#such is the nature of the human condition

[fight-nights-at-freddys]

I think it's genuinely concerning how sex-negative we, as a society, are becoming. (This post brought to you by a few tweets I saw)

Does no one else think it's genuinely worrying how if you even find a fictional character attractive, you're called a gooner, or a degenerate, or some other pejorative to indicate that being sexual in any way is gross and nasty and yucky? Why does art suddenly lack artistic value because it's sexual in nature? Why are we so obsessed with associating a core feature of the human condition with shame and guilt?

Even more concerning is that it isn't just some niche little group of people on the internet, it's rampant. Every nook and cranny of the internet has these people, ready and raring to call you names if you dare speak anything slightly not-safe-for-work.

Like the people on twitter openly calling trans women degenerates and freaks for having an incest/rape kink (I've seen this one A LOT), because how can you claim to be an ally, or lgbt-friendly, or a feminist, but get mad at a woman expressing her sexuality? Why does sexuality gross you out to the point you feel the need to demean people over it?

And where does it end? Are we going to start calling women who dress a little too revealing 'sluts' again? Are we going to ban sex scenes in movies? Start preaching abstinence, say sex outside of marriage is bad, that lust is immoral, and being gay is a sin?

I'm sure that a large part of the problem is that these people are generally children, and still in the "sex is gross" phase, but I know that's not the case with all of them. I'm just worried for the future, because all the people saying these things are just reinventing conservatism under the guise of progressivism, and are (intentionally or unintentionally, I'm not sure) causing more harm than good.

I know we talk about puritanism and stuff all the time, but in my opinion, it's gotten to a point even the actual puritans didn't get to.

[milksockets]

'this page from the second edition of "the natural history + diseases of the human teeth (1814)" by joseph fox shows hyperdontia: the condition of having an excess number of teeth' in the smile stealers: the fine + foul art of dentistry - richard barnett (2017)

[thatbitchery]

Of all the damage pseudo- spirituality has done to the human society, manifesting and femininity are constantly fighting for a top spot in my brain. Manifesting at LEAST has a truth to it and was going fine until all the online course gurus did their thing- femininity is just. What even. & if this only damaged the dating world which it was created to cater to I wouldn't mind so much but well.

The idea of 'dark' and 'light' femininity especially- what even. The human species is so interesting to me bc we will do everything but be natural. No other animal or plant does this, mind you. Not even orcas.

By "Light Feminine" do you mean blonde, blue eyes, pink make up and etiquette? By 'dark feminine' do you mean also white but black hair and darker (tanned) skin, dark eyeliner and manipulative? Basically Sabrina Carpenter X Megan Fox AU? ? I've read so much on both and literally NONE of that is femininity. Look at the world around you? Look at the feminine around you. The females of animals. The earth. The sea. Our mothers. Which of them acts like that? I want you to point to lioness or hamsterette (whatever female hamsters are called) and say okay so that is in it's light feminine and that's in it's dark. No no seriously. I'll even sponsor the whole expedition. I'm so curious. What feminine is the earth? Biege?

Femininity, is indifference. THAT IS IT. It is self centeredness. It is reciprocity. Everything else is masculine.

As a species I think sometimes we forget the maternal instinct is so strong in human females because we used to kill our kids? And not even millions of years ago I'm talking couple thousand? Hera? HERA. Sorry do you not watch Nat Geo? Have you never had a female pet? Maternal instinct is stronger that paternal because women are more likely to kill our children and end the species because femininity is serve me or die, and the only thing a child can serve is your maternal needs- , you know this right? You know lionesses kill their cubs when their daddy loses a fight? That hamsters eat their kids when they cant raise them to get back their nutrients? Spiders, have you heard of that? Natural selection, do you understand how that works? Female bees, you know hat they do to their males right? The earth, the epitome of femininity, Gaia- how long have you been alive? Your mom and your dad- and I mean the most loving mom vs the shittiest dads- who scares you more? Your sister or your brother?

Femininity, at its very core, is self-serving and indifferent what is that nurturing shit who came up with that and how blind are they? They had to invent entire complex religions and social norms to force women into giving birth what do you mean when you say you're naturally submissive? Admit you were watching corn on tumblr at 15 and it's conditioning what do you mean naturally? What nature where. Show me. Tell me yes it's natural for me to sleep around and get nothing in return its empowered look how this female does it too in nature. If you don't want to call it conditioning ok but nature? It's natural? Gaslighting your own self is crazy work but okay. Indifference is the only natural way to be feminine. Self serving. Nature watching her children fight for existence and only keeping the strongest, do you know how ruthless natural selection is? That's feminine because if you don't serve me why are you here? The most feminine women are the most self-serving. Shera7 entire aura is feminine because we all know she's selfish. The women that are self serving and centered win. And not just self-serving, self-centered to total indifference. I don't know why you want me to care about that but on the grounds it does not concern me, I will not be giving AF any time today and I'm offended you expect me to- indifference. I will be fine anyway mentality (WHEN IF WE TALK ABOUT JOURNALLING REMIND ME TO TALK AB THIS). This, also, is the baseline to manifesting by the way. I won't go there, ever, but if you want to manifest understand this- I will be okay regardless so why would I care? Not all that stuff you keep doing with the sage and numbers and maladaptive daydreaming x delusion in the name of acting as if.

Femininity is indifference. Self-centeredness. My way or no way. Everything else is masculinity (which, just so we are clear, is not a bad thing. Coming from a masculina).

[tulipq]

No one ever states the whole concept of the ship of Theseus. This shit is too fucking long winded. I hope you are all ready for this shit. At least I will use text you can copy paste around!

The full problem with the ship of Theseus is meant to be like a koan that gives you an insight into the unstable nature of identity. That's how I read it. I just wanted to state my current conclusion first, because you can't refute me if you don't know where I am going with this.

My answer is that neither is the original ship. The ship ceased to be itself in the original sense every moment and is actually "close enough to be felt the same by humans at the time" instead of being itself. Identity is unstable. A does not equal A because the notion of A is as a flickering flame in the eyes of its beholder.

Anyway, I am going to cheat in order to make things in a certain way. I will make it clear when this is cheating and not just clever storytelling.

We witness:

A boat maker, and he makes a boat. He also travels with the boat and he keeps replacing parts along the way because wooden boats are like this. He has a little barge or something that he stores all of the cast off part of the boat.

Suppose he is the last original crew member to die. He and his complete boat of boat parts get taken to the cemetery where all of the other original crew members.

Then Persephone notices she has the complete set of one of her favorite little adventuring groups that the muses sing about. She gives them all new lives and even magics the boat parts to be young and unworked material because fuck you this is a greek philosophy parable, I have decided to fuck with how time works. You can tell a version where that does not happen in your response.

Then the ship builder makes the ship parts into the original shape of the ship.

This is completed just as the current crew of the ship, the builder's body road to the graveyard in shows up to bury someone who was not part of the crew when it first departed.

Which ship is the original ship which the builder made? Is it the one with the builder, the crew, and the material that first left in the very same condition as when they left, or is it the one which has experienced all of the changes that happened since it first departed?

If the builder says he believes for sure the answer opposite yours, do you care about that? I do not.

[acti-veg]

please can I ask why you are anti eugenics?

as in, why would altering someone’s genes so they don’t have a disposition to develop cancer be bad?

as someone who is pretty sure their genes are responsible for their horrible mental health, if the genes responsible for my disposition towards ocd and depression could have been removed, I don’t see why that would have been bad

wouldn’t it be good if we could alter people’s genes so no one is violent and everyone has a kind & loving nature

I don’t see how that’s a bad thing

I can see how eugenics could potentially be harmful too but I don’t think any of the above would be bad

(just to be very clear, i am NOT advocating for anything horrible like “euthanising the disabled”)

Eugenics is not just gene editing, it is a set of deeply racist, ableist beliefs about human ‘improvement’ on the basis of so-called ‘desirable racial characteristics.’ Eugenics as a concept is inherently wrapped up in white supremacy, homophobia and ableism. It was extremely popular in the west as an idea, it took the Nazis putting it into practice to show us what eugenics in practice actually looks like.

Gene editing sounds good on the basis of curing or preventing human disease, but that is precisely how all controversial science is framed. It is hard to object to editing genes to prevent cancer, but what happens when we start selecting for other traits we deem to be ‘desirable,’ and who gets to decide? The state? Medical professionals? The industrial military complex? Scientists? All of whom have the same biases we all have from being socialised in a deeply prejudiced society?

You say you don’t support anything horrible, but we don’t all agree on what is horrible - what should be kept and what should be lost. Many hearing people would see deafness as uncomplicatedly a medical issue, and assume all deaf people would want a cure. But Deaf culture is vibrant, and many in the community don’t see themselves as in any way needing to be ‘cured.’ Imagine the possibility that someone could edit the potential for anyone else to be part of your group out of the human genome entirely, that we could potentially see cultural genocide of Deaf, disabled and neurodivergent communities done on a systematic scale.

Take depression as an example. Taking away any genetic disposition towards depression is tempting, but then what is to stop us from expanding this same line of reasoning to genetically select for positive dispositions? Is that actually desirable? Taking away the propensity for a natural range of emotions? What would be the an actual impact of that human society? Could we end up ‘curing’ the symptom of a sick society by just editing out the resulting depression, rather than addressing what is actually causing the mental health crisis, beyond just genetics? Could we end up in the dystopia that Huxley envisioned in a Brave New World, but with gene editing instead of soma?

You mention violence, but violence is an evolved response to stressors that is sometimes necessary. I shouldn’t have to spell out why genetically editing a population to be non-violent and good humoured regardless of what is being done to them is bad, and what you’re essentially saying here isn’t very far away from ‘why can’t we edit everyone to be the perfect, passive citizen and consumer?’ Fight or flight is part of our very being, and aggression when it is called for in defence of our loved ones or our own interests is a part of the human condition. Do we really want to lose that? Do we want to cull the propensity for violent resistance from our DNA?

It doesn’t stop at physical traits and overtly negative dispositions, either. We have been able to genetically engineer voles to be monogomous. That is not a joke. Can you imagine what the implications could be for being able to select for behaviours and desires? The state being able to mandate gene editing to avoid disease, slowly turning into gene editing for ‘super soldiers’, then to select for desirable traits in their citizens? Even if democracies wouldn’t do it, history tells us that if the technology is there, someone will.

Before it even gets to the human stages though, animals will bear the brunt of our curiosity. In the famous case of Alba, we created a glowing rabbit for the sake of an ‘art’ project. We have grown an ear on the back of a mouse. We have already selectively bred farmed animals to the point where they suffer constantly, imagine just how horrific it could get if we can edit their genetic sequence cheaply and at scale? Imagine what we would do to them?

These technologies being developed under capitalism brings up even more issues. The wealthy classes have always argued that they are somehow superior, better ‘breeding,’ more intelligent, less lazy. They’ve always been kidding themselves, but genetic editing available only to those who can afford it would make them right. At least initially this technology would be wildly expensive, and before those prices were bought down we’d likely end up with a society that is biologically hierarchical as well as economically and socially. Capitalists would very likely fight to keep it that way, just as they fight to keep themselves economically superior now.

This isn’t just a class issue either, the chances that this technology would be offered to the global population and not just rich western nations are minimal. Environmental racism and cultural ideals could become genetically baked in. We wouldn’t be improving the human race, we’d be ‘improving’ very narrow sections of it, according to a narrow and context dependent definition of what a ‘good’ human looks like. Wealth and social hierarchy could become biologically embedded, with only rich westerners benefiting from these advances. I mean, people in the global south are still dying of malaria, despite us wiping it out in the west in 1950s.

You may dismiss some of this as alarmism, but I think people who are not at least a little bit concerned at these possibilities haven’t thought about the implications of gene editing very much. We’re essentially in the cusp of creating an entirely new species, without really considering what that means. If history tells us anything, it’s that we’re likely to leap into the technology for commercial reasons long before we’ve given proper consideration to the ethical and social implications. That should worry you.

[gertritude-art]

Evil Gertritude: I'm making a VN about NORMAL KIDS without HEAD PROBLEMS 😈😈😈

i can't even joke about this... i started picturing mordred in jeans + a t-shirt and felt ill. what is wrong sweetie. come back to us.

[vivvy-of-the-lake]

It is true that "humans must die" can often be steered and coerced into "these humans must die" and perpetuate racist and eugenic ideals (and that this does make up the vast majority of ecofascism), but that distinction does little to refute the point of anti-civ being a similarly misanthropic (albeit not inherently racist) view on humanity. It's tempting to want a fresh start, a clean slate to get a do-over on, but in wanting that you will be sentencing hundreds of millions of people to death from a destruction of all infrastructure, logistical connections, food sources, existing support networks*, and everything else that "civilisation" does to maintain a population of nearly 8 billion people.

The amount of logistical work that has to be done for humans to even stay alive, let alone to thrive, is mind-boggling. Even just to feed a small city of 100,000 people, making the generous assumption that every person only needs 1kg of food each day, that's 100 tonnes of food that has to be sourced daily. Food that has to be harvested, and transported, and distributed in a timely manner to each and every person. This doesn't even factor in other needs such as water, housing, clothing, medicine, tools and equipment... All this is only possible with technology that allows populations to grow larger and denser than without it.

Inequality does exist, and current capitalist infrastructure is at the expense of the victims of neo-colonialism, but this is not an inherent part of civilisation or human nature. There are ways to provide better conditions for the people of the world that don't require this 'reset', and unfortunately they are going to be more complicated and less immediately obvious. You didn't even engage with the idea that you don't understand these ideas, which only leads me to believe that that's the underlying cause of your distrust and distaste for Marxist-Leninism and other non-anarchist ideologies. How can you claim to understand ML without understanding how class warfare is waged?

Although maybe I'm wasting my time if you're going to call class struggle, quote, "that old fascist talking point".

*I am aware that in an anarchist future there would be mutual aid and other systems of support put in place, but before that can be set up there will be a lack of support available for people who need it to survive, and in the interim they will die.

Are you really gonna try to argue against anti-civ without knowing anything about it? It's totally fine not to know things. We all start somewhere. But how about you just educate yourself on the subject rather than get defensive when someone challenges you're beliefs.

I read a fuckton of ML & Fascist theory. The more I read, the more I understand, the more I hate them.

[hisenemy]

I wanted to study others and behaviours. Now I see through everyone and everything.

Studying human nature and norms so masking isn’t as hard. (It is).

[ehhgg-art]

you ever think about the fact that laios won not by being a monster but by being human.

monsters as we’ve seen throughout the manga are predictable, they have this rhythm to them that, once someone understands, can be used to take them out. take kelpies like anne where laios states that she is just a monster and cannot be trusted. even kensuke is “just a monster after all”, running away from danger when laios needs it most. kensuke is beloved by laios not just because he is a monster, but because laios, in human fashion, anthropomorphized him in his mind (giving him a name, etc.)

but people are different. they are multifaceted, non-monolithic creatures. long lived races are not all pious and apathetic towards short lived races as we see with marcille and senshi. chilchuck actively works against the prejudice against half-foots. tallmen from every region have their cultural differences as we see with shuro and laios/falin. even “demi-humans” like orcs have depth to them, having rich culture and values despite the general idea that they are a violent pillaging race.

even laios’ family and village, the nexus point for his dislike of people, have depth to them. though their parents did not actively protect their children, they did not wish harm on them either. the exorcisms performed on falin by their mother was harmful in laios’ eyes, but helpful in his mother’s perspective.

laios himself, despite loving monsters and hating humans, is so very painfully human. he hates humans but has risked life and literal limb to save his sister and his party. he loves monsters but is aware of their dangerous nature and spares them no mercy.

(big spoilers under the cut)

the winged lion mistook laios as a one dimensional entity, one which only operates on a one track mind without paradox. it thought laios to operate like a monster, and so it approached his desires like one. it believed that laios, being so obsessed with monsters, must behave like one as well, so completely disregarded the fact that laios could have something up his sleeve.

but laios is not a monster, he is human. he has ulterior motives, overlapping beliefs, contradicting values. it is his humanness that made him explain to his party what to do when things went awry. it is his humanness that allowed him to lie. lie to the world about his true plan as well as lie to the winged lion about his intentions.

sure laios WANTS to be a monster, that much is definitely true. but what he IS is a different story. laios is an unpredictable, sporadic, messy human being. it is that fact which the winged lion overlooked, and ultimately led to its downfall and laios’ victory.

[lucidloving]

[ranticore]

do centaurs who would normally have horns (like cows or deer) have them in the ironwall setting? would a cowtaur be expected to be polled as a baby?

I did think pretty hard about including additional animal features above the waist but ultimately decided against it (they have round human ears etc), so I don't think there would be horns at all but I never really considered that either. So... maybe

[albertayebisackey]

“The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion.” — Paulo Coelho

[uncanny-tranny]

Trans people deserve the right to be fucked up without it being equated with if we deserve to, like, live or exist. All people, in some way or another, will be fucked up in a particular way that you might not jibe with and that is not inherently bad

[humanconditionpoetry]

Earth's Voice

Hello Y'all, I got a new poem for you. Sorry if I have not been in as much as I have been in the past few days. I kind of been out of it(in general), trying to regain back some momentum.

That said, I have a simple poem that I hope many of you will like. No, I have not forgotten about Illusions(Expectations vs. Reality), it is coming soon. I am just little typed out of writing, but it is in the editing stage.

That said....enjoy this simple nature poem.

Thanks for understanding and Hope you all have a great day!

Earth's Voice:

I hear the voice of nature in the trees.

It echos within me.

I am Scared to leave...

Nature's pleasant sounds....

are gone by Humans resound.

"Suddenly, I do not smell, hear, feel, taste or even see"

Is this the cast out of paradise like Eve?

Garden's, Flower and Trees lush...

Disappearing in a Rush.

Barren Lands...

Was this parts of God's Plan?

Or was it the Design of Man?

"It Matters not, Now"

The Earth's Singing constructs a vow

"Save me Now or Share your Name , along with others on the ground..."

This too is also a allowed.

"Save What was once so profound...."

"Don't let greed win another round"

I leave to save the Earth's Key...

Nature, her every beating heartbeat.

Nature preceded Civilization.... Civilization with no restraints or connections, ends Nature.

[poligraf]

« An Allegory Of The Spiritual Condition Of Man » by William Blake

[now-you-sound-like-a-jedi]

Taking a course on ancient warfare and military history as part of my masters, I hope you're all ready for several long analyses applying sociological theories of violence and warfare to Mandalore