#sorry you don't want to accept that people in the same group can disagree with you. sucks for you

[crownedpuppet]

Tumblr discourse is great because you can make a post and someone will read like one sentence they disagree with from it and turn the entire argument into something you weren't even talking about in the beginning LOL

[qqueenofhades]

what's been particularly vile to me is this group of white online leftists who insist that anyone who cares about more than this one issue for the election is a bad person, like, as if us black and brown people are making up reasons to be afraid and not.....believing the gop when they say they are coming for us. believing trump who has said previously that he does not bluff, that he will do the things he's said he will do (i hate what social media has gone to the word gaslighting but it feels like gaslighting. we lived through four years of trump. we saw the damage. stop treating us like we're being dramatic). it must be great to not have to worry about that i guess? "life won't change under trump" is such a telling admission because maybe theirs won't but mine will. and so many others' will.

and it is often again these (white) online leftists that love to call anyone who disagrees with them a white liberal (derogatory) because they know it would be racist (bad) to be this shitty and condescending to poc but they don't want to actually listen to anything black and brown voters are saying. it's easier to just call us white liberals and throw our opinions out, to ignore the work of black people for decades to gain the right to vote, to disregard the weight of telling them to not do that. it's genuinely appalling. they care so much about racism until it's time to engage with poc who have different opinions than their online echo chambers, then we're just stupid liberals with terrible opinions like..... wanting to live. not wanting four more years of trump. so sorry for that.

sorry for this vent in your inbox, i'm just so fucking tired of white people trying to rewrite history as if trump wasn't that bad. he was for my family and countless others and i am terrified for what's to come if he wins.

The thing about (the often-white) Online Leftists is that they have become just as much as a radicalized death cult as the diehard Trumpists. If you don't want to die for The Revolution and/or sacrifice your life, friends, family, the rest of the country, etc., then you're Insufficiently Pure and must be Purged. (Which I think is just complete BS, as none of them could actually handle sacrificing anything, but it's increasingly the only kind of performative rhetoric that is acceptable in leftist-identified discourse spaces.) This is functionally identical to "if you aren't willing to lay down your life for our Lord and Savior Donald Trump and the Great White Christian Nationalist Dictatorship, you're a liberal cuck," but with the names and justification changed. It doesn't change the underlying radicalization, nihilism, and insanity of the premise.

Another thing the Trumpists and the Online Leftists have in common is that they are busily rewriting just how bad Trump was in order to serve their Ideology. Ever since January 6, 2021, the Republicans have thrown everything they have at revising and whitewashing any suggestion that it was an "insurrection," and the Online Leftists have done the same, in an attempt to "prove" their insane point that Trump "would be better" than Biden. This is embodied in the recent ultimate-brainworm-nonsense maximalist-online take that "Biden has to lose so the rest of the world will see that the US rejects genocide!!!" That's right, the message that the rest of the world would take from Biden losing to Trump is that the US rejects genocide. Never mind if Trump literally wants to commit all the genocide possible and to install himself as a fascist theocratic dictator. In the deeply twisted minds of the Online Leftists, this is the only possible interpretation of Biden's loss, so they'll push for it as hard as they can! The Trumpists and the Online Leftists, at this point, are working pretty much in concert to damage Biden for similar insane reasons and get Trump elected. Etc etc., one Nazi and ten people at the same table is eleven Nazis.

Like. Sure. Four years ago, when Trump was president and people were dying by the thousands because he didn't want to wear a mask because it smeared his bronzer, just to name literally one of the terrible things he did every single day (and not even mentioning how much worse a second term would be) we were absolutely better off. Super-duper great. (Sarcasm.) Either that or "there is suffering and evil in the world and the only solution is to drastically increase the suffering and evil for everyone and to destroy what progress we have managed to make because It Does Not Fix Everything Now" is an absolute moral imperative, and either way, yeah. I'm calling bullshit.

[mobiused]

is it too late to ask for said actual nuanced statement about your feelings on the way loona has split up and how you feel about supporting each of the factions as a fan

No :0 Okay well this posted early accidentally come back when I've edited it with the answer you seek; edit here it is

As anybody who follows me and actually listens to what I post knows, yes, I was disappointed with the choice that the 5 members in modhaus made.

The reason is of course Jaden Jeong's involvement in the conditioned that caused the members' suffering. I honestly do not care to "respect" the members' choice when, firstly, they're public figures, which means they're in a position where they open themselves to judgement, having surpassed what it means to be a regular person into an overman; hence, idol (no this isn't lore) (yes it is) and it is parasocial to think we as fans owe them the kind of blind devout respect that is reserved for people you know and are close to. We, of course, need to respect them as people even if they are idols which leads to my next point. Secondly, they're adult women who are capable of making their own choices. It is only patronizing, infantilising and self delusionary to cheer them on for every choice they make void of criticism. If I respect them as a person, that means I care about the decisions they make enough to be able to disagree with them. The only decisions you respect unconditionally are from your God (if you have faith) or someone who has got you fucked up.

of course all of this is only my opinion to be clear ^^;

So to continue, I don't respect their decision to join modhaus. However I do accept their decision and think of them no less as people - that's very important to me for people to be aware of! That may have sounded harsh but I only have strong feelings because I care.

When it comes to modhaus vs ctd, to ME it feels like a faction of people who are willing to ignore a history of mistreatment to blindly follow their idols because that's what idolatry is versus a faction who are distrusting and reluctant to give a second chance to a man (and his company) who have done them wrong. And of course bias vs bias.

Regarding why I don't hold ctd to the same standard as modhaus; one is an established company with another group under their belt and the other is a company that formed because Hyunjin asked really niceys. The "mistakes" that modhaus are making, like having Jaden and doing NFTs and having loss of the members' autonomy to give fans control as a business model (to be frank, I don't care about missing english subtitles or those small things, its whatever) are much more severe to me than CTD fumbling the bag in ways that only affect them financially. Sorry I don't care about them picking venues that are too big for them on a concert, I don't think it's that big a deal.

In this way, I think cloo vs ourii, ctd vs modhaus, is much more than the preference people have for the idols actually in the companies but rather an ideological thing. Can you put the past (that isn't yours to begin with) behind you to stan a group with no guarantee of being completely safe and in control, or are you going to be wary of a company that has done little to demonstrate how it's protecting the girls' best interests. At least that's how it looks to me.

And it's weird how we dont see Chuu & Yves akgaes right? And I think that's because the companies are such unknown elements that it's nowhere near as polarising to support them, like there's no reason not to.

And I do think there is a lot of us vs them going on. (some) People who are artms member stans who have become full-blooded ouriis have made it their mission to find any excuse to bring CTD down - maybe out of a guilty conscience vengeance for the criticism that modhaus has been getting. And the same can definitely be said about cloos who just want more reasons to shit on modhaus even though the problems are inconsequential (see? I'm not wholly biased)

In summary I just think it's sad that it's had to have been this divisive. If the loona members weren't in the position that they were - that no company was willing to accept them bar modhaus, and the members who got out first didn't feel obligated to go to modhaus, since CTD - and other places - weren't an option, things maybe would've turned out differently. Or maybe they wouldn't have, and there will always be fanwars regardless.

[holybibly]

Hi. I just wanted to say thank you so much for being kind and gentle even when you don't agree with someone's opinion. I just sent someone an anonymous ask about my personal views on shipping idols with eachother and my point was skewed in the post. They took it the wrong way and thought I was being homophobic. One of their followers commented on the post and started being really vulgar towards the anon (me) and the person I asked was being passive aggressive towards the end of their response to me. Anyways now I'm crying becuse I didn't mean to upset anyone and said in my post I was not commenting on anything they did at all. I really looked up to their blog and nowi don't feel welcome there. I sent them a second post trying to clear up my original points.

Sorry for trauma dumping I'm just glad your blog is a safe place for everyone and you treat everyone with respect. I'm a new atiny and this community just makes me feel really safe. (It was an SKZ blog)

Thank you for caring about people even if they aren't your bunnies!

Oh baby, I'm so sorry that happened to you, I hope you're feeling better now.

I don't think it really matters whether you're my bunny or not. Even though I only write for Ateez, I've been in the K-pop community for a long time and I've been in a lot of fandoms and experienced a lot of things. By the way, if anyone doesn't know, the group that introduced me to K-pop was Shinee, and I've been around for so long that I was there for the debut of EXO and most of the other groups.

I would also like to say that I try to describe the members in as much detail as possible so that even those fans who are not familiar with our boys can enjoy reading my work. I welcome all fandoms to my bunny kingdom.

As for my disagreements on some issues. I always emphasise that I am expressing my personal opinion and it is absolutely fine if someone disagrees with it. The same goes for my ffs, I am personally open to a huge amount of different perverted shit, and my list of warnings is quite extensive and detailed, so I am always surprised when someone writes to say that it was unpleasant or that I should add more warnings, turning the fanfic into one continuous red flag.

If you do not like it or feel uncomfortable - do not read it, you are consciously exposing yourself to something that will make you uncomfortable and disgusted after reading it.

It also annoys me a little that in a world that defends "one's own opinion", we are criticised and insulted for having the courage to disagree with the general opinion. And even if you are supposedly homophobic, that is your right, but you should not insult someone for it. There are different people, cultures, upbringings and religious beliefs, we have to be able to accept different points of view.

Let me tell you a personal story. One of my best friends is an ardent homophobe, but at the same time I know that she was brought up in a very strict religious family and it is quite difficult for her to perceive the world outside the traditional biblical canon. But this does not prevent me from communicating with her, I respect her opinion and try not to bring up the subject in our communication. We can communicate with people who are completely different from us and who have different views of the world around us. But for some reason, if your opinion is different, the crowd jumps on you with insults. I am so disgusted by this.

So I want to create a safe and maximally tolerant community where we can be who we really are, and even if we don't agree with someone's opinion, we can always express our thoughts in a gentle and respectful way.

Please, bunnies, be aware that I will not tolerate rudeness or disrespect on the blog, either towards me or my bunnies.

[daisyssousa]

Hi. I hope you don't mind me asking your opinion, as a disabled person, about comments I've seen about Sousa's new prosthetic. I realize no group is a monolith, so you won't provide THE difinitive answer, but I would like hear from someone who actually lives through it.

So, why is Sousa's new prosthetic considered ableist but his old prosthetic was not? Is it because his disability is no longer obvious? But if the new prosthetic works better, why is that a bad thing? Sorry, I guess that's three questions. I really hope this didn't come off offensive, I genuinely just want to understand.

I hope your having a great day and have fun blocking the anti-Dousy trolls😊

Hi there! <333 Thank you very much for the question! It's not offensive at all!

As you pointed out, we're not a monolith, so I definitely can't speak for every disabled person out there, nor am I trying to! If someone is legitimately offended, they completely have a right to their feelings. I'm also not an amputee, so I can't speak to that either.

I think there are some people who feel that because his new prosthetic made it so that he can walk completely normally, they feel like it's erasing his disability. There are a few reasons I heavily disagree with this mindset:

It doesn't erase his disability at all: He will still have to care for his leg the same way he would with any other prosthetic. He will still have to keep it clean and take care of the skin to keep from getting it irritated, injured, or infected. He will have to keep up care of his remaining leg muscles too to be able to use it. It's mechnical and electronic, so the prosthetic itself will require maintinence and upkeep as most tech does. It's not going to be like poof! His leg is magically healed! When you get down to it: his new leg is still not his real leg.

I do think there is room for criticism in the sense that Agents of Shield didn't show this on screen. In fairness, perhaps they thought in showing Coulson and Yoyo previously struggling with their prosthetics, they thought maybe it would be enough since season 7 was already crammed. I do think they should've given us at least a little something though. But still: it didn't erase Coulson or Yoyo's disabilities, so it wouldn't erase Sousa's either.

Technological advances: With all the technological advances of the Marvel world and all of Fitzsimmons' inventions, giving Sousa a high tech prosthetic is completely within reason. It isn't like the Agents of Shield writers magically pulled special technology out of nowhere to specifically "erase" his disability, there was already a precendent set with Coulson and Yoyo (and Bucky Barnes). And also LMDs. Even Daisy's gaunlets are prosthetics in a way, since they keep her bones from breaking when she quakes.

If they'd retconned his missing leg or used some kind of hand-wavy magic to get it back, then yeah I could see the argument. But that's not what happened.

Real world technological advancements are catching up too: there are already prosthetics in development that use the electrical impulses of the brain to move the prosthetic limb and allow the person to feel sensations! There are also battery powered mechnical ones. Should real amputees be barred from using these because it "erases" their struggle? No. (btw I am not aiming this at you anon, this is me speaking in general! <3)

Sousa's wish to walk again is in character: Sousa expressed in episode 2x08 of Agent Carter: "I know desperation. You know what I'd give to be able to walk again? A lot." He even uses the word "desperate." This is fulfilling a character trait he had in Agent Carter. It didn't come from Agents of Shield. He wants to be able to walk and is accepting of the prosthetic.

It grants him more freedom of movement and less pain: Especially considering they were in the middle of a dangerous mission, giving him more movement and less pain to hinder him is extremely helpful. And in general, why shouldn't he be able to use something that helps him be in less pain and do more every day? No one should be forced to struggle just to prove they're disabled! (Again not directed at you anon, in general <3)

Anyway, my brain is turning a bit mushy, but I hope this helps you anon! <333

[wileycap]

Alright, my algorithm content is filling up with crazy people whom I've been dutifully blocking (don't judge me sometimes I want tumblr to feed me pictures of cats like I'm a small baby bird) which, you know, we all know why it's happening in an American election year.

So I'd like to caution you against one of the more insidious types of posts they have.

The Reasonable Post.

I'm going to be using the words Cats and Dogs to describe any (false) dichotomy that these people want to push. Why? Because this shit is as depressing as a single lost candy in a tin of sewing supplies. Obviously most people can see what the following examples are patterned after, but this sort of thing happens with any number of groups. Creating dichotomies and conflating different groups of Others (i.e. harnessing existing hate towards Group A by suggesting that they are all also members of Group B, with Group B being the real target) is the bread and butter of information warfare.

Imagine the following post:

"Not all Dogs are bad and we shouldn't prejudge every single Dog."

That is a Reasonable Post. Everyone can agree with it and usually they should. There is nothing wrong with that post, it really is just a very uncontroversial statement that the vast majority of people should be able to agree with. It is deliberately ignorant of any social context or the framework in which these discourses happen, but it's not wrong.

But let's consider the framing. The post exists as part of a blog, which, by unfortunate happenstance, also has other posts in it.

So, We Can't Classify Every Dog As Evil (good post, 3000 notes) exists within the same space as classics like...

Cats complain, Dogs do.

The purpose of a Cat is to stay indoors and protect the house from pests. This is one of the hardest jobs out there, and Cats should be praised!

A Dog has to HUNT. Cats will never understand this. (A/N: if you google "are cats predators" this will become a Very Funny hypothetical post from a nonexistent blog discussing a nonexistent dichotomy.)

Dogs: "Alright, human, today I've helped you with hunting, tracking and herding sheep! If there's anything else you need me to do, I've still got energy!" Cats: "Today I laid around doing nothing. Where's my food? Also my bed is bad so I stole the Dog's."

Oh, look, 5 Cats who committed Cat Crimes. I wonder if they'll receive a fair and proportionate punishment...

Et cetera, et cetera. The posts will continue to escalate, from seemingly harmless to outright hateful. They will attack existing social structures to frame them as favoring the Other. The Reasonable Post acts like the funnel theory in sales, reaching a large audience and sucking as many of them in as possible until only a few "sales" happen - but it also serves as a shorthand for likeminded people (a dogwhistle, if you will) via its framing and content that this is a blog that promotes the ideology they want to see.

*I've also noticed that a lot of these blogs have "traditional" or "vintage" pinup art. This could just be a matter of personal preference (after all, I like old timey boobs as much as the next girlie), or it could be another funnel, where people who would like to see More Boobs click on the blogs and find some boobs, but also the other stuff. Not that this has ever happened to me.

After the blog establishes some sort of following, they're usually free to engage in more extreme discourse. The Reasonable Post can then be used as a shield: "I was only saying what I've been saying all along: you shouldn't judge all Dogs. I'm sorry if that offends you."

There is also a highly desireable side effect for the Reasonable Post - it can drive people to disagree with what really is an uncontroversial, widely accepted opinion. Of course, the people disagreeing are usually (a) crazy themselves, (b) fourteen, (c) directing their interactions at the wider framework of their post, not the uncontroversial statement itself or (d) a combination. They might even be sock puppets. But these interactions are extremely valuable to these kinds of blogs. All of a sudden, they have an Enemy - an unreasonable person who probably wants to kill all of the Dogs!!! This is what we're fighting against! Rally!

And then the screenshots of those interactions can be fed into Facebook for easy outrage, or a "meme account", or any number of places where they can gain traction. They are used to reinforce existing ingroup loyalties and to bolster hate against outgroups. They are used to muddle the waters, to make extremist ideas seem like reasonable discourse and to provide plausible deniability. They are used to discredit "the opposition". Remember: fascism always requires an enemy that is both strong and weak.

Many fascist and extremist movements in the age of social media use these same tools to recruit and to advertise, and this post - while long - barely scratches the surface.

However, there is a very good way to limit the damage. Think critically about posts you see, this one included. (I should state that I'm, like, a huge leftist, and all that that implies) Familiarize yourself with common dogwhistles. Vet the blogs you see - a quick glance is usually all it takes. Block the user and don't interact with the post. Don't give it visibility.

And remember: you are not immune to propaganda.

[angryaromantics]

hi. i need help. i understand you're not a professional so i hope this isn't too heavy but i've been needing and needing to talk to someone about my internalized arophobia and never had a real chance to do it.

anyways, i've been really lost and hopeless over the past couple years because of my aromanticism. identifying as demiromantic was a cover, but even when i thought that was the full extent of my place on the aro spectrum, i hated how hard that made it to find romantic love. now i know better and think i'm probably a lot closer to fully aromantic than i thought, and by extension i'd be cupioromantic too. i've forced crushes before, since i knew they came so rarely. that ended in repulsion and an inability to communicate it just about every time. it sucked. it still sucks.

the thing that makes me feel alone is that i haven't seen anyone else in the aro community express how i feel, and those i have are saying that i shouldn't talk about it since it's technically still arophobia, even if it's towards myself, and could hurt other arospec people. then they go on to say that it's just amatonormativity and something i can get over. but i don't want to!! i know that i want a fulfilling relationship!! i'm frustrated and it feels like an erasure of how i feel!!

i'm sure it'll be damning and maybe offensive to say this but i feel like i need to be fixed and i wish i could fix myself. my desires don't match with my real attraction and it leads me to believe i'm broken in a somehow unique way. i guess it'd be nice to find a community of other cupio-aligned people and build pride for who i am, but i'm just depressed because that won't solve my problem. who i am isn't who i want to be, and i can't change that or better it in any way. i'm hurting because of it. i fear my activity in sapphic spaces is just performative since i'll never actually be sapphic, or straight, or anything. why bother if i'll never know that experience and have the happy endgame with another girl that i truly do want? am i even really bi? could i just be a lesbian if i only experience sexual attraction to girls but no other type to any other group of people? or am i just clinging onto any other orientation label to deny that i'm aromantic and don't belong in the LGB parts of queer spaces? i hate this.

thanks for letting me vent. sorry this is so long. thanks for running your blog, i really appreciate it.

Hi, anon - I apologize, I've found this in my drafts folder, and I have absolutely no idea how long it's been there. Hopefully not too long, but either way, I'm sorry I missed it.

I think the first thing is, I don't believe feelings are ever the incorrect response. You can't control your emotions. If being aromantic makes you feel negative feelings, that's okay. It's normal even. I definitely felt that way for many years, and occasionally slip into it now. I don't think it much matters if it's internalized arophobia or amatanormativity, because either way, the effect it has on you is the same.

I will say, I think the aro community has sort of over-corrected in the way we deal with negativity surrounding aromanticism. I feel like, not even that many years ago, it was rampant. A LOT of the posts, a lot of the talk, was about a lack, of what we're missing out on, etc. Especially once the big aphobia boom around here. And I think people took that, and about faced it so that negativity isn't deemed acceptable by a lot of people. I disagree with this, just fundamentally. I think talking through the negativity you feel toward your orientation can help you work through that negativity. It can also help you find like-minded people, and feeling less alone will probably make you feel less negativity.

I do think it's a dangerous line to walk, though. Because it's easy to tip over into All negativity in such insular communities, and that can honestly be dangerous for everyone's mental health.

I hope you find some peace. I hope you come into yourself. I hope things settle, as they often do with time. I'm sorry none of this has an easy fix. I hope writing it down and getting it off your chest helped. There's nothing wrong with you, and you belong here <2

[queenlucythevaliant]

Hi! If you don't mind my asking, you support theistic evolution correct? Do you believe in a historical or metaphorical Adam and Eve? I know that theistic evolutionist Joshua Swamidass has a book called The Genealogical Adam and Eve where he distinguishes common genetic ancestors from common genealogical ancestors. I don't know if that's your sort of thing or if you agree, but I figured I'd ask you your opinion on the subject. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, though!

This is absolutely my sort of thing, though I haven't read the particular book you referenced. Thank you for giving me another opportunity to talk about origins! I was really excited when I saw this in my inbox! That said, buckle your seatbelt because this will get long lol

Quick little caveat: I don't have any formal education in anthropology and only have a little bit in human evolution. My academic focus is on microbial evolution. That said, I've certainly spent time considering questions of the historical Adam and Eve, so I'd like to think I can opine on the subject usefully :)

To no one's surprise, let me start off with a Lewis quote. This is from The Problem of Pain chapter 5:

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me”, which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgements of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. [...] We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell.

(I've used ellipses to condense a bit since the full passage is rather long. I think I've maintained the integrity of what Jack was saying, but please do go read the whole thing.)

I absolutely hold that an historical Adam and Eve existed. A metaphorical approach implies either (a) that man's sin nature is the result of something "timeless and eternal" in the human heart, as Karl Barth argues (sorry Kaylie-but at least I'm disagreeing with him here!), or else (b) that God created a world in which sin was already inherent in creation. Furthermore, Paul and other NT writers treat Adam and Jesus as equally real and historical; thus, I believe that I am obligated to do the same.

That said, I'm with Lewis (and many others) in the belief that humans are indeed part of God's unified creation through evolution; overwhelming scientific evidence, both genetic and paleontological, indicates that humans share a recent common ancestor with apes and, more broadly, a universal common ancestor with all other living creatures. Likewise, population genetics indicates that it would have been near impossible for a viable population of Homo sapiens to arise from a group of fewer than a thousand individuals. We actually see evidence that other humans existed contemporaneously with Adam and Eve in the Cain and Abel account - Cain has a wife, and after he kills Abel he fears that other people will kill him. (Note: If you or anyone else would like a more in depth discussion of the data in genetics, population genetics, common ancestors, etc., just shoot me an ask; I try to streamline these discussions so I don't necessarily go into the scientific minutia, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to if there's interest.)

Thus, I don't believe that Adam was the first modern hominid and, for reasons that I'll get into a minute, I'm likewise not convinced that he was necessarily the first Homo sapiens or even humanity's MRCA. I do believe that he was the first Homo divinus - the first individual to be endowed with the unique image of God and with a human soul. I see this in the Scriptural text when God breathes life into Adam's nostrils (Genesis 2:7), a much more intimate act then the rest of the descriptions we get in the creation account. Whether in Africa or in Mesopotamia, I think God endowed Adam and subsequently Eve with His likeness and made them representatives for all humanity - much like Christ is our representative. Denis Alexander (British biologist/theologian) calls Adam "the federal head of all humanity alive at the time," and I quite like that description.

As I've indicated, I don't believe that Adam and Eve were necessarily the common ancestors of all humanity, either genetically or genealogically; for one thing, humanity has different matrilineal and patrilineal MRCAs and they likely didn't live at even remotely the same time. As to when Adam and Eve did live, I'm honestly of two minds on the issue. For simplicity's sake, I will number the possibilities that I consider feasible (1) and (2):

(1) The simplest answer is that Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia sometime during the Neolithic Era. This aligns with the descriptions we get of Eden's geography and leaves us with a lot less time to account for between Adam and Abraham.

However, this view does leave us with the issue of the many, many Homo sapiens preceding Adam and Eve who presumable lived and died without souls, despite the evidence that they behaved in very human ways (made art and musical instruments, cared for the sick, were curious and inventive, etc.) This isn't impossible to square with what I laid out above - like I said, I consider it the simplest explanation for when and where Adam and Eve lived - but it doesn't sit 100% easily with me.

(2) The other possibility is that Adam and Eve were among the first Homo sapiens and that they lived in Africa between 300 and 150 kya. Old Testament scholar C. John Collins out of Covenant Theological Seminary (Reformed and generally theologically conservative) makes the case that Moses wrote Genesis 1-11 using a kind of "anachronism." It's very likely that Moses had access to pre-existing sources while writing the Pentateuch, and he may have "'reconstructed' the past, working backwards from ordinary human experience to what must have caused it, giving us a tale that provided contrast to the other stories [Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths]." Of this "anachronism," Collins says, "a text may well have described aspects of the older times in terms of what the writer and his audience are familiar with. This does not necessarily detract from the historicity of the text, since the text still refers to actual events."

The issue with this view is that it obviously places us in much murkier territory than option one in terms of how we view the infallibility of Scripture. I believe that we're to take the Biblical histories seriously as fact, but not literalistically (would love to do another discussion explaining in more depth what I mean by this if there's interest; again, shoot me an ask). I do believe that all Scripture is infallible. Thus, this explanation also doesn't sit easily with me, but I do lend it credence because I trust Dr. Collins's theology and exegesis in other areas.

Ultimately, I'm going to bring the issue back to the C.S. Lewis excerpt that I started on; for now, I am content to say "We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell." I do fully intend to continue exploring the issue with an inquisitive mind and a humble heart, hoping that as I grow into greater theological and scientific knowledge I might come to an understanding of the Fall that does sit well with all that I know to be true. I'm still young :)

Please do always feel free to drop by my inbox with follow-ups/any other science/faith questions. I love these issues so much that I've chosen to study them academically; it is a joy to discuss them with you!

[voidandcold]

You're young, so I'm going to say this as nicely and clearly as I can: "radical feminism" is just white supremacist patriachy in a pink hat.

There is no "war on women", there is just white cis men in positions of power that have managed to convince white cis women in positions of (slightly less) power that all their problems come from trans people, not the cis men, and that the solution is to make it so that no trans people are visibly existing anywhere in public.

But, spoiler alert, there have always been trans people, and there always will be. The Nazis tried to erase all traces of our existence in the Thirties (that's what the infamous book burning was about), but we are still here. And it should give you pause to realise that you are literally aligned with the literal goddamn Nazis of Nazi Germany in "the trans question". And also with the current fascist dictatorship in Russia. Is this really where you want to be? If not, why would you think they're right about this but not anything else?

You're never going to live in a world without men or masc-aligned people, so to think that every single one of them is a predator just waiting for a chance to pounce is going to cause you a massive amount of self inflicted mental harm. Likewise, to think that no woman or fem-aligned person is capable of causing you harm is going to leave you super vulnerable to the ones that do.

I'm not expecting you to answer this, I'm just hoping that you think about it.

If radical feminism is just white supremacy in disguise, how come most radfems seem to be POC? A considerable portion of them not even living in white countries?

If it's "white cis men" causing all the problems for women, how come women are oppressed globally? You think women killed by morality police have white men to blame? Honey, no. It's all men. It's a male problem.

I do not think that trans people are responsible for the patriarchy. I just think it's a super regressive way of thinking, and I post about it a lot because here on Tumblr, trans activism is the norm. It makes me feel that much more like I need to speak my mind.

For example- I think of trans activists like I think of tradwives. Sure, they aren't responsible for sexism, but they aren't exactly helpful in women as a whole breaking those chains. Woman is not a feeling, and someone born and raised as a male can't know how it feels to be a woman. When a male identifies as a woman, what he's identifying with is whatever caricature of womanhood he has in his head. We don't need transition. What we need is to normalize gender nonconformity.

On top of that, many trans activists are holding the acceptance of homosexuals back. Insisting that it's a "genital preference" and that gay men can never attracted to females, or that a lesbian is a "woman loving woman" and lesbians who don't try penis are "fetishists" it's the same homophobia conservatives have been throwing at us for years under a new coat of "progressive" paint. Before -if you were a woman who didn't like cock- you were a dirty sinner. Now you're a bigoted genital fetishist. It's all the same.

Trans activists are aligned with Nazis in that regard, isn't that right? The reasoning and the execution are different among all three groups. Surely you can see that? No radfem want trans people dead. We just want all these gender roles to stop. We want the repackaged homophobia to end.

It really isn't cool to call everyone who disagrees with you a nazi, by the way. It really downplays what a nazi is.

I'm not going to dignify the "not all men" portion of this with a response. Look at some violent crime statistics or something.

And no, of course I don't think women won't hurt me. Nor do I think all women are good people. I don't think I've ever said anything to make you think that?

I'm sorry for taking so long to reply to this, and I'm sorry for keeping it so short. But I don't want to repeat myself over and over and over again to everyone who says these things to me. I HAVE thought about it. That's why I'm here.

[aithusarosekiller]

Unpopular opinions:

I think people who say that Sirius would pick or save Reg over James are crazy, I’m sorry 😭

Idk how unpopular this is but Remus would drive everyone else crazy by picking the longest, most pretentious prog rock ever for parties. Peter is the only one with good taste. James is tone deaf. Sirius is a complete poser who will pretend to be into bands he’s never heard.

I don’t think Reg has a big circle of close friends. I love the Skittles in AUs but they really don’t make sense to me in canon compliant stuff, especially if the writer is trying to push that none of them were into blood supremacy.

I really like Lily and Sirius in Jegulus fics: I feel like they’re given much more depth and complexity than they are in Jily/Wolfstar stuff.

People have a really hard time making Dorlene and Moonseeker interesting as actual dynamics I would like to read about and not aesthetic Twitter threads.

If James/Remus/Regulus ended up being a thing and I was Sirius, our friendship would be over. Especially if they kept it from me. Oh, wait… I’d get with Evan and Barty and then our friendship would be over. I am toxic and petty and a Sirius kin can you tell. Any fic where Sirius is cool with it is an unrealistic fic in my eyes. Jegulus and/or Moonseeker is already stretching it but both his best friends? Nah.

Actually leaping off from that, a lot of fics these days do a bad job establishing why James and/or Remus would care about Regulus and instantly be in love with him. Especially in universes where Sirius hates Reg and Reg/Reg’s friends hate Sirius. I feel like earlier Jegulus fics did a much better job before it became an assumed dynamic.

I don’t think you should be writing Regulus & Sirius dynamics in fics if you don’t have empathy for both and aren’t willing to show both of their POVs. A lot of times it comes across as victim blaming or really weird ideas about victims.

I will be back with more!

I disagree with that first one, mainly bc out of habit he'd jump to save him before thinking about the consequences and then realise after what he'd done

The second one is so true, I love Sirius so much but please the poser vibes are STRONG

I love lonely Reg 💀 I love the skittles as a big friend group but I sometimes miss the days where he was a lonely Emo boy or only friends with Pandora, those were the times.

Tbf I don't real jily or wolfstar so l just give a suppletive thumbs up 👍 I do love everything about Lily tho and Sirius is always good in Jegulus bc they can justify every single action he does and it feels more natural

Is this a bad time to mention the Dorlene longfic I'm writing...TO ANYBODY INTERESTED IT IS A ROYALTY AU WITH ENEMIES TO LOVERS AND ARRANGED MARRIAGE AS WELL AS KNIGHT!MARLENE AND PRINCESS!DORCAS, EVERYONE IS GAY AND THEY ARE BOTH DOWN BAD BUT IN DENIAL, it doesn't have a name yet 😞

Idk I think it depends if it's an au or not, in canon ABSOLUTELY NOT WE ARE NEVER SPEAKING AGAIN, but in some aus it makes more sense

I sort of get what you mean, I think it's become very accepted that James cares about Reg because of his large heart and he understands his abuse and manipulation but like...it's so accepted that it gets really rushed bc people just want to get to the fun bit (which like me too)

YES people who blame one of them, be it intentional or not, really annoy me bc it comes through in your writing, and I prefer Reg just as a character I write but THAT DOESN'T MEAN I BLAME SIRIUS FOR ALL THE SHIT THAT HAPPENED TO HIM it doesn't make for a cool plot point, it's just creepy. Honestly my whole page is on the treatment of the black family and dumbledore's ignorance towards it so I feel very strongly about this one, same goes for people who use Andy as a catalyst for Cissa to cry into Alice/Lucius/whoever's arms because they never treat her like an actual person

Anyway

[snezhnayan-nights]

so like, im considering my stances on a lot of things now because i just got out of a really toxic/weird friend group, and its making me think like. idk syscourse is so complicated for me and it feels like im doing the thing of “trying to please everyone and instead pleasing no one”

i have DID. i have DID because of trauma. but ive always been plural, i know i have. i view the fact that im plural and the fact that i have DID as separate entities that effect each other but arent necessarily the same thing. im also getting increasingly uncomfortable with using non-medical language when before i had an aversion to it.

i agree with the majority (if not all) of your stances when it comes to syscourse, and honestly i always have, but after being in endo-centric spaces for so long its hard not to have that feeling of “am i being a bad person?” stuck in the back of my head every time i think/say directly that while i do believe in endogenic plurality, i dont think you can have OSDDID without trauma. and hearing the sources that the proendo people i used to know would use to prove the existence/potential for endogenic OSDDID get disproven is starting to push me further and further away from finding those communities acceptable at all. they make me angry, on a certain level, because i would parrot those sources to hell and back without ever questioning them.

its tempting to say im unaligned, but even saying im unaligned would potentially just upset everyone regardless of stance — because antiendos would see it as being pro, and proendos would see it as being anti (i will note ive literally seen people do this with Your stances). on top of that, id essentially be exiling myself from any communities thtat dont have an extremely nuanced view on syscourse — and there are Very few places that Do have nuanced stances.

idk, sorry if this is too much for ur blog, im just trying to sort things out with myself

Ough... Oughh I really get where you're coming from Anon, I really do.

I used to struggle with wanting to find a good middle ground that everyone can agree on by researching and reading many opinions that I find to be nuanced and puts both sides of the endo debacle into consideration. But, after a while, I started to realize I couldn't find a middle ground at all.

I struggled with this cycle of trying to cater and take everyone's opinions and feelings into consideration, but in the end there are still some people that are unhappy. Which is, inevitable. Someone will always find a way to disagree.

After a while, I came to the conclusion that my stances and opinions are not things that should make people feel comfortable or happy. I wanted my opinion to consider all sides, be based on correct information, and be open to nuances. If anyone had a problem, they should avoid me themself.

From then on, whenever I entered any space that I considered to have a lack of nuance, pro or anti, I was just honest. I explained my stance thoroughly and answered any questions they may have. To my surprise, I actually got quite a few spaces that let me in (even if they were quite wary).

If a space refuses me then okay, I can find another. I got sick of the lack of spaces with nuance, so I just made my own. I settled with trying to surround myself with people that didn't mind my stances, even better if some actually agreed with me.

With this, I had to distance myself from spaces that just didn't suit me. Spaces that spread misinformation, encouraged harmful beliefs... Hell, I even have a minor (not so great) reputation in some pro-endo discord servers because of the beliefs and opinions I set for myself. However, I had to learn that this wasn't a moral failing on my part.

I simply had a different truth than others. Sure, people agree that considering all sides is a good thing, but sometimes the same people would see you also consider this side that they don't like/think you're considering their side less, they won't think your truth is "good". Antagonizing you.

In summary, you can do whatever the hell you want. Just expect consequences that may or may not make sense.

[dismie]

hi here's my smoking hot fresh off the griddle take on calling people pigs discourse because you said you wanted it in your tags 😁😁 eat up while it's hot yummy yummy yummy 😋

so i disagree with calling unsavory people animals/diseases/forces of nature/any other dehumanizing term for much the same reasons as that post you reblogged. fighting fire with fire (or in this case, fascist ideology with fascist ideology) has literally never once worked in the history of politics and i don't get why we expect it to now. (inb4 what about all the oppressed groups who have had to respond to violence with more violence are they WRONG??? no and you know that's not what i'm talking about i'm talking about philosophical concepts and ideology okay i just wanted to clear that up.) i think people get so bogged down in like... surface-level specifics of which oppressed group is being harmed by what that sometimes they fail to stop and consider the ideology behind it if you will? he who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster and all that. we should be fighting on the side of oppressed groups because we respect everyone's innate right to freedom and a quality life not because we like fighting so much. obviously it's better for someone with a bloodlust to use it for something good, but also i believe in leftists! i believe we can be more compassionate than the murder party! and we should be striving to achieve that!!

implying that fascists or bigots or cops or whatever are less than human also removes their agency from the situation. animals don't (to our knowledge?) understand morality and harmlessness and ethics and i don't think any of us really blame them. when a hamster eats her excess babies nobody should really blame her, that's just what millions of years of hamster trial-and-error has deduced to be the most effective way to ensure as much of your genes as possible can continue on. if a human parent that wasn't expecting twins decided to mend this problem in a similar way i imagine we would all have qualms with it? fascists *choose* to be violent, they *choose* to be bigoted, acting like it's simply how they are just lets them off the hook. humans are capable of both good and bad and a gazillion shades of gray and we need to be able to accept and understand that so we can make sure we're being good people, not just cover our ears and pretend we're not also capable of intense evil.

also maybe it's the crraaaaazzzyyyy ara (i'm also an ara LOL) in me talking but i think we should respect animals more than that! acting like humans are the pinnacle of creature and to be anything else is bad and wrong just doesn't sit right with me, even though i accept that that probably isn't the conscious intention of people who call others pigs. i dunno. i just think that if we want to stay humble and respectful of other life on earth we shouldn't use them as insults.

bonus: pigs are awesome and don't deserve to be associated with fascists. i'm not even sure which trait of pigs is supposed to make them like fascists? they're not particularly dirty when given enough space to actually get away from their waste. i mean they mudbathe but plenty of people use mud or clay on their skin too. they're quite smart and perceptive and even show empathy towards other pigs and humans in some cases. i don't think they're particularly ugly and while they can be aggressive, pretty much every animal (including non-fascist humans) can and is when they feel threatened.

sorry for rambling it's one in the morning right now so this might not make a lot of sense :D i feel like i should end this ask with an actual question. seeing as it's an ask and all. i came out into the living room because i heard a weird breathing sound and i thought it was my dog but it wasn't. got any theories?

Okay so:

1) I'd like you to know I was terrified when I open my notification bar and the words "Here's my fresh smoking off the griddle take since you..." came up because I recently made a bi erasure post and have already been getting anonymous hate. Thank you for instead being SANE this was a very informative ask and a wonderful surprise :)

2) this was a wonderfully worded explanation and I do agree on your points on morality and ethics and how animals can't understand them; I was mostly wondering because, obviously calling fascists/cops/capitalists pigs is a pretty well ingrained thing in leftist culture! I wanted to know what the updated concensus was and I am absolutely going to refrain from using the term to describe people in the future!

3) To answer your question about the origins of the term "Capitalist Pig", from your local National History Day finalist [my brag for the next year and a half]: the origins of the term actually trace back to the Soviets, who called Americans pigs---as well as political cartoons, as you might expect. Probably due to the "dirtiness" of pigs--and likely as well some fatphobia as well or a way to, like you're saying, dehumanize the enemies; though honestly, pigs are probably cleaner than some people I know...

4) most absolutely i fucking LOVE pigs all my homies LOVE pigs. and another point: petting them is so nice in a sensory way...

5.1) i love how the ask is unrelated your vibes are great

5.2) ghost

[wutbju]

Dear +++Positives+++,

You won. You absolutely won. Congrats to you all.

I imagine that the most convincing argument in your favor is that without Steve Pettit, BJU would have to close its doors. It's the bald truth. BJU needs Steve Pettit. He's charismatic, fatherly, and palatable.

I disagree with you all that his preaching is orthodox. It's absolutely not. And I disagree with you that he's made BJU so new and different. It's the same abusive legalism as always. See Pettit's response to the GRACE report. See the countless stories about life in the dorms and faculty behavior in the classroom under his watch. See what is preached in the pulpit. Everything's the same at BJU except now people wear skinny jeans and have facial hair.

I understand that that's enough for you all. I accept that. You feel like you can send your kids to BJU without embarrassment. I get that. I don't agree, but I understand.

I see you all talking about Board Reform. Frankly, there's no need for Board Reform if the Board voted the way you wanted them to. Granted, it took a ground swell of activism and a heavy dose of shaming, but it did work.

So let's talk turkey in this Thanksgiving week. If you want to make a change with the make-up of the BJU Board, there is a strategy in place. Since you have exactly zero academics in your group (Sorry, BJU faculty, I've been on both sides. It's different out here.), let me explain how it works. It's not like a corporate board or an elder board. This is a different animal and hiring a lawyer to change the Board is a big waste of money and energy. Drop that idea. You have no ground legally.

The ideal academic governance is "shared governance." A document crafted in 1966 explains this. Representatives from faculties, administrations, and boards created that statement about how all the parts of a university should fit together. Read it. If it's too boring and thorny, you can listen to a distillation here:

That explains the "best practices" for university governance. It's what academics aspire to. Do we ever reach it? I'm not sure. But that's our goal.

I bring that up because you all have to adjust your thinking about what a university board should look like. Old people -- even ancient people -- on a board is normal. That's just the way it is. Graduates of other institutions on a board? That's normal too. In fact, that's exactly what you want on a governing board. A minority group who is kind of snotty and old-fashioned? You want that too. You want tension on a board, not unanimity. An out-of-touch board that doesn't know who the faculty are and what they teach? Oh honey, that's so normal and expected. Usually we faculty like being ignored by the board. ;)

So your conclusions about board reform -- that they should be younger, compliant, BJU grads who know the employees -- will get you absolutely nowhere. Toss all that out. That's nobody's standard. The standard for governing boards is that they should "conserve the past and shape the future."

Now. What might work is this: acquiring the stated BJU policy for Board appointments and seeing if BJU met its own standards.

That's your strategy. That's the only strategy that will get any change. Let me explain.

SACSCOC's job in accrediting any school is to regularly test if an institution is following its own stated policy. That's it. For example, if I say in my Public Speaking class that at the end of the class, students will be able to deliver an informative speech, then I am held to that standard. If I don't have an informative speech on the list of assignments, I'm not meeting my own standard and I get pinged.

Get it?

Thus, what does BJU state in its Board Handbook as its standard for Trustees? I have offered the 2014 handbook. Rick Altizer might have a later version. What is the standard? Comb through it. Read it with a clear, outsider, lawyer-like eye. In 2014, the standards for the Board of Trustees are kind of silly, tbh. See "Responsibilities of Board Members" and "Responsibility of the Board to Evaluate Its Own Functions." The stated standards are ambiguous and impossible to track. Are they praying for BJU? Are they unselfish in serving BJU? Who can know that?

But can you say that the Board members are meeting that standard? If not, you've got an argument.

Now SACSCOC does have its own standards for governing boards. Those are in the mix too. You can read them here (see page 15).

The institution has a governing board of at least five members that: (a)  is the legal body with specific authority over the institution. (b)  exercises fiduciary oversight of the institution. (c)  ensures that both the presiding officer of the board and a majority of other voting members of the board are free of any contractual, employment, personal, or familial financial interest in the institution. (d)  is not controlled by a minority of board members or by organizations or institutions separate from it. (e)  is not presided over by the chief executive officer of the institution.

That's the second argument: is BJU following SACSCOC's standards? Can you make that case? Think of this like value debate in high school or undergrad. That's how you have to build this argument.

Because here's my hunch on this matter: Boards are intended to be a check on the President. But they are also appointed by the President. BJU's board is -- in its entirety -- not appointed by Steve Pettit.

The BJU Board of Trustees has been completely appointed by Bob Jones III.

The Board members' tenure proves that. John Lewis's own statement proves that.

And there's your in. It's not their age. It's not their alma mater. It's not their division. It's not their detachment. It's that they are a puppet Board for Bob Jones III instead of an ally of Steve Pettit.

To put it in SACSCOC's vocabulary: The BJU Board of Trustees is controlled by someone separate from the Board itself -- someone with familial interest in BJU.

And that's a recipe for disaster like we've seen in the last month.

The way to get the reform for that is by making a complaint to SACSCOC. SACSCOC describes that process here.

Therefore, here's your to-do list:

Get the stated policies from BJU (from the most recent board handbook) and/or from SACSCOC for the Board (see above).

Apply the current state of BJU's Board of Trustees (including these latest actions) to those policies.

Compile your complaint following those instructions to the letter. Get all the documentation. Over-prove rather than under-prove. I took about 50 pages in 2016 to prove this point.

Mail two printed copies to SACSCOC's president.

Wait. It might take months.

This is slow, tedious, and methodical. But it's possible to force BJU to change its Board makeup by using the system in place. This is the system. This is how it works.

Best to you all. Congrats again. And good luck.

Camille Kaminski Lewis, BJU Class of 1990 and 1992

[radfae]

hi there i like your blog. i do disagree with some of your general statements about gender transition being just about wearing dresses or having short hair, as if trans people don't seek out medical transition because we are acutely aware that clothing and hairstyle aren't inherent to sex or gender.

even if gender is abolished(whatever that means(and i doubt it ever will be, same as i doubt humans will ever stop eating meat even though it's objectively detrimental and unsustainable)), i feel as though i would still take testosterone in a genderfree society because i enjoy the physical changes it gives me.

i am physically healthy, mentally stable person(at least according to my doctors and pyschiatrists), hrt is not causing my body significant harm and yet i see radfems like you constantly say im mutilating or ruining my body. why aren't you this vocal about drinking or smoking or gambling, which is far more prevalent and harmful? why is a breast reduction mutilating my body but electively choosing to get my tonsils removed or getting body piercings/tattoos not? i experience more statistical danger getting in my car and driving to work each day than i ever will being on hrt or transitioning. unless you live a 100% zero waste chemical free crunchy hippie lifestyle i don't think you have any right to preach to others that their actions are harming their own bodies. abortions can cause harm. vaccines can cause harm. chemotherapy can cause harm. all these things are not always necessary but are always neutral.

just curious what you and your community make of this specifically. i tried not to assume anything about you that i haven't seen you explicitly say or reblog so please don't make any assumptions about me aside from what I've said here. would love to talk more I might come off anon if you respond. thanks for reading anyways feel free to ignore have good day

hi, sorry for the late response, i wanted to be able to actually give you an answer and i haven’t had the time. i’m not on tumblr very much

first, i personally very much avoid the term ‘mutilating’ and anything similar because i find it rude. please don’t group me in with people that aren’t me.

second, i answered an ask like this recently. please read that.

third, i’m not speaking out on drugs and nicotine + tobacco because everyone already knows they’re harmful. informed consent is absolutely no issue. if someone is drinking or smoking, they’ve accepted that this is bad for them, and they continue to do it. not to mention that it isn’t something borne of a mental illness (unless you have an addiction, in which case you should stop), and it doesn’t make you a lifelong patient. if it helps, in my personal life off of social media, i do speak out against smoking and vaping to my friends and family constantly, because i come from a family of smokers. i’m always bugging one of my close friends about her vape lol. and everything else you mentioned is gender neutral and has little to do with societal pressure… not much to speak out about, they’re completely neutral actions. and anyway, my blog is about feminism. i talk about feminism. that’s kind of like going to a blog about gay rights, or whatever else, and saying “why aren’t you talking about ___?” because that’s not what my blog is about.

fourth, i don’t doubt that sex dysphoria would still exist in a world removed from gender, but how prevalent would it be? you’d think a lot of people like you would say the same; “i’d still take this anyway”, but i’ve spoken to a lot of trans people personally who agree with me that our gendered society is a problem and life would be better off without all the rules and structure; largely, the issue is that our society as it stands encourages gender dysphoria (interpret that as you will, as it comes from many, many different places and adds up over time), and some people feel like they have to transition to be comfortable. and i do encourage you to look more into gender abolition, if you’re following it up with “whatever that means”.

[royalberryriku]

You're, again, sharing a very easily proven lie of "oh it started in the 60s". And look, I'm sorry I didn't know that about your family, but again, I'm not even saying here that Arabs didn't do anything, just that they didn't colonise Israel, the Roman Empire did. Palestinians aren't modern day Babylonians, they're people like you who feel threatened. I'm not saying they're right, never did actually. I'm also not saying they don't know any better that's often what I'm hearing from Israelis actually. Again, you're twisting my words. I didn't say you don't, I said you're not the only ones and that doesn't give you the right to be like "oh, well, I suffered so I can use land back and you indigenous people should just accept it because I'm suffering" like?? Us too?

Again, saying "Arabs are colonising us" is as antisemetic as "Jews are colonising us". I call out both because both are calls for collective punishment. Both make no sense when it's a systematic failure caused by, let's be real, the British since long before 1948, or even the 1920s.

"Accusing us of genocide" when civilians are dying is called being factual". If you can't handle that Jews are fucking people and make mistakes, just like how Christian Zionists in the USA are committing genocide, then idk what to tell you. You have a victim complex, not because "oh blah you're not a victim", because I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're letting that excuse any and everything to the point your basically saying "um I don't know any better and I'm just a Jew" like. Blaire White is a trans woman, I hate her because of the fact she legitimately plays the victim and throws other trans people under the bus. I'm saying that's what you're doing but you just. Refuse! Literally any nuance in what I say or the situation. You can't FUCKING comprehend that maybe, just maybe, both Arabs and Jews are equally victims in this because you NEED to blame someone that isn't the fucking British and Europe who stared this mess in the first place. It's about instead of going "because I'm part of this group I do no wrong" it's realising that we are. All. People. But you just hate that idea and refuse that nuance in this because you need to fucking hate SOMEONE here as a victim, and look I get that. As a trans person I get that. But the entire world isn't your enemy and playing this game where you say "um you can't disagree with anything I say or you're secretly trying to kill me" is bullshit. Being Jewish doesn't mean you suffer any greater or lesser than the trans people or indigenous people suffering too. Solidarity means acknowledging we're all the same and, yeah, can internalise the same rhetoric used by people who hurt us. And yeah, I think that's what you're doing.

Try and label me as whatever, but that doesn't stop the fact that you're acting in a way a lot of marginalised people who internalise right wing shit act. You being Jewish doesn't mean I haven't suffered the same sort of neglect and persecution as a trans person (as in not the specifics, but the same feeling of wanting someone to blame for that suffering). And that oftentimes means reflecting to make sure you aren't internalizing things. And so much of what I'm seeing form you is that.

But anyway, it's very clear that you just. Refuse to move from this mindset of "only I suffer and everyone else is an enemy by default". Because that's how you're acting and I've seen it all before.

dear jumblr: STOP LOOKING DOWN ON AND CONDESCENDING TO CONVERTS.

this includes saying “ofc converts don’t notice antisemitism.” or “they’re a convert, they don’t know any better.”

i really don’t think a lot of you realize how many converts don’t reveal they are converts because of this kind of behavior. my own patrilineal convert parent refuses to publicly, not because they are excluded, but because of the condescension. the way converts are basically patted on the head even if they have ancestry, are patrilineal, were raised in a jewish environment, etc. or have none of these at all.

if converts are equals to you, treat them that way. most gerim learned more during their process than many of us learn in hebrew school, let alone what most secular “born” jews learn throughout their lives. so yes, converts DO spot antisemitism. they DO know things. and there isn’t an excuse for them to be bigoted, to spread lies about our people, or to side with our enemies or to otherwise harm their community. just like there isn’t an excuse for any other jew to do so.

you are not being open minded or accepting thinking and talking this way. you are actually engaging in exclusion and separation. you’re looking down on converts instead of treating them like they have equal standing.

if a convert doesnt know something or does display bad behavior? call them in instead of making excuses for them. treat them like equals, because that is what they are.

[mordigen]

Unpopular opinion: Christians are not witches

I said it. Fight me.

There has been a trend that has been growing ever more problematic recently: overbearing, hyper-zealous, hyper-vigilant "acceptance" This means the pagan community is an absolute free-for all, and you are not allowed to so much as even feign the possibility that you do not agree with absolutely 100% of everything, lest you be named a gatekeeping, ignorant bigot.

Whether you like it or not - there ARE paths out there that have specific rules...regulations...stipulations...tenets - whatever the hell you want to call or classify them. End. Period. There's no other colour that comes in - that's it. Sorry for you, but they DO exist. In fact, there are many of them.

If you do not follow those rules, tenets, etc..., then you are not of that path. Point. Blank. And there is nothing wrong with that - it simply means that you are of some other path. That's it! That's all that means! It may be *nearly* identical to the path in question - but it is not, hence the 'nearly'.

If you happen to be a part of one of these paths, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so. If someone claims to be a part of one of these paths, but are absolutely, blatantly not - there is nothing wrong with saying that, and explaining why that is. Some people just honestly don't know there is a difference, or that these certain prerequisites are indeed a definitive factor - so they learn something, they broaden their horizons. Everyone seems to be all about educating themselves about being sensitive to other cultures and customs - except the pagan community, apparently, because this mentality does not translate across that pagan/witch line. Instead of taking it as a learning experience, you are immediately pounced on with notions of 'there are no rules!' 'you can't tell someone what to do on their own path!' Or, simply, the name calling. Well yes, while all of that is true - it still remains that how ever you want to practice or whatever you personally decide to do, may just simply not be what you are claiming, or calling it. It may just be semantics - but semantics matter when dealing with nuance. And paganism is extremely nuanced.

You can call a tomato an orange all you want to - but that thing will never be an orange, no matter how much you believe in it. And people are not wrong for informing you that you may have the wrong name, that is in fact, a tomato. If you go on deciding to call it an orange, you can do that - but that is willful ignorance. So, in your fight to be unapologetically accepting of every ridiculous notion, you are perpetuating willful ignorance - whilst being directly in opposition of your goal and being, *GASP*, unaccepting to those who follow a path where distinction and definition matters. You are completely invalidating those people's paths and beliefs while trying to defend another's (another who may, in fact, actually be wrong) and actively using their path & beliefs as the very reason to berate and ostracize them. Pretty fantastically hypocritical of you. Now...on to the second problem. I do not, at all, in any form, believe in "ritual magick" - as perpetuated by Aleister Crowley hardons. And no, that is not a knock on Crowley, just the idiot followers that don't understand half of what he taught and latch onto the superficial.

When you look at the origins and make up of magical beliefs, and magic itself as a separate entity - no matter which particular branch - they were all created by religion. They all have roots in highly spiritual cultures and customs. So, I absolutely do not believe for one second that you can believe in magic without SOME form of religion - whatever one you adhere to is your choice, but you cannot have the first without the latter. You cannot. Even if you claim that you have no religion, or spiritual faith, your practices absolutely do. You are calling on elements and agencies that absolutely have divine ties and connections one way or another. Oh, how many atheists I see calling on the seals of Arch Angels.... are you fucking shittin me? Really?? So let's bring it all together now - with the fact that many faiths DO have prerequisites, AND the fact that magic is religious/spiritual -- Christians are not, and cannot be witches or pagans. They are mutually exclusive. Not only because so many various paths have such prerequisites, and very define religious/spiritual beliefs that are contradictory to others - but simply because Christianity DOES, very much, have very clear and stringently defined Do's & Don'ts, and obviously the religious aspect itself clashes with the religious beliefs of others. Their religious beliefs clash with people who believe in their same god - so how could they not with those who believe in other gods?? Considering this, no other path would even need such stipulations themselves for them to be mutually exclusive, as Christianity already covers that issue so completely, but the fact that so many pagan paths do only exacerbates an already existing problem. That being said - that does not mean you cannot believe in the Christian 'god', by whatever name you know him by - or that you cannot believe in Jesus, and also be a witch or pagan. In fact the latter has an even bigger argument for believing in both, as paganism, generically, in itself is polytheistic, so it is very fitting to simply have the Christian god and Jesus amongst the many deities being worshipped. But those two things alone is not what makes Christianity. A good start, yes, but that is not all it takes - in fact, there are many that are shunned, excommunicated, banned, condemned and moreso whilst having those very two qualifying factors. You can find this in *every single* sect of Christianity, so...the proof is in the pudding, as they say, that it is much more than simply believing in 'God' and Jesus that makes a 'Christian'. And if you take that to heart and follow all those rules - you cannot be a witch or pagan, many times over, as you would be in direct opposition, or violation, of a number of their teachings - both on the aspect of simple 'rules', but also on a much deeper spiritual level of the entire foundation of their faith. Cannot serve two masters, and all that... If you do not follow those rules, then sure, you could be a witch or a pagan - but then you cannot be a Christian. That is just the facts.

Many people like to argue the use of magic and mysticism in the bible - but the issue is what parts of the bible they are found, and all the amendments of the further books. Again, what really carves out being a Christian vs. any of the other sects of Abrahamic beliefs. As, news flash - there is far more than just Christianity. And some of them, do, in fact, do hand in hand with magic. The Kabbalah is an astounding example of that - and, in fact, where a lot of the so called *ahem* 'non'-religious 'ritual magick' comes from. In this same vein, I would like to note that I have never had any issue or seen conflict with the Hebrew or Jewish take on shamans, mystics and witches, as they really do go hand in hand - They have their own very in depth, detailed, spiritual and sentimental form of mysticism that was a natural progression from pre-Abrahamic religions and culture, and grew into their teachings and belief system, so it does not go against their core beliefs the same way it very stringently does in Christian theology. Considering their ethnical histories and cultural heritage - this is a brilliant example of the natural evolution and progression of faiths - not simply ripped from the hands of the brutally oppressed and rewritten as a mockery to wipe out the preexisting notion of faiths -- as the Church has a history of doing. The Book of Enoch is another shining example of Biblical magic, or Angelic magic. But, this also also turns my point into a self fulfilling prophecy, as in the fact that it is accepted amongst all denominations as heresy, and it is taught that these magics - though they do, in fact, exist, were for the angels and completely forbidden from mankind. So, thusly, if you are a follower of Enoch, you are not a 'Christian', by name and membership, as you are outright going against it's teachings. You are a heretic, a blasphemer. Perhaps you may be one of the many other forms of the Christian god's followers - but not a Christian, as being Christian denotes a very specific set of beliefs and tenets - end of story. Magic, and paganism, is in direct conflict with those teachings, and therefore, cannot coexist.

On top of the logic - there is also the emotional issue. Christianity has a long history of abuse towards various pagan, tribal and indigenous faiths, while stealing our beliefs as their own, and demonizing those they couldn't successfully acclimate into theirs. To now be expected to be OK with this faith, yet again, latching on to *our* sacred rites and practices as being a part of their own is a hard pill to swallow at best, a slap in the face to most, and flat out perpetuating trauma at worst. Once upon a time, people sought out these very same communities and groups within their pagan circles as an escape, a safe space, and a shield and guardian against the Christian onslaught, torment, oppression, or just exhaustion - and now, we must not only tolerate them invading our private spaces, but must now welcome them with open arms and expected to be happy about it? Forgive me if I don't sympathize....

If we are going to now be forced into being shoulder to shoulder with them, the very least you can offer us is neutrality. You can be accepting of all and still be neutral grounds - not taking any one side anywhere, all you have to do is be respectful to each other. Disagreement is not disrespectful. Could someone who disagrees with a certain viewpoint *become* disrespectful? Sure, of course they could. But simply the act of disagreement is nothing hateful or hurtful in any way shape or form - in fact, good discourse is how progress is made. So we need to remain neutral grounds and normalize the acceptance of different viewpoints - we need to recognize and accept that, yes, there are paths out there that do have specific requirements, expectations and limits - there are paths that are going to disagree, or just flat out not believe in something. Instead of name calling, when someone of those paths decides to speak up and enlighten and elaborate on information that may be inaccurately described or depicted, you need to LISTEN and learn, and not just bludgeon them with presumptive judgement. You also need to accept that there are many, various different closed practices out there - beyond Native American & Voodoo practices (as those seem to be the only ones the pagan community recognizes) and if someone of those closed faiths tell you - no, you are not xy or z, that is also not being judgmental or hateful or hurtful - that simply is. ....a very important side note here is that acknowledging closed practices is also not a carte blanche for screaming about cultural appropriation. Please shut the fuck up about cultural appropriation. Not being of a specific faith is not equivalent to cultural appropriation - Telling someone "no, you're not xyz" is very different from telling someone "no, you can't practice xyz" (looking at you smudge-Nazis) You can enjoy, practice, learn or celebrate anything you want of any faith you want while not actually being apart of it - that's the beauty of sharing and learning. And I think that is where all the trouble boils down from:

Yes, you can do whatever you want and can create whatever path you want for yourself...just don't misrepresent it, don't call it something it is not, and don't deny those who are more educated & experienced in that particular department. We get enough of that from outsiders to start doing it to each other.