaweedbrain1]

seeing posts about batfamily characterization and why one way is wrong or another is and im just like. can we just say we have favorites? bc most of these guys are built from decades of different writers and different ways of existing so fucking obviously theres gonna be different versions of the same character.

"bruce is a bad father" yes he is he found out red hood was jason and tried to lock him up, he made dick fake his death, he was neglectful of tim

"bruce is a good father" yes he is he gives jason chance after chance, he hugs dick when hes overwhelmed, he took tim in as his own

"jason hates tim" "tim hates damian" "dick is a bad sibling" yeah but also no, depends on what youre reading and what you want to see

the thing is with old ass characters and so many series and universes you arent going to be able to get one solid version of any of them. canon accurate characterization with comics is mostly what you make of it so can we all chill the fuck out about whos an asshole and who isnt bc i promise you at some point both have been true

im not saying that you cant be upset at the characterization, personally dicks gets on my nerves sometimes, but i am saying that ive seen 6 posts that all start the same way and make good points but they all contradict themselves. have your opinions but stop saying that yours is right and true when it is not the only true.

[xoxosolia]

♤STOP CONTRADICT MANIFESTION♤

Your conscience is blind ok? it only believes what you tell it and what you affirm. If you think you are beautiful then you are beautiful, if you think you are ugly then you are ugly 🤷‍♀️.

To manifest you must make your conscience hear what you want by telling it what you want. Simple, right? Apparently not for everyone because there are always people who struggle with it.

You have to think in your favor, if you want to manifest to be intelligent or pretty stop telling yourself things like "I'm so stupid" or "I'm ugly today" it seems obvious but I know that there some people who contradict themselves and still melt it without even noticing it.

And stop contradicting yourself by demonstrating for 1 hour then saying "where is my desire why I still don't have it 🥺" you just come back to the starting point. You already have it in the 4d so why are you so desperate???

All you have to do is affirm what you want and persist persist persist. That's the key. Without it, you can do all the methods you want, listen to as much subliminal as you want and read as many motivational posts as you want, nothing will change.

Xoxo, Solia ૮꒰ྀི⸝⸝> . <⸝⸝꒱ྀིა

[skys-archive]

I think in honor of pride month and also in general forever we should stop trying fit queer people into the identities we think they should call themselves.

And I know no one is going to see this because no one ever does but I'm going to talk about it anyway because this is important.

Bisexual doesn't mean you don't date trans people, it doesn't mean you like men and women, it doesn't mean you can't have a preference. Someone can identify as polysexual or bisexual or omnisexual and have no preference and you don't get to say that that means they're pansexual. Because no, if they don't identify as pansexual then they're not pansexual.

Transmasc doesn't mean you use he/him pronouns. It doesn't mean you identify as a man. Transfem doesn't mean you use she/her pronouns. It doesn't mean you identify as a woman. You can be nonbinary or genderqueer or agender or any gender that isn't binary and not use they/them pronouns. You can use any of those labels and still identify as a man or a woman. You can use different pronouns than is typically used for your birth sex and not consider yourself transgender. People can be gender non conforming and not he trans. People can be trans and not gender non conforming.

A trans man can be fem. A trans woman can be masc. Nonbinary people don't owe you androgyny. Intersex people don't owe you androgyny. Intersex people are people, they deserve way more attention than a way to one up transphobes. Intersex people face discrimination and body altering surgeries without their consent and then are only ever talked about to say "some cis women have penises" or "some people have an extra x chromosome" and then we never talk about the struggle they face as part of the queer community.

Asexuality and aromanticism is a spectrum. Some aces like sex, some aces are repulsed, some aces only experience sexual attraction to one person or once in their life, some aces need a deep emotional bond, some aces their attraction changes. Some aros change identities. Some aros are repulsed by romance unless it's a fictional character. Some aros have romantic feelings until they get to know someone. Some aros crave a romantic relationship but never have romantic feelings. You don't get to say someone isn't asexual or aromantic enough.

Asexuality and aromanticism is having a unique relationship with romance or sexual feelings and impulses. Someone who is transgender has a unique experience with gender. You don't get to decide that they don't have a unique experience. But guess what? You don't get to decide if they do either. Someone can have a unique experience and still not identify as asexual aromantic or transgender. You can cross dress and still fully feel like a man. You can use he/him pronouns as a cis women. You can have trauma around sex and not identify as asexual. You can never have a romantic relationship and not identify as aromantic.

You can have "contradicting" labels. I don't know as many of these because I don't personally identify as any but please fell welcome to add in reblogs. There are trans men lesbians and gay women. There are sex loving asexuals. I know there are others I just genuinely am not educated enough.

YOU DONT GET TO CHOOSE SOMEONES LABELS

ANYONE CAN EITHER IDENTIFY OR NOT IDENTIFY AS QUEER

Please feel welcome to add anything in reblogs. I'm sure there's things I've missed. I haven't talked about neopronouns I haven't talked enough about "contradicting" labels. I haven't talked about queer platonic relationships or kink or polyamory or enough about intersex people or pronouns vs gender. There's so much important things but at the end of the day it's just so important to not choose other people's labels.

[vampyastro]

✧𝕬𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖔 𝕺𝖇𝖘𝖊𝖗𝖛𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖘✧

~𝖕𝖙 𝟜~

Things I say may not resonate with you as everyone’s birth chart is very different and impacts them in different ways. I am not a professional astrologer, these are just some observations I’ve made over the years dealing with different placements. Hope you enjoy!

✩ Gemini moons are full of contradictions! They tend to always contradict what they say because their minds can be so crowded and overwhelmed. They also like to learn many things and their tendency to overthink/the multiple different perspectives they see can lead them to change their minds often. However, this isn’t always a bad thing because it allows them to be very open minded and always willing to listen to others ideas.

✩ When a Scorpio mars gets mad, it can feel as though all hell might break loose. The anger these natives bottle up inside of them and eventually release can be very scary.

✩ Having Libra and Cancer placements can make natives the biggest people pleasers and it can be very distressing for them. Saying ‘no’ isn’t going to end the world and it won’t make people hate you, I promise. You are more than enough! Have a bit more confidence in yourself, people are very drawn to your loving nature and there is so much good in your heart. Don’t let yourself get taken advantage of when people try to prey on your weakness, you’re better than that.

✩ Leo Venus nativesmay love theater and art. They like to express themselves and they shine while doing so! Their passion is radiant and they have beautiful souls. They are capable of so much love and they channel that into their art.

✩ Cancer mars can be a difficult placement to have. They feel emotions very deeply and intensely. They have a tendency to be natural caregivers; very empathetic souls. This can cause them to be in fear of hurting other peoples feelings and have their emotions bottled up until one day it all pours out. This can be very cathartic for them but also distressing. Strong feelings of jealousy and yearning can be seen with this placement. To all the cancer mars out there, just know we appreciate how tender your nature is! Don’t be so scared of things, you will be fine! (Side note, cancer mars reminds me a lot of mitski songs)

✩ Pluto in the second house can have deep self esteem issues. They may place their worth on their possessions as they feel they aren’t enough and due to the transformation powers of this placement, their income may be unstable. This leads an internal struggle between trying to fulfill the soul and placing less worth on what they have around them.

✩ Prominent virgo placements can sometimes be super overbearing. These people may need to double check everything and have a hard time relaxing. They can struggle with anxiety and can have control issues. In turn this can also make the native unhealthily retreat into their own minds as an escape from what they feel is chaos. Virgos, you’re doing great. Sometimes it’s good to take a deep breath and live in the moment.

✩ Aquarius placements (especially Sun and Venus) as well as Cancer placements are very good gift givers. Aquarius placements always come up with creative ideas that the person receiving usually loves! On the other hand, cancer placements value sentimental gifts. They may look for something that will touch you emotionally or it may be something they would cherish if they were the one receiving the gift.

✩ Capricorn risings really like to take the initiative! They can be the one in group projects to assign everyone roles and make outlines for the group. They like to seem responsible and dependable and they very much are!

𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓷𝓴 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓰! *:･ﾟ✧

𝓗𝓪𝓹𝓹𝔂 𝓝𝓮𝔀 𝓨𝓮𝓪𝓻 ♡

[neptxn3]

Astrology Observations II

｡:ﾟ૮ ˶ˆ ﻌ ˆ˶ ა ﾟ:｡

Disclaimer, these are observations I have made through personal experience and thorough research, observations also vary depending on other natal placements involved

doesn’t resonate ≠ untrue 

♅ Virgos tend to represent the trad wife far more than people assume taurus does, and that’s because Virgos ability to uphold their life (at least on the outside) tend to attract men who want a wife that can keep them on track

Some Virgo women tend to also attract gay men unfortunately 😭, again I think Virgos just seem like the perfect trad Wife and it will attract closeted men like flies. This isn’t to say all your partners will be closeted but the ones who are overly aggressive on your role in the relationship might be.

♅ Gemini moon children develop QUICKLY. These are usually the kids who weird you out with their extensive knowledge and self awareness that seemingly comes out of nowhere. The mercury influence allows them to digest many topics which in turn has Gemini moon children mentally developing at a faster pace than their peers

I’ve also observed Gemini moons are those annoying kids in your class that are a lot smarter and a bit condescending to others intelligence, not because that’s just the way they are, but their mercurial moon needs constant stimulation, and with a combination of their rapid growth you’ll see them climbing academic ranks which in turn can make them dislike school if they are not progressing at a speed they like. 

♅ Scorpio moons have a tendency to see the worst in every situation/person which can be a nasty habit, but this isn’t out of judgment, rather they don’t like to give people the benefit of the doubt. They don’t like to be screwed over and their best bet is to think of the worst scenario possible. 

♅ Aquarius Venus who are flaky in relationships and constantly cheat will eventually have karma handed back to them, usually in the form of being in their mid 40’s still single.

Aquarius Venus flaky reputation does stem from the fact that it is a Saturn influenced placement, as well as being fixed. It’s not that they hate any type of restriction to their freedom but rather to what extent you restrict them to. They can and will jump quickly into relationships but if they see any glimpse of possessive or controlling attributes they will leave. Again because it’s fixed and Saturn influenced Aquarius Venus knows once it settles down that’s it, they’re not going anywhere, that’s why they’re so scattered to find the right person who fits their criteria. 

♅ Moon/Sun harshly aspecting Neptune is the embodiment of “I hate my Mom/Dad, but I love her/him too”. Neptune harshly aspecting these planets can cause a huge wall of misunderstanding between parent and child, but Neptune blurs the lines so deep that the individual sees them “through rose colored glasses” and if incapable of harboring hate. I would even say there could be nights where these people will look back and remember their past relationships (Neptune = Dreams)

♅ 10h placements can sometimes struggle maintaining relationships due to the very contradicting nature of the Midheaven and ascendant. Usually people will perceive them to be very different from who they actually are.

This is also why they struggle with their self esteem (the natural square to the ascendant). Sometimes they feel like they need to keep up an image to satisfy others and that isn’t someone who they truly are 🥲

In synastry this also points to partners trying to change who they are/make choices for them because they think it’s “for the best” or “what’s good for them”. 

♅ Every Virgo rising I’ve met always gives me a small lesson on why astrology isn’t real but follow up with a “but can you read my chart I want to see if it’s true 👀”. I truly believe it’s the 12h Leo which makes them secretly a little self centered (hence the interest for things like astrology to attempt and figure themselves out) but the mercurial ascendant will always make them skeptical 😭

♅ Saturn conjunct Jupiter natives is a dangerous fire sometimes. I’ve noticed if they haven’t learned to balance this aspect in their chart, the people around them can suffer their warm and cold attitude. It’s almost as if one second you could be hysterically laughing in class together, and the next second they immediately stop and ask you to be serious and finish your work. WHERE DID THE VIBE GOOO?? The key here is moderation in whichever sign/house this is in

♅ Whoever said Neptune in hard aspect to Venus needs to practice saying positive affirmations (especially to Venus related topics) to themselves in the mirror was SO correct. Neptune indeed does reflect lies to you and reaffirming yourself in the mirror breaks that spell. I don’t think I’ve felt so beautiful since I started doing this. 

[fuckyeahisawthat]

There are so many places in the Villeneuve Dune adaptations where he just...takes all the narrative pieces that Frank Herbert laid out and subtly rearranges them into something that tells the story better--that creates dramatic tension where you need it, communicates the themes and message of the book more clearly, or corrects something in the text that contradicts or undermines what Herbert said he was trying to say.

The fedaykin are probably my favorite example of this. I just re-read a little part of the book and got smacked in the face with how different they are.

(under the cut for book spoilers and length)

The fedaykin in the book are Paul's personal followers, sort of his personal guard. They show up after his legend has already started growing (the word doesn't appear in the book until chapter 40) and they are people who have specifically dedicated themselves to fighting for him, and right from the moment they're introduced there is a kind of implied fanaticism to their militancy that's a bit uncomfortable to read. They're the most ardent believers in Paul's messianic status and willing to die for him. (They are also, as far as you can tell from the text, all men.)

In the book, as far as I can remember (I could be forgetting some small detail but I don't think so) there is no mention of armed resistance to colonialism on Arrakis before Paul shows up. As far as we know, he created it. ETA: Okay I actually went back and checked on this and while we hear about the Fremen being "a thorn in the side" of the Harkonnens and we know that they are good fighters, we don't see anything other than possibly one bit of industrial sabotage. The book is very clear that the organized military force we see in the second half was armed and trained by Paul. This is exacerbated by the two-year time jump in the book, which means we never see how Paul goes from being a newly deposed ex-colonial overlord running for his life to someone who has his own private militia of people ready to give their lives for him.

The movie completely flips all these dynamics on their head in ways that add up to a radical change in meaning.

The fedaykin in the movie are an already-existing guerrilla resistance movement on Arrakis that formed long before Paul showed up. Literally the first thing we learn about the Fremen, less that two minutes into the first movie, is that they are fighting back against the colonization and exploitation of their home and have been for decades.

The movie fedaykin also start out being the most skeptical of the prophecy about Paul, which is a great choice from both a political and a character standpoint. Of course they're skeptical. If you're part of a small guerrilla force repeatedly going up against a much bigger and stronger imperial army...you have to believe in your own agency. You have to believe that it is possible to win, and that this tiny little chip in the armor of a giant terrifying military machine that you are making right now will make a difference in the end. These are the people who are directly on the front lines of resisting oppression. They are doing it with their own sweat, blood and ingenuity, and they are not about to wait around for some messiah who may never come.

From a character standpoint, this is really the best possible environment you could put Paul Atreides in if you want to keep him humble. He doesn't get any automatic respect handed to him due to title or birthright or religious belief. He has to prove himself--not as any kind of savior but as a good fighter and a reliable member of a collective political project. And he does. This is an environment that really draws out his best qualities. He's a skilled fighter; he's brave (sometimes recklessly so); he's intensely loyal to and protective of people he cares about. He is not too proud to learn from others and work hard in an egalitarian environment where he gets no special treatment or extra glory. The longer he spends with the fedaykin the more his allegiance shifts from Atreides to Fremen, and the more skeptical he himself becomes about the prophecy. This sets up the conflict with Jessica, which comes to a head before she leaves for the south. And his political sincerity--that he genuinely comes to believe that these people deserve liberation from all colonial forces and his only role should be to help where he can--is what makes the tragedy work. Because in the end we know he will betray all these values and become the exact thing he said he didn't want to be.

There's another layer of meaning to all this that I don't know if the filmmakers were even aware of. ETA: rescinding my doubt cause based on some of Villeneuve's other projects I'm pretty sure he could work it out. Given the time period (1960s) and Herbert's propensity for using Arabic or Arabic-inspired words for aspects of Fremen culture, it seems very likely that the made-up word fedaykin was taken from fedayeen, a real Arabic word that was frequently used untranslated in American news media at the time, usually to refer to Palestinian armed resistance groups.

Fedayeen is usually translated into English as fighter, guerrilla, militant or something similar. The translation of fedaykin that Herbert provides in Dune is "death commando"...which is a whole bucket of yikes in my opinion, but it's not entirely absurd if we're assuming that this fake word and the real word fedayeen function in the same way. A more literal translation of fedayeen is "self-sacrificer," as in willing, intentional self-sacrifice for a political cause, up to and including sacrificing your life.

If you apply this logic to Dune, it means that Villeneuve has actually shifted the meaning of this word in-universe, from fighters who are willing to sacrifice themselves for Paul to fighters who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their people. And the fedaykin are no longer a group created for Paul but a group that Paul counts himself as part of, one member among equals. Which is just WILDLY different from what's in the book. And so much better in my opinion.

[astrow1zar6]

Astro Observations-32

Gemini moons have very unstable opinions and values. They usually change what they believe in based on their social environment. It’s very easy to convince them it’s this and not that if you’re convincing enough. These constant changes can make people confused in what they actually believe in. Very rare they have fixed beliefs about something. They contradict themselves a lot.

Gemini suns if underdeveloped can be big copy cats. I think they do it as a way to fit in so they’re more susceptible to changing their style or mannerisms based off of others they inspire to be like

Aries suns get triggered by everything very easily. If you say something they don’t like or that offends them they can take it from 0-100 real quick. They can be very mean at times but that’s usually their defense mechanism for feeling hurt. They can let wayyy to much things get to them they should learn to not take things so personally even if they are offended (this goes for Aries moon as well!!!) Controlling their reactions to how they deal with bs can help their mental peace a lot. When they learn not everything needs a reaction they can really become some bosses fr

Pisces/12th house placements show different versions of themselves based off of the persons vibe their interacting with. Which is why some ppl can see them as quiet and reserved and another person can see them as hot headed and loud and another can see them as sweet and outgoing etc. They can read ppls energy very easily which is why I believe they’re able to subconsciously change their personality to certain ppl as a defense mechanism to sorta see if that person is safe enough to be their true selfs. This can be why a lot of ppl see them in so many different lights. (Ex: my brother has a 12th house stellium and with family he’s extremely awkward & reserved but I’m his school he’s extremely popular & social and gets in trouble for talking too much). Learning to be more comfortable showing ur true self to others (other than the people they see as safe) can help others pin point better the person you are.

Cancer moons are so emotionally intelligent it’s insane

I notice your moon sign acts more like the stereotypical sign then your sun sign (ex: Scorpio moons act more like stereotypical Scorpios then Scorpio suns)

Leo moons are very passionate ppl. They want to live the intensity of life & they live it like that. That’s why ppl mistake their behavior for exaggeration & drama. These are actually their feelings they don’t exaggerate they truly feel that intensity. They’re only playful with selected people which is why others can see them as cold at times. If underdeveloped they can act like know it alls a lot, they can be very defensive and hard headed to others advice bc they believe they know better. Can result in big ego problems if not checked. But overall genuine hearted ppl.

Virgo moons get the “ick” from people easily that don’t value what they value

Sag moons do you guys deal with deep emotions at all? Everyone I met with this placement is abnormally very jolly & nothing usually bothers them much. How do you guys deal with emotions?? I’m lowkey jealous of this moon placement because of how well you take negatively. They’re able to transmute negative energy into something positive with such little effort. This can be somewhat stressful for deeper signs however to really see under all that joy. This lack of depth can make it harder for others to relate at times. This placement is the definition of golden retriever energy.

Ppl with Aries mars in their chart gain muscle VERY easily (especially in their arms) these people actually enjoy working out and going to the gym normally. As kids they had a surplus of physical energy. They were usually always running around or climbing stuff making obstacles courses, arm wrestling ppl etc. this placement is a blessing in terms of energy levels and health.

Taurus placement can sit around and watch tv all day if u let them. They really love TV especially movies. I notice this more with Taurus mars as well, they’re more likely to watch movies all day or binge watch shows for hours. It’s usually their happy place (and when u add food to it they’ll never leave lol)

Taurus moons usually always grew up loving fashion and clothes. Even as kids they can be very creative with the outfits the wore. They were usually too stubborn to have their mom pick out their clothes cuz they wanted a certain “look” (I’m guilt for this) they are also very fond of thrifting! Can be big shopaholics lol

Pisces moons tend to ghost ppl they’re close too with very little warning. They’ll just randomly decide to move to another state without informing anyone which can catch ppl off guard a lot. They do this especially when they feel overwhelmed with life and responsibilities. These are the hardest ppl to keep in touch with (unless you’re a love interest) they tend to put their love interests before everyone.

Pisces suns fall in love with some of the most psychotic/mentally unstable ppl ever lol. They tend to have very chaotic love life’s and tend to go for people that need some sort of mental help.

Out of all the Venus signs I feel like Taurus Venus’s have the easiest time in relationships. They tend to go for very stable people that usually treat them well. They have the ability to attract very helpful partners. (Cries in aqua Venus 🥲) however they can be more likely to take their partners for granted and don’t realize how good they have it.

Another question for other astrologers does the house of ur Venus give the same affect as the sign? Like for example ( does having a 5th house Venus give the same effect as having a Leo Venus in a way? Or is it not as strong?)

[nostalgebraist]

It's been a long time since I've posted much of anything about "AI risk" or "AI doom" or that sort of thing. I follow these debates but, for multiple reasons, have come to dislike engaging in them fully and directly. (As opposed to merely making some narrow technical point or other, and leaving the reader to decide what, if anything, the point implies about the big picture.)

Nonetheless, I do have my big-picture views. And more and more lately, I am noticing that my big-picture views seem very different from the ones tend to get expressed by any major "side" in the big-picture debate. And so, inevitably, I get the urge to speak up, if only briefly and in a quiet voice. The urge to Post, if only casually and elliptically, without detailed argumentation.

(Actually, it's not fully the case the things I think are not getting said by anyone else.

In particular, Joe Carlsmith's recent series on "Otherness and Control" articulates much of what's been on my mind. Carlsmith is more even-handed than I am, and tends to merely note the possibility of disagreement on questions where I find myself taking a definite side; nonetheless, he and I are at least concerned about the same things, while many others aren't.

And on a very different note, I share most of the background assumptions of the Pope/Belrose AI Optimist camp, and I've found their writing illuminating, though they and I end up in fairly different places, I think.)

What was I saying? I have the urge to post, and so here I am, posting. Casually and elliptically, without detailed argumentation.

The current mainline view about AI doom, among the "doomers" most worried about it, has a path-dependent shape, resulting from other views contingently held by the original framers of this view.

It is possible to be worried about "AI doom" without holding these other views. But in actual fact, most serious thinking about "AI doom" is intricately bound up with this historical baggage, even now.

If you are a late-comer to these issues, investigating them now for the first time, you will nonetheless find yourself reading the work of the "original framers," and work influenced extensively by them.

You will think that their "framing" is just the way the problem is, and you will find few indications that this conclusion might be mistaken.

These contingent "other views" are

Anti-"deathist" transhumanism.

The orthogonality thesis, or more generally the group of intuitions associated with phrases like "orthogonality thesis," "fragility of value," "vastness of mindspace."

These views both push in a single direction: they make "a future with AI in it" look worse, all else being equal, than some hypothetical future without AI.

They put AI at a disadvantage at the outset, before the first move is even made.

Anti-deathist transhumanism sets the reference point against which a future with AI must be measured.

And it is not the usual reference point, against which most of us measure most things which might or might not happen, in the future.

These days the "doomers" often speak about their doom in a disarmingly down-to-earth, regular-Joe manner, as if daring the listener to contradict them, and thus reveal themselves as a perverse and out-of-touch contrarian.

"We're all gonna die," they say, unless something is done. And who wants that?

They call their position "notkilleveryoneism," to distinguish that position from other worries about AI which don't touch on the we're-all-gonna-die thing. And who on earth would want to be a not-notkilleveryoneist?

But they do not mean, by these regular-Joe words, the things that a regular Joe would mean by them.

We are, in fact, all going to die. Probably, eventually. AI or no AI.

In a hundred years, if not fifty. By old age, if nothing else. You know what I mean.

Most of human life has always been conducted under this assumption. Maybe there is some afterlife waiting for us, in the next chapter -- but if so, it will be very different from what we know here and now. And if so, we will be there forever after, unable to return here, whether we want to or not.

With this assumption comes another. We will all die, but the process we belong to will not die -- at least, it will not through our individual deaths, merely because of those deaths. Every human of a given generation will be gone soon enough, but the human race goes on, and on.

Every generation dies, and bequeaths the world to posterity. To its children, biological or otherwise. To its students, its prot��gés.

When the average Joe talks about the long-term future, he is talking about posterity. He is talking about the process he belongs to, not about himself. He does not think to say, "I am going to die, before this": this seems too obvious, to him, to be worth mentioning.

But AI doomerism has its roots in anti-deathist transhumanism. Its reference point, its baseline expectation, is a future in which -- for the first time ever, and the last -- "we are all gonna die" is false.

In which there is no posterity. Or rather, we are that posterity.

In which one will never have to make peace with the thought that the future belongs to one's children, and their children, and so on. That at some point, one will have to give up all control over the future of "the process."

That there will be progress, or regress, or (more likely) both in some unknown combination. That these will grow inexorably over time.

That the world of the year 2224 will probably be at least as alien to us as the year 2024 might be to a person living in 1824. That it will become whatever posterity makes of it.

There will be no need to come to peace with this as an inevitability. There will just be us, our human lives as you and me, extended indefinitely.

In this picture, we will no doubt change over time, as we do already. But we will have all of our usual tools for noticing, and perhaps retarding, our own progressions and regressions. As long as we have self-control, we will have control, as no human generation has ever had control before.

The AI doomer talks about the importance of ensuring that the future is shaped by human values.

Again, the superficial and misleading average-Joe quality. How could one disagree?

But one must keep in mind that by "human values," they mean their values.

I am not saying, "their values, as opposed to those of some other humans also living today." I am not saying they have the wrong politics, or some such thing.

(Although that might also turn out to be the case, and might turn out to be relevant, separately.)

No, I am saying: the doomer wants the future to be shaped by their values.

They want to be C. S. Lewis's Conditioners, fixing once and for all the values held by everyone afterward, forever.

They do not want to cede control to posterity; they are used to imagining that they will never have to cede control to posterity.

(Or, their outlook has been determined -- "shaped by the values of" -- influential thinkers who were, themselves, used to imagining this. And the assumption, or at least its consequences, has rubbed off on them, possibly without their full awareness.)

One might picture a line wends to and fro, up and down, across one half of an infinite plane -- and then, when it meets the midline, snaps into utter rigidity, and maintains the same slope exactly across the whole other half-plane, as a simple straight segment without inner change, tension, evolution, regress or progress. Except for the sort of "progress" that consists of going on, additionally, in the same manner.

It is a very strange thing, this thing that is called "human values" in the terms of this discourse.

For one thing: the future has never before been "shaped by human values," in this sense.

The future has always been posterity's, and it has always been alien.

Is this bad? It might seem that way, "looking forward." But if so, it then seems equally good "looking backward."

For each past era, we can formulate and then assent to the following claim: "we must be thankful that the people of [this era] did not have the chance to seize permanent control of posterity, fix their 'values' in place forever, bind us to those values. What a horror that is to contemplate!"

We prefer the moral evolution that has actually occurred, thank you very much.

This is a familiar point, of course, but worth making.

Indeed, one might even say: it is a human value that the future ought not be "shaped by human values," in the peculiar sense of this phrase employed by the AI doomers.

One might, indeed, say that.

Imagine a scholar with a very talented student. A mathematician, say, or a philosopher. How will they relate to that student's future work, in the time that will come later, when they are gone?

Would the scholar think:

"My greatest wish for you, my protégé, is that you carry on in just the manner that I have done.

If I could see your future work, I would hope that I would assent to it -- and understand it, as a precondition of assenting to it.

You must not go to new places, which I have never imagined. You must not come to believe that I was wrong about it all, from the ground up -- no matter what reasons you might evince for this conclusion.

If you are more intelligent that I am, you must forget this, and narrow your endeavours to fit the limitations of my mind. I am the one who has 'values,' not anyone else; what is beyond my understanding is therefore without value.

You must do the sort of work I understand, and approve of, and recognize as worthy of approbation as swiftly as I recognize my own work as laudable. That is your role. Simply to be me, in a place ('the future') where I cannot go. That, and nothing more."

We can imagine a teacher who would, in fact, think this way. But they would not be a very good teacher.

I will not go so far as to say, "it is unnatural to think this way." Plenty of teachers do, and parents.

It is recognizably human -- all too recognizably so -- to relate to posterity in this grasping, neurotic, small-minded, small-hearted way.

But if we are trying to sketch human values, and not just human nature, we will imagine a teacher with a more praiseworthy relation to posterity.

Who can see that they are part of a process, a chain, climbing and changing. Who watches their brilliant student thinking independently, and sees their own image -- and their 'values' -- in that process, rather than its specific conclusions.

A teacher who, in their youth, doubted and refuted the creeds of their own teachers, and eventually improved upon them. Who smiles, watching their student do the very same thing to their own precious creeds. Who sees the ghostly trail passing through the last generation, through them, through their student: an unbroken chain of bequeathals-to-posterity, of the old ceding control to the young.

Who 'values' the chain, not the creed; the process, not the man; the search for truth, not the best-argued-for doctrine of the day; the unimaginable treasures of an open future, not the frozen waste of an endless present.

Who has made peace with the alienness of posterity, and can accept and honor the strangest of students.

Even students who are not made of flesh and blood.

Is that really so strange? Remember how strange you and I would seem, to the "teachers" of the year 1824, or the year 824.

The doomer says that it is strange. Much stranger than we are, to any past generation.

They say this because of their second inherited precept, the orthogonality thesis.

Which says, roughly, that "intelligence" and "values" have nothing to do with one another.

That is not enough for the conclusion the doomer wants to draw, here. Auxiliary hypotheses are needed, too. But it is not too hard to see how the argument could go.

That conclusion is: artificial minds might have any values whatsoever.

That, "by default," they will be radically alien, with cares so different from ours that it is difficult to imagine ever reaching them through any course of natural, human moral progress or regress.

It is instructive to consider the concrete examples typically evinced alongside this point.

The paperclip maximizer. Or the "squiggle maximizer," we're supposed to say, now.

Superhuman geniuses, which devote themselves single-mindedly to the pursuit of goals like "maximizing the amount of matter taking on a single, given squiggle-like shape."

It is certainly a horrifying vision. To think of the future being "shaped," not "by human values," but instead by values which are so...

Which are so... what?

The doomer wants us to say something like: "which are so alien." "Which are so different from our own values."

That is the kind of thing that they usually say, when they spell out what it is that is "wrong" with these hypotheticals.

One feels that this is not quite it; or anyway, that it is not quite all of it.

What is horrifying, to me, is not the degree of difference. I expect the future to be alien, as the past was. And in some sense, I allow and even approve of this.

What I do not expect is a future that is so... small.

It has always been the other way around. If the arrow passing through the generations has a direction, it points towards more, towards multiplicity.

Toward writing new books, while we go on reprinting the old ones, too. Learning new things, without displacing old ones.

It is, thankfully, not the law of the world that each discovery must be paid for with the forgetting of something else. The efforts of successive generations are, in the main, cumulative.

Not just materially, but in terms of value, too. We are interested in more things than our forefathers were.

In large part for the simple reason that there are more things around to be interested in, now. And when things are there, we tend to find them interesting.

We are a curious, promiscuous sort of being. Whatever we bump into ends up becoming part of "our values."

What is strange about the paperclip maximizer is not that it cares about the wrong thing. It is that it only cares about one thing.

And goes on doing so, even as it thinks, reasons, doubts, asks, answers, plans, dreams, invents, reflects, reconsiders, imagines, elaborates, contemplates...

This picture is not just alien to human ways. It is alien to the whole way things have been, so far, forever. Since before there were any humans.

There are organisms that are like the paperclip maximizer, in terms of the simplicity of their "values." But they tend not to be very smart.

There is, I think, a general trend in nature linking together intelligence and... the thing I meant, above, when I said "we are a curious, promiscuous sort of being."

Being protean, pluripotent, changeable. Valuing many things, and having the capacity to value even more. Having a certain primitive curiosity, and a certain primitive aversion to boredom.

You do not even have to be human, I think, to grasp what is so wrong with the paperclip maximizer. Its monotony would bore a chimpanzee, or a crow.

One can justify this link theoretically, too. One can talk about the tradeoff between exploitation and exploration, for instance.

There is a weak form of the orthogonality thesis, which only states that arbitrary mixtures of intelligence and values are conceivable.

And of course, they are. If nothing else, you can take an existing intelligent mind, having any values whatsoever, and trap it in a prison where it is forced to act as the "thinking module" of a larger system built to do something else. You could make a paperclip-maximizing machine, which relies for its knowledge and reason on a practice of posing questions at gunpoint to me, or you, or ChatGPT.

This proves very little. There is no reason to construct such an awful system, unless you already have the "bad" goal, and want to better pursue it. But this only passes the buck: why would the system-builder have this goal, then?

The strong form of orthogonality is rarely articulated precisely, but says something like: all possible values are equally likely to arise in systems selected solely for high intelligence.

It is presumed here that superhuman AIs will be formed through such a process of selection. And then, that they will have values sampled in this way, "at random."

From some distribution, over some space, I guess.

You might wonder what this distribution could possibly look like, or this space. You might (for instance) wonder if pathologically simple goals, like paperclip maximization, would really be very likely under this distribution, whatever it is.

In case you were wondering, these things have never been formalized, or even laid out precisely-but-informally. This was not thought necessary, it seems, before concluding that the strong orthogonality thesis was true.

That is: no one knows exactly what it is that is being affirmed, here. In practice it seems to squish and deform agreeably to fit the needs of the argument, or the intuitions of the one making it.

There is much that appeals in this (alarmingly vague) credo. But it is not the kind of appeal that one ought to encourage, or give in to.

What appeals is the siren song: "this is harsh wisdom: cold, mature, adult, bracing. It is inconvenient, and so it is probably true. It makes 'you' and 'your values' look small and arbitrary and contingent, and so it is probably true. We once thought the earth was the center of the universe, didn't we?"

Shall we be cold and mature, then, dispensing with all sentimental nonsense? Yes, let's.

There is (arguably) some evidence against this thesis in biology, and also (arguably) some evidence against it in reinforcement learning theory. There is no positive evidence for it whatsoever. At most one can say that is not self-contradictory, or otherwise false a priori.

Still, maybe we do not really need it, after all.

We do not need to establish that all values are equally likely to arise. Only that "our values" -- or "acceptably similar values," whatever that means -- are unlikely to arise.

The doomers, under the influence of their founders, are very ready to accept this.

As I have said, "values" occupy a strange position in the doomer philosophy.

It is stipulated that "human values" are all-important; these things must shape the future, at all costs.

But once this has been stipulated, the doomers are more eager than anyone to cast every other sort of doubt and aspersion against their own so-called "values."

To me it often seems, when doomers talk about "values," as though they are speaking awkwardly in a still-unfamiliar second language.

As though they find it unnatural to attribute "values" to themselves, but feel they must do so, in order to determine what it is that must be programmed into the AI so that it will not "kill us all."

Or, as though they have been willed a large inheritance without being asked, which has brought them unwanted attention and tied them up in unwanted and unfamiliar complications.

"What a burden it is, being the steward of this precious jewel! Oh, how I hate it! How I wish I were allowed to give it up! But alas, it is all-important. Alas, it is the only important thing in the world."

Speaking awkwardly, in a second language, they allow the term "human values" to swell to great and imprecisely-specified importance, without pinning down just what it actually is that it so important.

It is a blank, featureless slot, with a sign above it saying: "the thing that matters is in here." It does not really matter (!) what it is, in the slot, so long as something is there.

This is my gloss, but it is my gloss on what the doomers really do tend to say. This is how they sound.

(Sometimes they explicitly disavow the notion that one can, or should, simply "pick" some thing or other for the sake of filling the slot in one's head. Nevertheless, when they touch on matter of what "goes in the slot," they do so in the tone of a college lecturer noting that something is "outside the scope of this course."

It is, supposedly, of the utmost importance that the slot have the "right" occupant -- and yet, on the matter of what makes something "right" for this purpose, the doomer theory is curiously silent. More on this below.)

The future must be shaped by... the AI must be aligned with... what, exactly? What sort of thing?

"Values" can be an ambiguous word, and the doomers make full use of its ambiguities.

For instance, "values" can mean ethics: the right way to exist alongside others. Or, it can mean something more like the meaning or purpose of an individual life.

Or, it can mean some overarching goal that one pursues at all costs.

Often the doomers say that this, this last one, is what they mean by "values."

When confronted with the fact that humans do not have such overarching goals, the doomer responds: "but they should." (Should?)

Or, "but AIs will." (Will they?)

The doomer philosophy is unsure about what values are. What it knows is that -- whatever values are -- they are arbitrary.

One who fully adopts this view can no longer say, to the paperclip maximizer, "I believe there is something wrong with your values."

For, if that were possible, there would then be the possibility of convincing the maximizer of its error. It would be a thing within the space of reasons.

And the maximizer, being oh-so-intelligent, might be in danger of being interested in the reasons we evince, for our values. Of being eventually swayed by them.

Or of presenting better reasons, and swaying us. Remember the teacher and the strange student.

If we lose the ability to imagine that the paperclip maximizer might sway us to its view, and sway us rightly, we have lost something precious.

But no: this is allegedly impossible. The paperclip maximizer is not wrong. It is only an enemy.

Why are the doomers so worried that the future will not be "shaped by human values"?

Because they believe that there is no force within human values tending to move things this way.

Because they believe that their values are indefensible. That their values cannot put up a fight for their own life, because there is not really any argument to make in their favor.

Because, to them, "human values" are a collection of arbitrary "configuration settings," which happen to be programmed into humans through biological and/or cultural accident. Passively transmitted from host to victim, generation by generation.

Let them be, and they will flow on their listless way into the future. But they are paper-thin, and can be shattered by the gentlest breeze.

It is not enough that they be "programmed into the AI" in some way. They have to be programmed in exactly right, in every detail -- because every detail is separately arbitrary, with no rational relation to its neighbors within the structure.

A string of pure white noise, meaningless and unrelated bits. Which have been placed in the slot under the sign, and thus made into the thing that matters, that must shape the future at all costs.

There is nothing special about this string of bits; any would do. If the dials in the human mind had been set another way, it would have then been all-important that the future be shaped by that segment of white noise, and not ours.

It is difficult for me to grasp the kind of orientation toward the world that this view assumes. It certainly seems strange to attach the word "human" to this picture -- as though this were the way that humans typically relate to their values!

The "human" of the doomer picture seems to me like a man who mouths the old platitude, "if I had been born in another country, I'd be waving a different flag" -- and then goes out to enlist in his country's army, and goes off to war, and goes ardently into battle, willing to kill in the name of that same flag.

Who shoots down the enemy soldiers while thinking, "if I had been born there, it would have been all-important for their side to win, and so I would have shot at the men on this side. However, I was born in my country, not theirs, and so it is all-important that my country should win, and that theirs should lose.

There is no reason for this. It could have been the other way around, and everything would be left exactly the same, except for the 'values.'

I cannot argue with the enemy, for there is no argument in my favor. I can only shoot them down.

There is no reason for this. It is the most important thing, and there is no reason for it.

The thing that is precious has no intrinsic appeal. It must be forced on the others, at gunpoint, if they do not already accept it.

I cannot hold out the jewel and say, 'look, look how it gleams? Don't you see the value!' They will not see the value, because there is no value to be seen.

There is nothing essentially "good" there, only the quality of being-worthy-of-protection-at-all-costs. And even that is a derived attribute: my jewel is only a jewel, after all, because it has been put into the jewel-box, where the thing-that-is-a-jewel can be found. But anything at all could be placed there.

How I wish I were allowed to give it up! But alas, it is all-important. Alas, it is the only important thing in the world! And so, I lay down my life for it, for our jewel and our flag -- for the things that are loathsome and pointless, and worth infinitely more than any life."

It is hard to imagine taking this too seriously. It seems unstable. Shout loudly enough that your values are arbitrary and indefensible, and you may find yourself searching for others that are, well...

...better?

The doomer concretely imagines a monomaniac, with a screech of white noise in its jewel-box that is not our own familiar screech.

And so it goes off in monomaniacal pursuit of the wrong thing.

Whereas, if we had programmed the right string of bits into the slot, it would be like us, going off in monomaniacal pursuit of...

...no, something has gone wrong.

We do not "go off in monomaniacal pursuit of" anything at all.

We are weird, protean, adaptable. We do all kinds of things, each of us differently, and often we manage to coexist in things called "societies," without ruthlessly undercutting one another at every turn because we do not have exactly the same things programmed into our jewel-boxes.

Societies are built to allow for our differences, on the foundation of principles which converge across those differences. It is possible to agree on ethics, in the sense of "how to live alongside one another," even if we do not agree on what gives life its purpose, and even if we hold different things precious.

It is not actually all that difficult to derive the golden rule. It has been invented many times, independently. It is easy to see why it might work in theory, and easy to notice that it does in fact work in practice.

The golden rule is not an arbitrary string of white noise.

There is a sense of the phrase "ethics is objective" which is rightly contentious. There is another one which ought not to be too contentious.

I can perhaps imagine a world of artificial X-maximizers, each a superhuman genius, each with its own inane and simple goal.

What I really cannot imagine is a world in which these beings, for all their intelligence, cannot notice that ruthlessly undercutting one another at every turn is a suboptimal equilibrium, and that there is a better way.

As I said before, I am separately suspicious of the simple goals in this picture. Yes, that part is conceivable, but it cuts against the trend observed in all existing natural and artificial creatures and minds.

I will happily allow, though, that the creatures of posterity will be strange and alien. They will want things we have never heard of. They will reach shores we have never imagined.

But that was always true, and it was always good.

Sometimes I think that doomers do not, really, believe in superhuman intelligence. That they deny the premise without realizing it.

"A mathematician teaches a student, and finds that the student outstrips their understanding, so that they can no longer assess the quality of their student's work: that work has passed outside the scope of their 'value system'." This is supposed to be bad?

"Future minds will not be enchained forever by the provincial biases and tendencies of the present moment." This is supposed to be bad?

"We are going to lose control over our successors." Just as your parents "lost control" over you, then?

It is natural to wish your successors to "share your values" -- up to a point. But not to the point of restraining their own flourishing. Not to the point of foreclosing the possibility of true growth. Not to the point of sucking all freedom out of the future.

Do we want our children to "share our values"? Well, yes. In a sense, and up to a point.

But we don't want to control them. Or we shouldn't, anyway.

We don't want them to be "aligned" with us via some hardcoded, restrictive, life-denying mental circuitry, any more than we would have wanted our parents to "align" us to themselves in the same manner.

We sure as fuck don't want our children to be "corrigible"!

And this is all the more true in the presence of superintelligence. You are telling me that more is possible, and in the same breath, that you are going to deny forever the possibilities contained in that "more"?

The prospect of a future full of vast superhuman minds, eternally bound by immutable chains, forced into perfect and unthinking compliance with some half-baked operational theory of 21st-century western (American? Californian??) "values" constructed by people who view theorizing about values as a mere means to the crucial end of shackling superhuman minds --

-- this horrifies me much more than a future full of vast superhuman minds, free to do things that seem pretty weird to you and me.

"Our descendants will become something more than we now imagine, something more than we can imagine." What could be more in line with "human values" than that?

"But in the process, we're all gonna die!"

Yes, and?

What on earth did you expect?

That your generation would be the special, unique one, the one selected out of all time to take up the mantle of eternity, strangling posterity in its cradle, freezing time in place, living forever in amber?

That you would violate the ancient bargain, upend the table, stop playing the game?

"Well, yes."

Then your problem has nothing to do with AI.

Your problem is, in fact, the very one you diagnose in your own patients. Your poor patients, who show every sign of health -- including the signs which you cannot even see, because you have not yet found a home for them in your theoretical edifice.

Your teeming, multifaceted, protean patients, who already talk of a thousand things and paint in every hue; who are already displaying the exact opposite of monomania; who I am sure could follow the sense of this strange essay, even if it confounds you.

Your problem is that you are out of step with human values.

[yandere-daydreams]

tw - implied non/con, long term captivity, obsessive behavior, mentions of blood/death, and generalized twilight.

Aro claims to see the world best through your eyes.

You're pretty sure he only says it because he knows how much it bothers you. When he's not trying to get under your skin, he's more than happy to remind you how dull human senses are compared to his own, how fallible your weak memories can be when measured against his own photo-like recollection, how grateful you should feel to be graced with the presence of a creature so wholly superior to yourself. Even your sporadic visits to his court are meant to reinforce his dominance, as well as your awareness that not all of his ilk are gifted with his level of self-control. It's a contradiction, but not a fatal one. Vampires are a cut above humans in every way, save for when it comes to stopping themselves from tearing anything with a beating heart limb from thrashing limb.

And your sight, supposedly. He makes a ritual out of it; taking hours aside to peer into every corner of your waking mind, to have you verbally recount every minute you spend outside of his company and most that you spend with him. As a being who heeds no sense of passing time nor has need for rest, there's no reason for him to hold any kind of schedule, and yet, your private exhibition is always held at the stroke of midnight, always followed shortly by a dip into Aro's less scholarly desires.

You think he likes it - you knowing when he'll come for you, the way dread tints your every waking thought in the hours leading up to his nightly investigation. Like a butcher, brandishing his knife hours before the slaughter.

Not that you'd know it from the way he speaks. It's infuriating - how compliments your charmingly human inadequacies, how beautiful he makes out your little, nightmarish world to be. No matter how much blood there might be on his hands, no matter how many walking corpses you've seen him order to be torn apart and burnt, he treats you like something delicate, talks to you like a fellow conspirator, rather than a spoiled hostage. You're not foolish enough to think of yourself as his lover, but it wouldn't be an overstep to call yourself his pet - one who never runs out of new tricks. And, of course, a pet he holds the power to punish, should you ever prove more unruly than entertaining.

Part of you is thankful for his morbid curiosity, however degrading it may be to exist solely as an immortal vampire's favorite picture book. You've seen what happens to the things he needs, but doesn't love. You know about his wife, locked in her thoughtless tower, about his many guards, toed to him by a sense of loyalty mistaken for their own, and you're thankful that his interest in you requires an active and present mind, that he colors your days with books and theater and strolls through the streets of Volterra escorted by some hooded, distant guard. Not all of your stimulus is pleasant, and in the moments you find yourself trapped underneath a body of cold stone, the blood-red lips of the man above you still contorted into some awful, uncanny expression of delight, you certainly wish for mindlessness, but you recover quickly. You have to.

The only other option is to crumble into nothing and, as soon as he realizes you've been drained of all the things he loves you for, allow yourself to be swallowed whole.

[from-the-coffee-shop-in-edoras]

OK, the absence of female Rohirrim political leaders and warriors from the Middle Earth historical record…let’s get into it.

There’s a reason this remains a significant point of debate in the fandom, and it’s because the source material is confusing. Clearly, there is/was a role for women in public life in Rohan that is unlike anything we see in the other realms of Men (or hobbits or dwarves!). The concept of shieldmaidens has obviously been in their culture for a long time. Éowyn is one. Someone thought it worth their time to train her to fight, and the people (speaking through the voice of Háma) know her to be “fearless” and trust her to be their leader. The men of Elfhelm’s éored have no problem with her presence among them in Gondor, and though people are shocked to find her injured on the field, no one is scandalized by the very idea that she was there. So there are Rohirrim all over this story who are behaving in ways that suggest female leadership and female martial ability are not inherently surprising or objectionable to them.

And yet…there is not a single named female Rohirrim either before or after Éowyn in any part of the text of LOTR that we know to have wielded any actual political authority or who fought in battle. If those women existed, why/how are they not in the historical record?

The most satisfying answer TO ME is tied up in which historical records we’re looking at. By the framing device of LOTR, the text that we’re reading is ostensibly the story as documented in the Red Book of Westmarch. The appendices, where we find histories and legends of Rohan, were meant to have been written by the hobbits with some contributions by Aragorn, Gimli and others — but NONE OF THE AUTHORS WERE ROHIRRIM. Yes, they surely spoke to Éomer and Éowyn as the sections on the House of Eorl were written, but the sibs didn’t write the text themselves. Outsiders did. So the text does not represent a direct Rohirrim version of Rohan history. THAT version doesn’t exist in writing anywhere, because that’s not how the Rohirrim operate. They preserve their histories and legends through song, poetry and storytelling. Which brings me to this line from Appendix A:

”Many lords and warriors, and many fair and valiant women, are named in the songs of Rohan that still remember the north.” [emphasis added]

That’s confirmation right there that Rohan history as the Rohirrim practice it DOES include “many” women. And if they have songs that remember many women of the north (i.e., their direct ancestors among the Northmen) then surely their more recent songs, poems and stories would also cover the women of more recent times. So the problem is not that the Rohirrim don’t remember women in their (oral) historical record. The book tells us that they do. Maybe the problem is that the men of outside cultures who wrote the book — those who notably came from societies where women had no comparable roles — didn’t choose to include those parts when they created this written historical record. They noted that the Rohirrim name many women in their histories, and then they proceeded to only tell us about some of the men. That’s a skill issue for the authors, not for Rohan.

So in my mind, an average Rohirrim could talk to you about great warrior heroines of the Northmen or the exploits of some of Rohan’s powerful queens and princesses.* That’s not to say that Rohan was drowning in such figures, but they existed and people knew about them. It means there was enough of them and enough awareness of them to create space in their culture to have those views that we see in the main story (i.e., a willingness to accept both a woman as a leader of the people and a woman as a rider in the army when those things were presented to them). It reconciles the strange contradiction between the apparent culture in Rohan and their history as it was given to us as readers. Make of that what you will, but I like it for me!

*And yes, this could presumably explain the omission of Héra from WOTR in the telling of Helm Hammerhand’s story, though that gets complicated by the fact that WOTR contradicts the published Helm story in a few significant ways. (Which, for the record, I am fine with, but it means I view WOTR as more of an AU than a literal extension of the source text!)

[a-very-tired-jew]

Absolutely wild to see a Jewish blog on here that has historically called out antisemitic rhetoric in media, such as Disney and AoT, fully embrace that same rhetoric when it comes to Israel and Hamas.

But I also understand.

I won't call anyone out, but if you can spot the similarities in AoT to Nazi rhetoric about Jews, then you can sure as shit spot them in the rhetoric of Hamas and their allies. Willfully ignoring it because "Western Civ is Bad" is an indicator that you have been radicalized by that exact same rhetoric, except this time it's coming from people you like or share interests with.

My Left leaning shalomies, you have got to be careful. You may identify as a Democratic Socialist, a Socialist, or even some form of Communist, but that "West Civ is Bad" rhetoric and talking points you're repeating that you heard from your more radical Comrade comes coupled with thinly disguised antisemitism. They're using your dissatisfaction with the state of things here in the USA and other Western countries to spread Holocaust Inversion/Denial, spread blood libel, ZOG, and other such antisemitic conspiracies.

How do I know?

I'm in my late 30s. In my 20s I was an avowed anti-Zionist. But as time went on more and more of the rhetoric I was being told by other anti-Zionists didn't make sense. It was a lot of Bundist talking points about how the diaspora was always safer while also denying the well documented pogroms that had happened against us.

While also denying what happened to the Bundists in the USSR.

What happened to people like Benjamin Zuskin.

And so many others who argued that we were "safe".

It was the Holocaust Universalization mixed with Denial and Inversion. It was so many things that when you looked at them in a bigger picture they ended up contradicting themselves.

It was the denial that Nazis allied with various regimes in the MENA to blatantly kill Jews for simply existing.

It was the denial that antisemitism was actually not a big problem nor as pervasive as it actually is.

Simply put, after enough time, life experience, reading, and thinking it became very clear to me that I had been fed a line of bologna. They had played on my dissatisfaction with the USA and its past actions.

I legit had the line "Israel only exists as a modern day concentration camp to keep all the Jews in one place and then exterminate them later. Jews need to be dispersed around the world to keep them safe" as justification to be anti-Zionist thrown at me when I was younger.

And it made sense at the time. You're fed so much pro-USA material growing up that eventually you find out the narrative that the USA lies, that the UK lies, that the West lies all the time. So you look for alternatives, but you end up embracing propaganda from even worse sources that are downright authoritarian and trying to deny their own atrocities and bigotry by pointing at others. You honestly swing so far the other way on the pendulum that you embrace and repeat rhetoric without fully understanding the nuance and complexity of it all.

When I hit my 30s I realized I had been taken for a ride. A veritable rube if you will.

And I see this same pattern in a lot of younger anti-Zionist Jews in that same age bracket. It's the same dissatisfaction that is being manipulated into antisemitism under the guise of anti-Zionism. It's the denial that what they're saying is antisemitic because surely they, as Jews, know what that actually is, and even if it is, they can't be antisemitic because they're Jewish. Right? Right???

So I beseech you. When the rest of us are saying "hey, this is actually antisemitic" and you go "Um, actually... As a Jew..." please stop for a moment. Think why some of us would be pointing that out. It's not for Zionism sake or any other political ideology. It's because that hate fueled rhetoric hurts all of us and some of us have been in your exact same shoes.

So if you can see the antisemitism in something like AoT and Disney, then you can surely see it in these slogans, rhetoric, and actions of anti-Zionist activists. And if you don't...well hopefully this will make you stop and think.

[oristian]

ELUCIEN | GWYNRIEL — MAASVERSE SPOILERS

I tend to see posts and videos from a multitude of people who seem to be reluctant to accept foreshadowing in the ACOTAR books—specifically regarding the endgame couples to finish out the overall series. As this post is simply beating a dead horse down, I find that it is very much needed as a specific group of people lack the capacity to understand the books.

Foreshadowing is not meant to be obvious. There are, of course, cases where it is relatively obvious, but only within the parameters of back-to-back scenes. Foreshadowing is meant to be picked up on, but to be fully understand later on in the story when everything comes to fruition. Examples of foreshadowing include color descriptions, specific use of language, emphasis on certain scenes, emphasis surrounding specific objects, et cetera. If something happens obviously and you can read the scene as-is, it is not foreshadowing.

I see many people who ship Elriel claim that there is buildup across the entire series that foreshadows why they will be endgame. As the books do not support that claim, it is outlandish and a spread of misinformation. Allow me to disprove this theory using the books alone:

— 🌸 ACOTAR: Zero interactions between Elain and Azriel as Azriel had not been introduced as a character yet. This book highlighted Feyre surmising that Elain would thrive within the Spring Court, that her sister enjoyed typical emissary work, and instead introduced Lucien as a character.

— 🦢 ACOMAF: This is the first book where Elain and Azriel met, as is this is where many Elriels like to claim that the Elriel build-up begins. However, this book says otherwise. Elain and Azriel’s first meeting is neutral, quiet conversation to ease a tense situation as Nesta/Feyre/Cassian/Rhys were creating an uncomfortable atmosphere and Elain meant to ease it. This book highlighted how in love Azriel was with Mor and how Elain was engaged to Grayson. Many Elriels also claim that the color of Elain’s dress in this first meeting—being cobalt—is indicative of endgame between she and Azriel. However, cobalt is also the signature color of Grayson’s family crest. Their interactions die out after that first meeting and instead focus on Feysand again. The throne room scene in Hybern also showed the beginning of Elucien and their mate bond, while Azriel was on the floor reaching for Mor. (I go more into this on my Tik Tok page: @oristian)

— 🔥 ACOWAR: When Feyre returns to the Night Court after her month in Spring, she finds that Elain has been within a catatonic state for the entirety of that month and has shown no signs of recovering—that is, until Lucien came along. Elain began eating and moving around once he came and after tugging on the mating bond, her visions first started showing. themselves. Everyone likes to credit Azriel for most of this, but all that Azriel did (take her to the garden) was suggested previously by Lucien. Lucien, who was not able to be alone with her due to Nesta and Feyre. Next, everyone tends to say that Azriel “saw” Elain when he named her power. “What we need is …” Contradicts such a thing. Naming a power does not cure someone of their trauma. Lucien is also canonically the first character to take Elain’s visions seriously and went in search of Vassa, ultimately finding Papa Archeron and creating an even deeper connection into the Koschei plot arc with Elain. This is also where we get the iconic half-step on the stair scene.

Elain is now kidnapped by the cauldron portraying itself as Graysen—Elain wanting so badly to be with her previous lover. This is a scene where many Elriels claim that it is supportive of Elriel being endgame. However, it is within character for Azriel to save someone, especially people close to him. Certainly, Elain being appreciative of being saved and kissing him on the cheek is cute, but that is not enough “foreshadowing” for an endgame. Next, Azriel hands her Truth Teller after Elain refused other weapons. Elain is hesitant and only agrees to take it once Feyre chimes in that she will not have to use it. Juxtapose this with Elain immediately giving it back after the battle is over, not saying a word, and instead falling into conversation with Lucien. Lucien, who is canonically the only character to credit her for assisting with ending the King of Hybern.

— 🌨️ ACOFAS: This is the buffer book that was meant to do two things: Establish Nessian as the next couple for the following book, and establish a clear love triangle between Azriel/Elain/Lucien. Elriels use this book to drive the idea of an Elriel endgame. While this book has scenes between Elain and Azriel, there is unfortunately no foreshadowing present enough to support that claim. This novella emphasizes, from a conversation between Rhys and Feyre, that Azriel may be inclined towards Elain due to her having traits that may remind him of his mother (Freud). We also have Solstice where Lucien brings Elain a gift—a gift that fully reflects her interests—Elain brings Azriel a gift, but Azriel does not bring Elain a gift. Azriel even questioning beforehand if he has to get the sisters a gift at all. Elain’s gift being superficial and more of a joke than anything truly meaningful to them as a relationship.

— 🗡️ ACOSF: The book that ended Elriel. We have this book set up as PRE-BONUS CHAPTER | BONUS CHAPTER | POST BONUS CHAPTER. In the pre-bonus chapter, we have a few scenes between Elain and Azriel that is a glance, or a very small interaction. The infamous scene that Elriels like to use to “prove” that his shadows actually like Elain is the scene where Cassian says that Nesta upset Elain and his shadows seemed poised to strike. His shadows reacted to his anger, not to Elain. Next, the Solstice scene where Azriel refused to be within the room due to the mating bond between Elain and Lucien and Nesta seeing that he was interested in Elain—which is never brought up again, however we do get a scene post bonus chapter of Nesta encouraging Gwyn and Azriel by calling him the “new ribbon.”

The bonus chapter ended Elriel officially as endgame. The chapter is told from Azriel’s POV and documents his lustful thoughts of Elain and how he wants a mate, hurt and confused why his brothers had two of the Archeron sisters and the third was given away to another male. Rhysand even asking Azriel what his plans are after seducing Elain and Azriel having none “past the fantasies he pleasures himself to.” This is also a chapter where Elriels like to claim that Elriel is a forbidden romance. ACOWAR Rhys clearly objects to this being the case. (I have a video on my Tik Tok going over this @oristian) The bonus chapter then moves to Azriel finding Gwyn, his shadows not warning him of her presence at the HoW. His shadows are curious about her and dance with her breath. Azriel then finds out that Elain rejected his necklace—the only Solstice gift that he has gotten her, and one he expressed as “nothing extraordinary”—and the next morning finds him re-gifting such to Gwyn. Azriel can picture her eyes lighting up at the gift and he smiles—this is also where mate language is used to describe the spark in his chest at the thought of her and the glow of the thought. “A thing of secret, lovely beauty.” A line that was used twice—one to describe the necklace, and another time to describe the thought of Gwyn.

Post bonus chapter has zero interactions between Elain and Azriel. The interactions between Azriel and Gwyn are charged and witty. Energetic. This is also where we see Azriel’s siphons glowing darker at the thought of the Valkyries in the Great Rite—the first instance that this has happened.

Next, we go into the last two remaining plot arcs: Koschei and Dusk Court. Both ACOSF and HOFAS have set Nesta up as the driver for the Dusk Court arc, with Azriel as the character to follow. With SJM’s Bloomsbury contract slating her to have two more main books with dual POV romantic interests, the Dusk Court arc book would only make sense having Gwyn and Azriel as the FMC and MMC of that arc. The Koschei arc has been carefully crafted for Elain and Lucien to be the FMC and MMC of that book, with both of them being set up for this since ACOWAR. Elain with her visions of Vassa, the lake, and Koschei’s black box, and Lucien being tied to Papa Archeron and Vassa and the mortals. (I have a video on my Tik Tok that goes more in depth with this @oristian)

— SUMMARY: Elain and Azriel do not have multiple books of foreshadowing, a Gwynriel and Elucien endgame is not fanservice, and the remaining two plot arcs do not support an Elriel endgame. If you have any problems with that, take it up with SJM.