#that any and all belief we have were going to enforce to our kids

[mx-paint]

.

[thestarseersystem]

...... about the little syscourse going on.

hypersexual littles are real. alters splitting from a hypersexual child are bound to be at least hypersexual. so its not cool to be like, "ew littles should never approach or think about this topic, and if you do try to discuss it, you're a pedophile". Please don't. Hypersexuality, especially in emotionally stuck or stunted parts are bound to feel attached to being treated or "loved" that way. Because that's the only way they know how to cope, even if it's problematic or wrong. It's just a part of some people's realities.

Not all littles are even fucking children. They hold traits and have a connection to childhood memories. Littles refer to the psychological, "inner child". Some system's "inner child", are just more like physical minors, and some are not like physical minors at all.

No one is saying every little ever can consent. Most of us are just referring to the fact that all our alters are capable and deserving of autonomy, not that we want to force or make people have sex. That's fucking crazy. And anyone who does say that can fucking die.

Saying littles can consent is not saying they necessarily need or want to consent, it's saying they have the choice and decision to consent if they so choose. And if you think that people are going to manipulate or coerce our littles into saying yes, you're going to have to get through at least 15 other alters, all armed to the teeth in preparation of a day ever happening like this. If you think we aren't capable of handling it ourselves, you are extremely mistaken.

And have you ever even thought that perhaps enforcing rules or ideas that our alters need to be regulated or controlled, could be reenacting abuse onto us? Have you ever thought that perhaps the hypersexuality is a coping mechanism to try to make the way we have been controlled all throughout our childhood, something desirable or nice? Have you ever thought that maybe the lack of power we had as kids were the reason we were violated, and that this is the only way we can ensure healthy protection?

I'm not saying that you EVER have to make your littles consent, and I'm not saying it's healthy or good for you to do so. I am saying that it is not fair to accuse someone of being predatory just because they say "littles can consent". I am saying it is not right and not your duty to make sure other alters from systems are safe. I am saying that you should treat everyone as if they have the right to consent, because they are a human being that is deserving of human rights.

Everyone deserves autonomy, no matter what, even for people who you think should be controlled or regulated or "protected". But do not, never enforce your ideas or beliefs or "protection" onto someone else without their express permission to do so.

Because this is what it's all about. You do not have permission to tell any of my alters what to do, regardless of their role or status in my system, have I made that clear?

[emptymanuscript]

I actually wonder (going very selfish and thinking purely of myself and then whipping that around to apply to everyone else with no terribly good reason for it) if it is a particularly good example of fear projection as a way to enforce social norms.

Again, purely thinking of myself, I know a lot of the problem that I used to have with furries was "academic." I didn't KNOW any furries. I didn't actually INTERACT with any furries. My whole experience of them was other people denigrating them and their proclivities. My extended social network deemed them weird. So they were weird. And there were all these examples of why. Mountains of reasons.

But just as important is who I was / am.

When I first encountered the idea of furries I was the sort of person who liked to dress up, get into costume, to play pretend. I was a veteran GM. I was a LARPER, "Let me tell you about my Malkavian." I was a person in a social group that was denigrated by higher tiers of social groups as the weird ones.

At this point, my wife and I jokingly debate whether the things we regularly dress up as every year for our special event are our fursonas because they don't have fur. We were initially resistant to the idea because of the previously held beliefs that furries are weird. But there's really no escaping that we are furries. Which... why does that matter?

Well, furries are weird. It's the given social norm. It's axiomatic, tautological, definitional. It's how the concept is introduced. You don't start with someone giving you a bland wikipedia or dictionary snippet. You start with someone saying look at this weird thing I just found. The introduction is couched in the context of social normalization: these people are OTHER.

In my experience, the less comfortable people are within a social context, the more concerned those people are with the social dictates of that context. That can be transgressive (violating the norms) or conservative (obeying the norms) in expression. I've seen both. I've done both. But, either way, that discomfort is an intense driver of awareness, meaning, and "action."

For myself, I tend to be conservative in my discomfort. When I feel safe, I don't think about it. When I am uncomfortable, my go to strategy is people pleasing. At my worst, I won't just not say no, I'll try to say yes before you ask the question. My favorite definition of Codependency (which I definitely have) is, "You're fine. How am I?" And that is absolutely a fear response. I am absolutely terrified of screwing up my standing in the social space.

We all come from a background where people were mean and punished us for social non-conformity. If we're lucky, that was just a few assholes at school that we only interacted with rarely and could brush off because of our strong social network of support. If we're unlucky, that can get real nasty, real fast. It's a matter of degree. But there is at least a little Pavlovian discomfort embedded in all of us.

For myself, who was relatively low in the social hierarchy growing up, my discomfort is pretty high.

How do you climb the social hierarchy?

You do stuff that gets approved of. You support the people higher up that can give you that approval. You gather a sub-network to protect your back. You backstab the people that take up space that is in your way of moving up. You add people below you so that you are higher than them because the more people there are below you, the higher you are.

So, if you're a weird kid who likes to play dress up and do a lot of pretend and your low on the social ladder and you're just waiting for the backstab and you're desperate to please because the last thing you want to do is go any farther down, and one of your own, in your sub-network, comes to you and gives the standard introduction of 'omg, I just saw the weirdest thing! have you heard of furries?' what do you do?

If you're me, and you tend toward being conservative in your expression, you try and say, 'that's a little weird,' just looking at the costume, before they even tell you the full weirdness of the circumstances.

And they've set you up for it. They're certainly not showing the coolest, prettiest fursuit to you. They're not finding the jaw-dropping one. They're near you because they're in your social network. The LAST thing they want to risk is showing you something with the set up that it is weird and having you go on about how cool and awesome it is, and they're a loser for not appreciating the artistry. So they've found the expression that is particularly likely to have you think it is weird. This will be selected for effect for the exact same reasons why I'll respond conservatively. It's to create an affirmation of the social bond to make sure we're in this together. And to put us both above these OTHER people, moving us up by moving them down.

This is doubly important when it evokes a shadow of yourself.

Furries were doing exactly what I was doing. Just with a different social veneer. So not only could I move up by shoving them down, I could also differentiate our habits, establish that there were good and bad versions of the same actions. I dress up but I dress up as a take on classical literature to tell sophisticated stories, not animals. There's value in what I do and they're corrupting that. The social order is natural and my place is earned. Making it less likely that I'll move down. Making it look and feel like it is more my choice to be where I am. Etc.

But you're also probably already pointing at the elephant I already put in the room. I mentioned I have a fusona. The biggest benefit for all this is the ability to say, "I am NOT that bad thing." Denial. Nobody who is 100% sure that they would never be into anything that a furry would be into is going to care. It's those of us with something that makes us uncomfortable, who recognizes just a little bit more than we like of ourselves in the OTHER, that has to put all our effort into shoving them down and making them OTHER and keeping them OTHER.

And, yes, that's absolutely why the people who push so damn hard for anti LGBTQIA+ goals keep getting found getting railed in the sort of sex they rail against. Their campaign against LGBTQIA+ communities is a way to make themselves "good" by putting that bad thing onto OTHER people. It's a way to get rid of it. To purify and protect themselves. To stab their own in the back in order to secure themselves a safe space against the enemies they just know are all around them.

Same shit, different day, and maybe fiddling with the volume.

You are most uncomfortable with what you are AFRAID you are and so are desperate to rid yourself of. Because there's no way to be safe from that element, it lives inside of you. There's no end point. Which means things have to escalate because no matter what you do, you're still you. Always. It is stuck. That's why OTHERING is so dangerous. Because it can only work temporarily. Eventually that part of yourself that you put on the OTHER is recognized as still being there. So you HAVE to deal with it again.

The trick is all in feeling safe. It's in feeling comfortable. It's in being ok with that part of yourself. It's in being ok with what other people want to do because you realize it isn't a threat to you.

Which is exactly why so much of our society is fear based. Because as long as we're uncomfortable, we'll act and work toward a goal that can be set. Comfortable people do their own thing and let other people do theirs. That's why so much of our rhetoric is aimed at people who are comfortable. Because comfortable people are extremely difficult to control and won't put forth effort to help control others. Comfort is the enemy of conformity.

So, for me, what let me get over my furry-phobia, was really experiencing a social environment where that was ok. It became ok for others to be furries because I started existing in a social space where I could be as furry-like or not as I wanted without social repercussions. Yeah, I can dress up like that and it's cool and the people I care about won't think less of me for it, if anything, they want to help me rock it better.

Every improvement I have made in my life has been based in acceptance. Not necessarily agreement or allowance. I don't want to give the impression of universal permissiveness. I have had some valuable conversations where people have said they can understand that, they don't agree and don't think I should act in that manner, but they are ok with the feeling I am having and having the feeling doesn't make me a worse person. We just need to figure out a different expression for that feeling so I can act on it without it being damaging. But I do want to push for the idea that permissiveness can stand to be extremely higher than it is. Much of our daily lives has the level of impact on each other that we CHOOSE for it to have. It can be much lower. We can accept a lot more difference than we currently do as a society in general.

Over and over again, I have experienced that as I dare to force myself to let go of what I am afraid of, I find myself in commonality with what I feared. That it is the permission to be like that thing with less fear of social backlash that lets me give the fear up. AND, I would say that there does seem to be a tendency of overlap. That it's not just taking on a new social network as a master that I agree with. It's the freedom to be alike without being identical because the permission is actually just that it is ok to be different, that that's not what I'm going to be punished for.

And I will delete the rest and force myself to shut up, now.

hating furries is just a silencer on the gun that is hating on lgbt+ tbh

[thejesusmaninred]

"The Millstone." From Mark 9: 42-50.

For and against are matters of the mix of perspectives one employs in order to prepare for the Mashiach, "global harmlessness."

One who is for the Christ is a disciple, one who is not against Him practices another religion but likewise seeks the liberation of mankind from manmade suffering. According to the Gospel, each and every time we challenge tyranny, we do the right thing.

But what about people that still want to do the wrong things? We are still, for example, grappling with significant incidents of pederasty and pedophilia all around the world. The Mormons, Evangelicals, Anglicans, Catholics, and Jehovahs Witlesses encourage it in spite of the fact sex with minors is legally forbidden by the public, it is forbidden by the Torah in Eden and once again in the Gospels. Still people like Mitt Romney claim giving little kids a shot of crystal meth and having intercourse "brings them to Jesus Christ."

Most people do not believe this and I'm sure the police are doing everything. But the passage we are about to study next discusses the foreground society creates around young persons and what is appropriate if we want to create the Son of Man, the Ninth Degree of human evolution according to the Gospel Torah.

Providing very young children with extreme sexual experiences is not the secret to civil society. The ones I witnessed were treated like little gods and goddesses, were given lots of drugs and paraphernalia, and were very experienced, as experienced as their adult caretakers, except they could not be reasoned with. The internal mannerisms had been narrowed to the point the needs, feelings, rights, and predicaments of others did not register. Rep. Thomas Massie (R) called sex with little kids and sexual assault of strangers "practicing his faith." His discussions with Senator Mitch McConnell (R) about this would peel paint.

They, like Mitt Romney and Mike Pence and the rest think of the practices as religious freedoms to which they are entitled regardless of what the law says. They extend themselves additional legal professional courtesies when this belief gets them in trouble including the right to murder whistleblowers.

The man Donald Trump hired to kill me after I whistleblew on his election fraudulence in 2016 was a pedophile. He and the members of his faith and their kids have troubled me in some way, every day, to this very day as a consequence of my phone calls to law enforcement about the information I had.

So a bunch of supersexies running around is not good for society in any way, pretending or looking the other way is the stumbling block we need to remove. Illegal, unethical, or immoral practices are clearly not a part of our lives, but about that is not what the Christ was speaking. In Judaism we do not say justice is blind we say it has one hand and one eye.

To avoid stumbling, to stay on your feet, Jesus does not mean we start cutting body parts off, however. The Number for "to stumble" is 597, עשר or shishah asar = to become pure, observe the Six Days and the Ten Decrees= observe Shabbat.

Causing to Stumble

42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 

43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] [b] 

45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 

47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,

 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not die,     and the fire is not quenched.’[d]

49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

A millstone uses the water of the intellect to grind the kernels of wisdom in the Torah into flour. To hang it around one's neck is to insist upon a society that is beholden to the laws and ethics upon which civil communities are founded. The "water power" for these are found within the Seven Wells.

The Values in Gematria are:

v. 42: It is better for those who believe. The Number is 11744, ד‎יאזד‎ ‎ ‎, duniyazad, "to lay on the dynamic side" = "the power to advance by doing something strikingly moral."

From the verb δυναμαι (dunamai), meaning "to be able to" or "to have the opportunity to" or "to be equal to" comes the noun δυναμις (dunamis), which unfortunately lacks a proper English equivalent. Translations often render this word as "power" but, as argued above, that is really much too strong. And since this noun often describes the key element of some of the New Testament's most quoted evergreens, a lengthy look at this word is certainly warranted.

Our noun essentially describes "something that can be done" or "something for which the opportunity exists" in as broadly a way as the parent verb means "to can". Our noun may describe one single act that lies within the range of abilities or opportunities of some doer, or it may cover the whole range of things that someone is capable of, whether because of personal skill, some inferred authority or autonomy, sheer lack of resistance from the environment or an opportunity offered by that environment.

It denotes any deed, action or effect arising from whatever ability, agility or angle. It's an as general word as "thing" and differs from "thing" only in that it implies ability-due-action. It also describes anything that someone can do, not necessarily something strikingly mighty or something that no one else can do: simply an ability or a thing done.

v. 43-44: It is better to enter life maimed. "Look right, do not look around." The Number is 10056, קהו‎ ‎ ‎"be blunt."

v. 45-46: It is better to enter life crippled. People who are crippled always go to the right way, they have to. The Number is 8717, ףזאז‎‎, fazaz, פסאז‎‎, "the passage."

="The Great Hillel."

v. 47-48: If your causes you to stumble, you will enter hell. = Kabbalah is required to understand the Torah and the Gospels and the Quran. Even in the East, where the Upanishads are studied there is a clear distinction made between what is legend and what is the real truth underneath the foriegn characters.

The Number is 13924,יגטבד‎, "I'll be fine, I got it."

v. 49-50, "...when everyone is salted with fire." The Number is 11997, יאץט‎ז‎, "advised by the Seven."

There are Seven Saints in Judaism and they have Seven Wives and each couple represents Seven Degrees. The eighth is called Sukkoth, self-esteem, which is the womb for the Ninth, called the Son of Man, or a world without strife, one God has reserved for people who have salt, who have it made.

Salt, or #211, Baa, the A1 Quality, "What is clearly and distinctly a feature of the most learned, the enlightened," is defined inwardly and outwardly by what is called Chesed.

"As one of “the three pillars upon which the world stands,” chesed stems from the responsibility of each individual to help others in need.2 Classic acts of chesed (kindness) in Torah literature include visiting the sick, helping to bury the dead, and inviting guests.

The blueprint for acts of chesed is G‑d Himself. We are commanded to “follow in the ways of G‑d.”3 What does that mean? The Talmud4 explains that this means to emulate the acts of kindness that G‑d does. Just as He clothed the naked by making clothing for Adam and Eve,5 so must we provide clothing for those in need. Just as He buried the dead by putting Moses in his final resting place,6 so must we must assist those who need help with burials.

Of course, beyond these examples, any action taken to help or assist another can be termed “an act of chesed.”

[600shekels]

2 Chronicles 15: 10-19. "The Brother of Happiness."

10 They assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa’s "the healer's" reign. 

The third month is called Sivan, after the formal name of the area around Mount Sinai, also called Horeb, where man audiences with God.

The Fifteenth Year = 1530, fifteen years X 30 days= 180 or "the Infinite Brother" = El Shaddai, the "Protective Spirit, who destroys and builds, who milks the mountain."

In cognate languages, these same nouns also mean [wet] mountain, and beside the link between a moist, fruitful mountain and a milk dispensing breast: milk is dispensed to infants, whereas the belief in supernatural bullies is a mark of an immature mind.

To say the Kingdom of Israel needed a "Healer King" after it was told it couldn't languish while children were trying to run things, which allowed racism to take hold must make one think our potential for lasting progress is small.

Such a reconciliation between the King and the People over the tenets of basic humanity was absurdity in the making- but these things happen- so back to the slopes of Sinai and the Revelation of the Torah by the God of Israel disguised as a Thorn Bush we must go:

11 At that time they sacrificed to the Lord seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep and goats from the plunder they had brought back.

The sacrifice of any kind of animal is to undertake the precepts in the Torah and be done with the reprehenable, dysfunctional, suicidal, and homicidal aspects of human history. This is not done over and over. It is done once, the Law is enforced, we recover, we live on.

Seven hundred cattle, 100 head of cattle a day means 100 Blessings a Day, indigenous to the grandeur of God being made manifest in each Day are replace the tendency to sin. To live in accordance with the principals named as the

The Seven Days, lived minus the Seven Deadly Sins in strict accordance with the Seven Noahide Laws are what is meant by the sacrifice of the 700 Cattle.

Seven thousand sheeps and goats= little kids are not going to find themselves convicted of immoral acts, but they will witness them if they take place in their surroundings. They will likewise benefit from as much upright character in their environment as can possibly be provided.

The sacrifice of animals whether routinely or for the sake of course correction is always a healthy experience for the sheep to witness:

12 They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. 

13 All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 

There is no doubt about it, anyone who takes office and is a racist, an anarchist, an apostate, is corrupt- a liar or a parasite who lusts for power and acts out in direct opposition to the Decrees, this person must be put to death. Their supporters, their financiers, their partners, lawyers, friends, anyone who was a part of it must be put to death.

Societies who enforce laws that curb corruption are never, ever sorry they did. And now we know doing so is mandatory, so let's not be sorry:

14 They took an oath to the Lord with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 

Shouting=

Shkoyach is a condensed version of the Hebrew phrase Yeyasher Kochacha, literally, "May your strength be directed forward." Ironically, the "forward extension" was shortened, and people didn't have the koach (strength) to say the two guttural 'ch' sounds at the end, so it became Yasher Koach, which when said quickly sounds like Shkoyach.

Shkoyach is a versatile expression. It can be used to say bravo for a great sermon, good on you for being called to the Torah, or thank you for passing the herring. But the meaning is always the same. You have done something good, you should have the strength to do more.

This is much deeper than just saying thank you. Thank you is an acknowledgement of the good deed that has been done in the past. Shkoyach also encourages more good deeds in the future. It is bravo and encore rolled into one.

The message is that no matter how much good we have done, we can always increase. No matter how much we know, we can always learn more. As you know from your conversion process, in Judaism the learning never ends. The Talmud says, "Don't be shy to ask, or you will never learn."

Trumpets =

The Talmud4 tells us that the trumpets were to be made by Moses and they were only for him and not for subsequent generations.

The Menorah, a basic staple of the Temple, is a fundamental symbol of our faith. It represents the G‑dly light, the Torah, the spiritual enlightenment with which the Temple illuminates the world.

Conversely the trumpets that Moses fashioned were simply tools, a “microphone” to call the people to assemble, to lead them into battle, or to announce special festive days.

The Menorah was the message. The trumpets were the medium. One is a basic core value; the other is a means to an end, a method of communication. One is eternal and non-negotiable; the other is guided by pragmatics. If a trumpet doesn’t work and someone invents a loudspeaker, we may well put aside the trumpet and embrace the new loudhailer.

Every generation needs a Menorah (and the fact that we do not have a Holy Temple now is tragic), but not every generation needs trumpets.

Horns=

The Shofar, the horn of a ram with the marrow removed are what convey the blessings of the words of the Torah, the Trumpet into the mind.

Technically speaking, only adult males are obligated to hear shofar. However, women should certainly make the effort to fulfill this mitzvah (in fact, some say that since women have accepted this mitzvah, it has become obligatory for them, and they, too, make the blessing before hearing the shofar), and even small children should be brought to synagogue to hear it. After all, the shofar speaks to the soul of every Jew.

Marrow, or the heart of the bone, is associated with Daat, the essence of the bone or the evidence. When the ego essence is removed from the ramboy's horns and they are empty of any essence other than the pure evidence being drawn in from the outside world, Daat is what is received.

15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the Lord gave them rest on every side.

Once the Evidence Godly Efforts, called Torahs have had their impact and are now rote habit either through the concept of the Temple Portico or the mandates of law, God says we must observe Shabbat.

Shabbat, which means "changes of direction until the objective is reached" is the end point of an era, after which the new one begins. It is similar to the Eastern ideal called Nirvikalpa Samadhi, which means "unwavering union between the subject and the object."

Shabbat like Samadhi follows the same course a point of light follows when reaching an object of perception, called the 7 Days. There is no be returning to any state of delusion or iniquity once Shabbat has been achieved.

שוב

The verb שוב (shub) tells of a reversal in motion; the point where an upward motion becomes a downward one, or vice versa, or a westward motion an eastward one, and so on. This very frequently occurring verb is mostly translated with to turn or return, and is often used to mean to convert or return to a more fruitful way of life, and hence to restore, to retrieve or even to abstain, to reply and to repeat. Noun שובה (shuba) means withdrawal; noun שיבה (shiba) means restoration, and noun תשובה (teshuba) means answer. Adjectives שובב (shobab), שובב (shobeb) and משובה (meshuba) mean backsliding, or transitioning from a positive to a negative way of life.

Verb ישב (yashab) means to sit (the act which occurs precisely in between a person's descent and ascent) or to remain or dwell (in between traveling to and from some place). Nouns שבת (shebet) and מושב (moshab) mean both seat or dwelling place. Noun תושב (toshab) means sojourner.

The verb שבת (shabbat) means to rest or cease activity, and the familiar noun שבת (shabbat) means a rest or stoppage

16 King Asa also deposed his grandmother Maakah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive image for the worship of Asherah. Asa cut it down, broke it up and burned it in the Kidron Valley. 

Asher-Ah = the Brother of Happiness

Nouns אשר ('esher), אשר ('ashar) and אשר ('osher) mean happiness or blessedness. Nouns אשור (ashur) and אשר (ashur) mean a step, a walk or a going. The noun תאשור (te'ashur) refers to a kind of tree (a happy tree? a progressing tree?).

Maakah = Pressure

מעך

The verb מעך (ma'ak) means to press or squeeze. It's used a mere three times in the Old Testament.

Kidron Valley= valley of gloom

The Queen Mum, Maakah is deposed:

Remember, brotherly relationships in the Torah never, ever work. As soon as the big brother's heyday passes, which it does the second the next generation is born, he is cast out.

Grandma Maakah wasn't showing signs of letting go so into the Big Valley she went, wheelchair and all.

The Gematria states this means no more hard times:

And The Famine Was Over All The Face Of The Earth And Joseph Opened All The Storehouses And Sold Unto The Egyptians And The Famine Waxed Sore In The Land Of Egypt.

The value In Gematria Is 8514, had, hawd, or awd, = to advance, or Hadash.

חדש

The verb חדש (hadash), means to repair or renew. This verb covers situations in which an old situation is replaced by a better new one: ancient ruins will be rebuilt (Isaiah 61:4); Saul gathered the people at Gilgal to renew the kingdom (1 Samuel 11:14); and king David famously requested a renewed spirit from God (Psalm 51:10).

17 Although he did not remove the high places from Israel, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the Lord all his life. 

18 He brought into the temple of God the silver and gold and the articles that he and his father had dedicated.

19 There was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of Asa’s reign.

The Gematria for v. 19 is "A Hebrew Sheva" also a "highly perceptive person", which I suspect means the end of one's young adult preoccupations with independence, which are forsaken for the rigors and benefits of marriage and the homestead:

שית

The verb שית (shyt) means to give, set or place firm. Noun שית (shyt) refers to occupational garb, the dress upon which the profession stands. Noun שת (shat) describes a national foundation; whatever a nation is set on.

While a war is not necessary in order for people to learn to live with each other and satisfy the nation's requirements for a happy marriage, transition is definitely in order, and this is often referred to as a war by the Torah.

The celebration of marriages and other sane national institutions are also signs all the commotion, diseases, tyrannies, and troubles of the past are indeed coming to an end. Sometimes, pressing antiquated ideas of progress, which can be enemies of the things that make us all happy in timeless ways are best left in the past.

Hence, the reason the King of Israel took grandma to the old corner Jewish Nursing Home and never went back to visit.

[dolugecat]

On some Japanese social issues I had learned about at uni and abroad):

(Rb ok!)

Legit had an epiphany about the true hidden meaning of the last arc of Mob Psycho 100. It’s hella projection but for real there is nothing neurotypical about Mob or Mob Psycho. I do not wish to enforce my interpretation on others (ironic bc I do that all the time but this is a serious social theory). There are some interesting and very sad social issues in Japan that the west really doesn’t understand but would I think help people understand a lot of context behind not only Mob Psycho, but also a lot of other anime. I learned this at my shitty university (prestigious but horrific) and while studying abroad in Japan and talking with Japanese peers. Get ready here we go (and tw for bullying and darker things):

Unfortunately in East Asian education systems, bullying can be extremely intense. Growing up I assumed it was over exaggerated extremely in anime for drama but it really can be so horrific. From what I’ve heard, there is often a single kid or so who is just shit on by everyone else, even the teacher. Mogami land *is* the reality of some Japanese kids. I’ve read that in Korea, this social punching bag sometimes is just the darkest skinned person (yayyy colorism /angry) and or someone who does not fit in. I mean, we have that in America too, but maybe not as common for the bullying to be as focused on one misfit rather than several. These kids just can’t escape the stigma too, kids from other schools find out they were a major victim at their old school and it starts anew. Thus there is so much stigma and incentive to join in on bullying so you aren’t the one. Sadly, this also ofc leads to higher suicide rates. That’s where the “shoe on building roof” anime trope comes in, bc somehow taking off shoes is relayed to death (I forgot why sorry)

There is a difference in how intense in general high school vs college is too. In the West, commonly college is the more intense curriculum and is harder than high school, but in Japan it’s usually the opposite. Grind suuuupppeeerrrr hard for entrance exams (huge standardized tests that determines what college you can qualify to) bc unlike the ACT or SAT here, that test is by far the most important factor for college admission. Then chill and relax a bit in college. Can’t relate. Name and prestige is very critical for job application, more important than here. That’s why planning out your future is sooo much more intense for Japanese high schoolers than in America, and why there is sooo much more pressure to excel in high school than here. Japanese school years and holidays are done different than ours, I’d suggest looking it up.

Social prestige of going to an American high school or college is nuts. Like whyyy do you value our shitty education, Japan’s is much higher quality (it’s bc we neo colonized them). Being able to speak English is very, very highly valued and any association with Americans make you cooler. From my experience, some Japanese students got very excited to practice speaking English with us, and their biggest issues with learning it is pronunciation, lmao. Wasai english is unique slang that is indeed English words but it’s kinda different and it’s kinda jarring to remember lol. So, Teru having parents that are working overseas isn’t too uncommon, idk about leaving him absolutely alone, but I did have a ex-friend who just came from Japan in middle school who’s situation probably wasn’t too far off from that. Empty wealth with no love, it’s no wonder those kind of people can end up being huge bullies (minori?)

I did a presentation on 引きこもり(hikikomori) for which means “shut in”, (like Serizawa) and it’s fucked up. It’s a social phenomena where according to some Japanese researchers a mix of undisciplined parenting, guilt/not living up to expectations, and hopelessness makes an alarming amount of youth/ young adults literally never go out side their house/room. Often a parent is “enabling” the behavior by supporting them, but idk the articles seemed a bit victim-blaming to me when I read it, but I don’t think I should make a judgement too hard, not my place. I will say I do suspect and believe I read something to support that ASD might play a role in hikikomoris (there is pitiful resources for autistic people in Asia, much much less support than even here, to the point I don’t think most know it exists). Like come on, with the other points I laid out my personal opinion as an Asian American with autism is that it really seems it’s unknowing ableism against autistic classmates, but I didn’t grow up in Asia so I don’t want to say.

Mental health in general is tragically quite abysmal in Japan, and with it being so hyper competitive and brutal work culture, it’s no surprise birth rate in Japan is so low; some Japanese young adults say it seems unethical to bring a life to such hostile world. Suicide rate is of the highest in the world. It’s fucked, I’ve interacted with some of the locals in Tokyo and they were so nice, but the business men just looked dead inside, it’s so sad.

Relationships between child and parent is also strained bc of this intense work and school culture. Quality time is too scarce when you gotta work so much. And the pressure from parents to do well in education or else you might end up socially stigmatized is rough. Bc your job is who you are, it’s hyper capitalism (thanks us for making them do this)

With autism being so unknown, support for parents in raising autistic kids is almost nonexistent. What happens if the “darker” side of ASD shows up in kids? I used to be a menace when I had meltdowns, I felt so bad but really just became so indiscriminately violent. See where this is going? Legit, I think ESP is a sort of metaphor for neurodivergance to ONE. There is so much stigma around it, and even less way for kids to understand why they are different than the others. My Korean family can’t admit we all got ASD, too much fear and internalized shame.

I got finally diagnosed with ASD as an adult and I’ll tell ya, I relate too much to Mob hurting Ritsu. I felt so bad, but also not in control, I knew what I was doing but not how to stop. Luckily, is was blessed in that my hyperfixations involved science and logic, so I did well at school. Sadly, our boy Mob just don’t got the passion or ability to do well at school. His kanji is very bad, even to point of not being confident he wrote a kanji (世) they learn when they are 9, in elementary school (thanks @katyatalks). Him being a bit berated by his parents for having bad grades and bending spoons seems harsh to Westerners I think, but IMO it’s pretty tame from what I’ve seen of some Asian parents (I get to say that lmao). Ofc, however the shaming is very real and Mob just agreeing with them about how weird and stupid he thinks he is so sad. There is even more pressure for the eldest to be better than here, I feel from some interactions. Nonetheless, it’s implied Mob is quite emotionally detached from his parents, even though he loves them, which also adds to his emotional complex. Combined with originally fragile self esteem and feelings of worthlessness, we got one emotionally stunted boy. However, contrary to common belief people with ASD are sometimes hyper empathic and experience emotions very intensely. We are prone to having “meltdowns” which if not assisted with can be quite violent if very intense. For me, my worse meltdowns as a kid came from when I didn’t understand why I wasn’t getting what I wanted, it seemed selfish and cruel of me but I couldn’t control it. I wanted to be a good kid, so why did hit my moms leg at target when she refused to buy me Pokémon toys? I couldn’t come up with a good reason for why my mind just commanded my body to do bad things, just a single thought was controlling me, I want I want I want I want I want ____. Which I argue could be what ???% represents… bc well…. Yeah….. hmm….. not in control of self (mob unconscious), selfish (not actually, I’ve forgave myself but my “normal” kid self was so ashamed), destructive, hurt family, wanting to stop but can’t, that’s kind of…. Too relatable.

But legit, since realizing my new HC, I’ve started to think of the last chapter of mp100 when I “explode” and it helps me feel better and I do gain “control” a bit easier. I don’t feel so bad anymore either, Mob!

[scuttle-buttle]

What's One More?

WC: 3204

Rated: M

Tags: brief mentions of crime/mental illness/child abuse and neglect/substance addiction/theft, fluff, family dynamics, mentions of aging, mentions of difficult pregnancy, softness, anxiety attack

🧠

The harsh vibrating of a phone on the nightstand breaks your slumber. Still half asleep you toss your arm back to thump against your sleeping husband's side. With a groan he answers. You try to settle back into your pillow and the warmth of the blanket. Whoever has the balls to call at this hour has another thing coming - but later because your priority is going back to sleep.

He can't have been on the call more than fifteen seconds before he sits up in bed suddenly, turning on the bedside lamp; his movements grab your attention. You roll over. The light blinds you and you rub at your eyes to adjust. You can't make out what's being said. Looking at the clock to see that it's barely 4 am you know something bad has happened. Quietly you slip out from the covers.

Making your way down the hall you peek into your daughter's room, grateful that she's still fast asleep. Her soft snores punctuate the calm. Your nerves abate knowing she’s safe. By the time you get back to the bedroom Laszlo is up and getting dressed. "What's going on?"

He doesn't answer at first. You wait until he's finished buttoning his shirt to ask again. "Sara was called to consult on a triple homicide case - she's asked for me to come down to the police station. I don't know much yet, but it's something involving a young boy and she wants me to speak with him."

“Did he…?”

“No. He was not directly involved, that much we know.”

You nod, leaning against the door frame. This wasn't the first time that Laszlo had been called in by law enforcement and social services to assist with children and teens that needed psychological help. He had become more active around the time you graduated with your doctorate. After Sophia was born Laszlo helped fund an after school program for kids that focused on support for mental health and behavioral issues. He was so passionate about being able to help these kids. But it was never at this ungodly hour. "You'll call or something when you know what's up?" you ask through a yawn.

"Of course, Bärchen." He gives you a chaste peck. Gently he guides you back towards your bed and sits you down. "Go back to sleep, there's no need to worry. I love you." With that he left.

Your sleep is fitful with him gone. You worry over things that you aren't even aware of, over who is hurt, over how severe a situation it could be to have been called in the middle of the night, over the poor boy that needs Laszlo’s help. When your daughter tiptoes into the room around 6 you welcome her into the bed with open arms.

"Why are you up, baby bug?"

"Where's Papa?" She climbs up on his side of the bed and rubs his cold pillow. On her face is a deep frown.

"He had to go help some very important people early this morning. He'll be back to see you soon, I promise."

"I miss him. He always helps me with my shoes."

You can't help the smile that crosses your face. "I know, baby. But it's still early so let's take a nap before we have to get ready, hmm?" The two of you snuggle under the covers. With her curled into your side you do find rest, even for the short time before your alarm chimes.

The day moves sluggish as you wait for word from your husband. Little work was to be done today at the museum, so there wasn't much to keep your mind off the wondering. You considered calling. You considered texting. But you knew that when the time was right he would let you know. No news is good news, you think.

Finally the day came to a close. You picked up Sophia and stopped by the store on the way home to grab supplies for dinner. She insisted that she carry one of the bags inside - little miss independent that she was. “Careful not to drop it, okay? Use those muscles of yours to hold the bag tight.”

“Mama I know, I help Papa carry all the time,” she explains matter-of-factly.

The townhouse is quiet as you begin to unpack. You do a quick glance into the dining room and parlor to no avail. "Laz, honey? You home?" A few seconds later you hear movement from the stairs.

Your husband rounds the corner into the kitchen, swooping down to scoop your daughter into his left arm, peppering her face in exaggerated smooches. Her giggles light up the room from the dim atmosphere. He perches her on his hip. “How was your day my little dove?”

“So good Papa - I practiced my counting today at school. I can get the biggest in the class! Mommy said I must be the most smartest," she prattles on.

“Wunderbar!” he praises her before turning to you. “I didn't hear you come in." Laszlo kisses you.

Pinning him with a look you say "you also didn't call me today? You said you would and I've been worried all day."

Sophia crosses her arms and harrumphs from her father's hip; "me too Papa." He quirks an eyebrow at her before speaking.

"Yes… there is something I wished to speak with you on but didn't think it was suitable for the phone." You raise your own brows but continue to put away groceries. "I do not wish to discuss certain aspects of the case in present company-" he nods towards Sophia minutely "-but we do have a houseguest for the foreseeable future."

"Oh?" Your brows dip in confusion. This is not what you were expecting.

Laszlo peeks around the doorway and calls out "Stevie, would you come join us in the kitchen please."

Stevie? You don't know a Stevie...

A moment later a lanky boy with scruffy dark blond hair shuffles into the room. He can't be anymore than 15. His clothes are too big on him and his shoes are worn beyond belief; nevertheless he gives you a slight smile. “This is Stevie Taggert, he’s going to be staying here with us in the guest room for now.”

“Good evening Mrs. Kreizler,” the boy says nervously, his voice cracking.

You spare a look at your husband before turning to the teenager with a smile. “Ah, no need for that, kid. You can just call me by my name instead. And welcome to our home. You like spaghetti?”

“Yes ma’am.”

“Awesome! And I’m certainly not old enough to be a ma’am,” you give him a wink. You set up a pot to boil the water for the pasta. Laszlo excused himself to spend some time with Sophia, leaving you and Stevie in the kitchen.

He clears his throat behind you. “Would um… is there anything I can do to help?”

"I would love that, thank you."

The two of you get to work on making dinner. Stevie doesn’t say too much, but he is very polite and does his best to be useful. Once the food is nearly finished your family has returned ready to eat. You send Stevie and Sophia to set the table.

“Should I be worried?” you ask Laszlo quietly, watching the doorway the two left through.

“I don’t think so. I just felt that I would rather he have a familiar face to adjust with instead of being placed in a group home like many end up.”

You study his face. “You’ve taken a liking to him haven’t you?”

“Well…" his face reddens at your question. "He reminds me a bit of myself when I was his age.” The conversation is cut short by the kids returning.

The rest of dinner and the evening goes smoothly. You make it a point to not bring up any questions that could trigger the teenager, especially before you’ve spoken with Laszlo about the situation at hand. When Stevie nearly eats his weight in pasta you say nothing, wondering how long it's been since he's had a good home cooked meal. He insists on helping clean up the dishes afterwards. Without even knowing what the boy has gone through your heart aches for him.

You set him up in the small renovated basement downstairs while Laszlo puts Sophia to bed. Handing him one of your husband’s old Harvard t-shirts to sleep in you tell him “I’m sorry you’ll be down here by yourself, but if you need us for anything don’t be afraid to come get us - no matter what time it is, okay? And if you get cold there’s an extra blanket right here for you. I know it's July but….” you shrug. “Tomorrow after I get home from work we can go to the store and get you some stuff to use, some more clothes, that kinda thing.”

“Yes ma’am.” At the teasing look you give him his ears burn red with his mumbled “right sorry.”

“Alright Stevie. We’ll see you in the morning, sleep well.”

Laszlo is in bed reading when you enter the room. Nothing is said as you ready yourself for bed. Slipping under the covers you face him. He sighs and closes his book.

“I’m sorry I didn’t call. I became caught up in the day and only arrived home with Stevie maybe half an hour before you did.” He sighs a second time. “Most of the case I cannot talk about, but what I can say is he was living with his mentally ill father, whom was also an addict. He missed the last few weeks of the school year and has been regularly stealing food to get by. He has no other family. I just… it didn’t feel right to let him process his experiences away from someone properly trained to deal with these sorts of things, in addition to how traumatic entering foster care at his age can be. I spoke with those in social services and was granted temporary custody until we find another more permanent solution.”

“Of course.”

He takes hold of your hand. “You aren’t upset with me?”

“I mean it would’ve been nice to have a bit more warning… but I get it. He can stay as long as he needs to. He’s a sweet kid,” you reassure him. “I told him that I would take him shopping after work tomorrow, so if you could pick up Soph from preschool that would be great.”

“Perhaps instead we can all go? I was thinking that I would bring him to the university with me so that he’s not alone all day. You could get her and then we could meet somewhere, get dinner afterwards?”

You lean closer to him to curl around his arm and rest your head on his shoulder. He always thought so much about others, especially children. Laszlo had such a heart of gold and it honestly left you in awe of just how much he was willing to give so that others could find peace and happiness. Like the older he got the more he had to give. The thought warms you. “How are you literally the best person I know? And to think you used to be so worried about being able to be a good father and now you’re the best of all of us.” He huffs a little as you nuzzle into his chest.

“I have you to thank for that, Bärchen.” He drops a kiss to your head. “But it’s getting late and I’ve been up all day. We should get some sleep.”

Soon after you're both dreaming.

___

Stevie had been with you for three weeks. It only took him a few days to start to settle in, and you discovered that he was quick with his wit and far smarter than he let on. He was a little bit of a sarcastic smart-ass at times, but all in good nature. He was endlessly entertaining. Laszlo sat down with him almost everyday to talk about what he was feeling, the things he experienced, and ways to deal with the loss of his family. Already you both saw improvement.

Even Sophia got on well with him. Most teenage boys wanted nothing to do with little kids, let alone a 4 year old that loved playing 'spaceship barbie'. But not Stevie. On his fifth day you'd found him sat on the floor playing with her and going along with her childlike imagination. When she insisted he play the barbie that needed saving he went along with it, high pitched voice and everything. He even encouraged her to pick up her toys before bed - a feat you and your husband struggled with at times. It struck you how much Stevie became a big brother of sorts to her.

Laszlo grew even more fond of the boy. He wasn't really one for TV, but every evening he sat and watched some show on Netflix about racing with the teen and didn't complain once. Laszlo had tried to explain the role of adrenaline in racing drivers as a psychological function, but Stevie just brushed it off and said it was the driving so fast that made it "cool".

The two did bond over an unlikely subject - punk rock. When you got home from work two weeks into his stay and heard the music blasting in the parlor you worried someone had broken in. Whipping into the room you saw Laszlo in his chair tapping his foot to the intense guitar and singing; Stevie nodded along to the music as he held an old album cover. It didn't take long for Sophia to start jumping along to the music too.

"What is this?" You yelled out over the bass - you couldn't recognize it and it clearly wasn't English.

"Die Toten Hosen, a band I listened to growing up in Germany. Stevie found the record and asked to listen."

"Listen? I think you mean blow out your eardrums!" Even with needing to shout to be heard you had to laugh at the situation. How your husband had a secret love for German punk you'll never know; yet you would never let him live it down.

And when Stevie came and woke you both up in tears three nights ago you made him hot chocolate while Laszlo sat down with him. He confessed that he had never been treated or cared for like he was in your home. How he wished he could stay because he felt wanted. Your heart broke for the boy. To be so young and so lost, craving someone to simply be there for him.

Yet everyday he grew more open. He broke out of his shell. He had goals and ambitions; he wanted to amount to something bigger than he had thought he ever could. It almost shocked you at how much fire was within him.

At how much he fit in with your little family.

At how it was like he was meant to be there.

___

Laszlo was oddly quiet when you got home. Sophia had run off to find Stevie, and you tracked your husband down to his office. He listened as you talked about your day for a good ten minutes; he said almost nothing the whole conversation.

You move closer to him. Placing the back of your hand to his forehead you check to see if he's feverish or sick. He didn't feel warm. "Laz, are you feeling okay?"

He gently pulls your hand down and leaves a kiss on your palm. "The department of social services called this morning to inquire about what we want to do with Stevie. This would be the third time they have asked."

He hadn't mentioned it to you at all that they were calling already. "Okay. What do you think we should do?" You pause for him to continue.

"I told them I would need to speak with you before any further decisions were made regarding him…" His fingers tap against the wood of his desk. "I'm not sure I have an answer for them. Nor for you." He swallows. "I'm afraid of what might become of him should he go into the system. Or that he will not get the support he needs given his past. Any option involving allowing him to stay for a bit longer is a commitment I won't make without your full support, of course. I could never ask that of you." As he speaks you can hear the frustration pouring from him, feel the irritation radiating through the room. "I refuse to give up on him- I- I just don't have the answers on what to do without them hounding me and he deserves better than this, dammit."

"He does… Do you remember on your 50th birthday, what you told me?" Laszlo looks up at you confused. "You said that you had wished you were ten years younger so you had the energy and time to do all of it again. That if you were younger we would've had a whole gaggle of kids - brothers and sisters for Sophia."

"Wishing I was younger doesn't make a difference in helping Stevie-"

"Laszlo - let's adopt him." Your words stop him in his tracks. You had decided not to have any more after your daughter was born. Laszlo was nearing 50 and the pregnancy had been hard on you. But regardless you knew that you both had the means and the love to give another child, probably five or ten more children if you really wanted to. So why not start with one that's already wormed his way in to the family? "I've seen how fond you are of him already. You've taken him under your wing as if he was your own. And how good he is with Sophia? Hell I couldn't ask for a better older sibling for her - and she loves him already. And honestly, Laz, I do too."

"You think we should adopt Stevie?"

"I think we should ask, yeah. He deserves a good home and a strong father figure that's going to put him first. He looks at you like you hung the stars, Laszlo. He needs us, and truthfully I think we need him. So yeah - what's one more added to this little shindig we've got going for us?"

"Have you-"

"-thought it through? Yes. Completely."

You can see the smile he fights to hold back. "We should call tomorrow and see what the protocol is for stating our intent to adopt and getting the paperwork."

"Um…" You shuffle your feet. Nose scrunched, you confess "I may have already called them. On the way from work I asked about what would need to be done if we wanted to pursue that route, but since they already know who we are from you working with them for years it can be fast tracked." You pull him out of his chair to stand before you. "All we have to do is say 'go'."

He has no hesitation.

"Go."

Laszlo doesn't hold back his smile or his laughter as he spins you around his office floor. You're certain your children downstairs can hear your giggles.

Tag list

@hardlyinteresting @lorna-d-m @livvyshmiv @somethingthatsaysbubbles @greeneyedblondie44 @unbeatablecurlgirl @apparrio @marchingicenotes7 @anteroom-of-death @bruhidaniel @lemairepstuff @thehuiabird @zemosimp05 @alindeluce @iamnotthecatladynextdoor @laura-naruto-fan1998 @trelaney @boneheadduluc @i-am-dead-inside-666 @fictionlandslanddreams @that-one-fandom-kid @hb8301 @fandom-princess-forevermore @foggycandywitch @creme-bruhlee @andy-rocks @nonamec0s @everythingbeginsineternity-blog @uncomfortablebagel @rachelicouss @wisia02

[theseerasures]

a yearning nation’s blueeyed pride

honestly there is just like. no point as of Witch (if not earlier) in thinking about Marrow and Winter as following along the same defection path, and downright facile to compare the two in terms of who is “closer” to defecting and therefore “less problematic” (even setting aside that making value judgments along those lines in fiction is...never that straightforward), when the narrative has emphasized REPEATEDLY how they are on entirely separate tracks in terms of character and role in the Atlas military.

seriously, it’s like saying “this orange is bad because you can’t eat the peel like you can eat an apple skin”

so like, yes, Marrow is the one who has verbally expressed his misgivings, and has clearly articulated scruples (as opposed to just the dial-up noise) and will blurt them out any second now as soon as he gets a word in edgewise. but also: Marrow HASN’T gotten a word in edgewise (except with Winter, fancy that), and has done approximately fuck all to actually subvert the system that he is growing to hate. both his theory and lack of praxis are tied into Marrow’s relatively low, overlooked position in the Atlas system, and feed into the fact that for Marrow the project of Atlas is not personal.

Marrow joined the military on ideological grounds. he clearly does want personal connection, but that has been denied him at every turn, largely by his teammates, largely by his partner, all of whom use him to enforce their own struggles with the clash between political duty and personal grief. he has been alienated by the system he upholds, which started even before we meet him. this makes it much harder for him to rebel in deed, because he doesn’t have a lot of power to begin with and he knows the system will not protect him if he does; at the same time, that relative powerlessness and isolation keeps his investment in Atlas abstract, uncomplicated, and much easier to dispel. Marrow is still with Atlas because he has a job to do, because it’s his duty, because he is still clinging to the Atlas military’s illusory altruism. he wants Penny to come with them so she can save Atlas. his protestations at seeing Team FNKI, that they are “just kids,” comes from the belief that it is categorically wrong to send children into battle. what is keeping Marrow from defecting is belief, and once the belief is shattered--like, say, when his boss’ new ingenious plan is to Nuke the Poors--there is nothing keeping him around.

and once his path is set he will not waver, because Atlas, by design, has no hold on him materially or personally (outside of his own life, which he was already happy to dedicate to a cause). Marrow then, is the limit case of Atlas being hoist with its own petard: an exemplar for how it gives its people nothing while demanding everything, but also an exemplar for how quickly the entire system folds in on itself when the veil is lifted. when Marrow defects (and it IS when) it will represent Atlas as a whole defecting from itself, even if we don’t see it visually--from the civilians, to the enlisted soldiers, to perhaps even members of Marrow’s own team.

NONE of the things i just mentioned really apply to Winter, because there is nothing about Atlas that is not personal for Winter.

i have no doubt that Winter is in some ways invested in same abstract principles that swayed Marrow, but that is constantly overridden by the fact that Winter has family at all sides of this, even before everything fell to shit, and the narrative will not stop reminding her.

“what about your sister?” “would you say the same thing if it was your sister inside?” her father was gunning for a seat on the Council. the man who took her in is essentially Head of State. Penny has made herself Public Enemy Number One, and Weiss is actively abetting her. even Whitley has now thrown himself into the fray, unbeknownst to her. and another person might be better at compartmentalizing all this the way Winter clearly wants to, and stick to the party line, but Winter cannot, because the more i watch her the more i’m convinced that the current crisis in Atlas is just a microcosm of the real issue, which is to say: everything is personal in Atlas for Winter, because everything is personal for Winter.

at a moment-to-moment level, and especially when backed into a corner, Winter defaults not to ideology but her tightly coiled lattice of personal relationships. and this makes perfect sense, because Winter grew up in a household where she had to perpetually crisis respond, and then she never stopped. Marrow does what he does because he believes in the dream, in making the world a better place, and therefore it is more difficult in some respects for him to defect, because it involves taking a long hard look at and then rejecting the structures he bought into and made himself complicit in. once lines are crossed and he DOES do that, though, he’s home free. for Winter, there are no lines to cross, because all Winter wants in the end is to throw her arms around everyone she cares about and drag them to safety. to keep them there, closely held, where she can see them and make sure that they stay safe.

but what’s tricky about Winter--what’s fascinating to me, what Jacques tried to beat out of her, what James alternately capitalizes on and tries to quash, what she resents about herself--is that in times of crisis (which for Winter is again ALL THE TIME), “everyone she cares about” becomes everyone, so that suddenly she takes a shine to the General’s war machine, so that she’s risking her life to give Penny and Fria a few more seconds of time, so that she’s stepping in front of Elm’s incoming fist, so that she’s letting JYR go rescue Oscar. Marrow has ideals he values, but at her core Winter has nothing but the people, who are real the moment she sees and feels them--real enough to defend, or defend against.

Winter jealously protects her web of people, but that web will also spiral out to infinity if she lets it--so she doesn’t. she has adamantly refused to move out of the mode where she lives present-by-present, only reacting to what is right in front of her, what she has been told, weighing her own life against the people who are closest, and no more. this is unquestionably a trauma response, but it’s also reinforced by 1) her choice to become a career soldier, and 2) the fact that Winter actually HAS quite a bit of power, and she knows that. but she has never trusted herself with any of it, largely because her hypervigilant response to situations has only ever been chastised instead of rehabilitated. Winter knows the weight of her name and her position, but she constantly tries to ignore it, or run away from it, so that she is only ever the heiress, the second-in-command, and never the Queen. she cannot be a leader until she is Good (that is to say, perfect and rational), so she tries to obliterate her power the same time she obliterates that pesky personhood: remaining still for as long as possible, avoiding situations that she knows will prompt action and choice, and when absolutely pushed to think through her power, moving the pieces around with extreme caution, hoping that the world won’t be burnt black by it.

Marrow and Winter are fundamentally at opposing ends of the personal-political bleed, and the story could NOT telegraph it any more clearly than their conversation in Witch, where Marrow makes a personal plea to Winter so that she can make a call far beyond just that, and she refutes him, by reminding him of his obligation to Atlas in the form of impersonal duty.

i’ll conclude by pointing out that there is something very interesting happening with Winter right now, that exceeds her power in-universe. because even as a Schnee, as Ironwood’s protege, what Winter can do is limited (partly because she limits herself), except for how the story has resolutely centered her actions and MADE them significant. in the course of this war Winter has let herself make exactly two choices--both of them noninterventionist, easily justifiable, and not meant to take any ideological stand--and they ended up altering the entire fabric of the war with Salem. all because she loved her sisters more than her duty. all because she was shown a slim chance to save the kingdom and a fourteen-year-old boy, and she thought just for an instant, what’s the harm

(and James Ironwood will never know. that even with his plan, his bomb, all his ships, all his soldiers...he was no match for her. his loyal lieutenant. the only child he will ever have, who has only ever called him “sir.”)

it is not about what Winter COULD have chosen in those moments, if she had the ability to stop Penny and Weiss from leaving, if JYR were even Oscar’s rescuers, in the conventional sense. it is about the fact that she DID make those choices, and the story has made them reverberate, in spite of the fact that she did not mean for them to. Marrow’s story is about being neglected and overlooked by the system, the moment of recognition that it needs you more than you need it, that there are so many more of you, and together you can stop chasing the dream and make your own. Winter’s story cleaves to the heart of not just Atlas, but the RWBY monomyth, which goes something like: stars are like us. the world was created because two brothers could not get along, and sundered because a woman could not cope with her grief. just because you move closer to the elite, to the center, to the top, to the sublime, it does not mean that you move farther from the fallible. we are all, at our deepest layer, people.

but the world does not tremble any less for it.

[taryn-phillips]

Ch.5 Fieldwork

White Supremacy

White supremacy is beliefs and ideas emphasizing that the white human races is superior over other racial groups. This is largely shown and viewed in American culture (our country). For example, our formal president Donald trump was a white supremacist who's slogan was to "make America great again" meaning to gain power and benefits for only white people. Additionally, a riot perpetrated against the capitol by Donald trump supporters that was enforced by Donald trump himself. Our country is viewed as white people can get away with things that black people or any other person of color can't. The system has been like this since the beginning and it all roots from white supremacy.

American culture

in 2018, Childish Gambino an American rapper/singer released a song called "This is America" where the song focuses on a side how the world views America and then the other side what America is hiding (that is not shown). The side that is portrayed to the world is the American dream where every family is living behind a white picket fence, in a beautiful home with great jobs. The side that is not shown is the struggle minorities go through in this country on a daily basis. The music video targets black life in America and American culture by including secret messages and symbolism throughout the video like black people fighting the police etc. We can say that our culture the (American culture) is portrayed to other culture as fast food, sports, and privileged.

Genetics

In the human we race we distribute ourselves into groups based off of race. According to chapter 5, based on variations of skin color and other visible features associated with race are shaped by less than 0.1% of genetic code. For example, a person from Western Africa who starts walking east will have more in common genetically with someone in Russia compared to their neighbor at home.

Stereotypes

Stereotypes are widely held fixed ideas of a particular race or group. A popular stereotype among the black race is that we have large noses/ large lips. As the first humans evolved from Africa, your features came from where you are in the world and the climate of that location. According to the article sciencelet, an advantage with having a larger nose facilitates breathing in more air thereby supplying the body with more oxygen especially in warm climates. Physical activity in a hotter environment is more demanding because your body requires more oxygen rather than in cooler climates. So

The show blackish also portrays black culture stereotypes. It shows how a typical black family lives in America and the struggles that come with it. In the show, it shows how black culture is viewed from an inside and outside perspective.

Microaggression in American society

Microagression is common for POC in America and it is simply a term for everyday insults, snubs, or negative attitude to target someone solely on their race or culture. We have a common with microagression in many places such as the workplace, hospitals, and unfortunately schools. Many black children are judged right when they walk in the door that they are either disruptive or will slack off. This judgement roots from racism and has turned into a microagression in schools. For example, the award winning movie The great debaters portrays a group of kids from an HBCU that challenge white kids in debating during the 1935 era. In the movie, actor Denzel Washington starts a debate team at a hbcu which was highly unheard of during that time. In the movie, nobody expected anything great from this all black debate team. They were viewed inner American culture as dense and unintelligent. Surely, these kids made a good name for themselves and ended up winning the debate contest. Although they won, they were judged on their knowledge just because they are black which gave them the disadvantage.

Racial genocide

Racial genocide is the systematic destruction of a group of people because of their race, ethnicity, or religion. In the us, too many black people have died for crimes they did not do. We call this a racial genocide as many of them from the same race was killed. For example, according to the article Black Agenda Report, the Martinsville seven were seven black men who died in the state of Virgnia's electric chair for a rape they never committed. Black genocide still occurs under color of law.

Sources:

[whentherewerebicycles]

wow okay i am skipping the lingerie party lol and am instead going to just briefly jot down some thoughts before i go to sleep and wake up at 5 for my flight tomorrow morning. jesus christ i have ONE MILLION thoughts and feelings about this weekend. i want to preface this by saying that on the whole, it was a fine social experience! it was nowhere near as awkward or painful as i was expecting. or like, parts of it were painful, but it was 100% to do with my own complicated feelings about literally every part of this tradition and the wedding industry in general lol, and not anything to do with the people themselves. the other women were friendly and very welcoming, i made an event best friend who was wonderful company, and it was really fun to get to spend time with both my sister-in-law and her older sister, who was so charming and wonderful. i’m glad i came even though thinking about the $$ i spent on this trip makes me physically gag.

but okay i want to just record some THOUGHTS that maybe i will continue unpacking with some distance. i feel likeeeee okay here are my thoughts.

the social norms around femininity are just a fucking minefield and i feel like i really just gotta keep walking back the impulse to judge other women for the choices they make as they navigate around the manifold traps and snares and half-buried landmines that constitute the landscape of being a woman. like jesus christ. it’s so fucked up, it’s so fucked up, the received and socially enforced norms of femininity are just so fucked up. I think ALL THE FUCKING TIME of this margaret atwood poem i love so much, which was REALLY on my mind this weekend:

How can I teach her some way of being human that won’t destroy her?

I would like to tell her, Love is enough, I would like to say, Find shelter in another skin.

I would like to say, Dance and be happy. Instead I will say in my crone’s voice, Be ruthless when you have to, tell the truth when you can, when you can see it.

I feel like the first bit was very much on my mind throughout the weekend, but those last three lines have come to the forefront over the course of this last day, as i have tried to do some Thinking about what i observed/experienced/felt this weekend. whether or not this is what it means in the context of the poem, tell the truth when you can, when you can see it, expresses something of my complex feelings: I don’t know that I can tell the truth about femininity because I don’t know that I can see it. i am both too close to it/still emotionally entangled in it and too far from it to know which parts of it are ‘real’ and which parts are just performance.

i feel like one thing that struck me this weekend, in ways that i don’t know if i’ve noticed as much before, was that so much of the things women say to each other or do in these social contexts is performative, and they know on some level it’s a performance, but we are all going through the motions of doing and saying the expected things anyway. that has not always been clear to me. i have spent so much of my own life as a woman thinking that other women perfectly, seamlessly, naturally embodied the norms of femininity, and i was the only one (or part of a group of only ones) who couldn’t remember my lines, or kept fumbling my cues, or felt so painfully, self-consciously aware that i was playing a role that i could never deliver a convincing performance. but this weekend, after the initial social panic had passed, i started trying to get out of my own head a little bit and look for things that disproved the very strong theory i had brought into the weekend. and of course then i started seeing more and more of the little moments where women say one thing and do another, or profess one belief/conviction but then the whole corpus of their lived experiences and choices contradicts that stated belief, or whatever. and also just like, moments of pathos, where someone i had judged harshly at the beginning of the weekend offhandedly revealed something about her past that really changed my perception of her, or at least made me think like, ah god, i have to have empathy for and with this person, because i think she might be a complex person just like me, with an intricate inner life that her performance partially reveals and partially occludes from view, and agh, it sucks to have to think of people as complicated instead of as safely two-dimensional & easy to dismiss, and the reason it sucks is because then it forces you to realize that you share more with this person than you’d like to admit, and that some of your wounds are the same, even if you dealt with those wounds (the wounds of girlhood, or rather the emotional wounds that our culture inflicts upon girls, which then become tangled up in complex and painful ways with the lived experience of girlhood itself) in really different ways.

but also ugh. we are all performing gender norms but there is just something that does not feel playful at all about embodying conventional femininity. i can’t think of a better way to phrase that right now but it’s like.. the performance isn’t fun. it doesn’t seem to be fun. i don’t know that anyone here was having fun doing it, even if they were having fun being with each other. but it was like doing the intensely gendered social rituals was like, the price of admission? like it was the toll we had to pay to be together spending time in the company of other women? i don’t know man but it fucking exhausts me. like i can push myself to stretch my genuine empathy and sense of solidarity with other women much further than my knee-jerk judgmental reaction, but i can’t ever get to a place where i find any of those social rituals anything other than fucking exhausting. they feel so fucking joyless. they feel like things that many women have internalized as ‘things we must do in order to have relationships with other women.’ (please do not even get me started on how exhausting heteronormativity is i think i could write an entire other essay on how women use these bachelorette party-type rituals to spend time with their closest female friends, but the whole event is still implicitly organized around men, and these women’s male partners are still positioned as the priority in their lives, and the whole event is framed as like, a last burst of intense closeness between women before the bride is delivered over to her husband. like i KNOW that this is not how women think of it but all the RHETORIC of the bachelorette party, the little events and rituals and games, the little comments everyone makes all fucking weekend, good fucking lord, my jaw is so TENSE.)

anyway god i just AGHHHH. idk sorry this is definitely not coherent at ALL because i’m tired and still need a bit more distance/time to process some of this. i guess here is one last thing i want to register before i sleep. i am in my 30s now and i am living a life that is so, so far removed from the social world i grew up in. marriage is not a norm among my friend group, almost all of my female friends are queer women, many women i know are not partnered and have no interest in being partnered, and the friends who are in heterosexual relationships tend to be in very gender-balanced relationships or slightly nontraditional relationships where it feels like both partners have engaged in conscious reflection about what they want their relationship to look/feel like. also i now date women, am out as a lesbian, and spend most of my time teaching/working with queer- and trans/nonbinary-identified kids.

so like, the world i live in now is just so different from the world i grew up in. and sometimes it is easy for me to kind of downplay the intensity of my own gender distress as a teen and young adult, or to sort of - act like it was a phase in my life that had much more to do with me than with the social environment i lived in. i don’t mean ‘phase’ in a dismissive ‘those feelings weren’t real’ kind way, but more like, ‘oh that was just part of the normal growing pains of figuring out who you are and what kind of person you want to be as an adult - everybody pretty much goes through some version of that.’ it’s true that everyone DOES go through some version of that, as just like, part of the process of individuation in that age range. but also like. idk man. being back in this environment - straight white women from the midwest and south, all engaging in the rituals of heterosexual white femininity - was just so intense and so MUCH, and it brought back a flood of feelings and visceral memories that i feel like i will need to spend some time sorting through over the next few weeks. like, what i experienced back then really WAS gender distress, and it was so, so distressing. i spent the years from age 11ish to 24ish existing with this constant lowgrade baseline feeling of wanting to claw my own fucking skin off because my own gendered body felt like such a prison, and i sometimes felt like i literally wanted to destroy my own body because i could not yet conceive of an alternative to inhabiting that body or playing the role that had been handed down to me. until i started reading queer memoirs and inhaling lesbian media and (especially) reading about queer femme identities, i literally did not have an image or any kind of felt sense of what another way of inhabiting my own body might look/feel like. i literally could not imagine it!!!

and that is why the distress feels so distressing, and becomes internalized in such violent ways, i think. because it’s the blind, mindless panic of a trapped and wounded animal. except that you lack any real understanding of the larger social forces at work, or any language with which to describe or conceptualize what social norms are or how they’re enforced. so in your mind, the only thing you can see wounding you is your own gendered body, or the way that gendered body is socially 'read’ by others. and that is why you want to claw your own fucking skin off, just literally dig your nails into your own flesh and claw it the fuck off. because you can’t see a norm, but you can see your gendered body, and you can see the ways that it causes other people to react to you, or treat you, or hold you to a certain set of expectations, and so in your mind you are like: this must be destroyed. in your mind you are like, the only way out is to get out of this fucking body, but that’s impossible, surely, you can’t get out of your own body, so you have to settle for starving it and self-harming it and ruthlessly punishing it in a thousand terrible ways, because you might not be able to leave your girl’s body behind, but you can make it suffer and pay for what it’s done to you. 

i am old enough now, and have spent enough time thinking and writing about those feelings, to identify them when they arise again, and to get the necessary distance from them so that i can say, what i want to destroy are the norms themselves, and the distress they cause, and not the body that has done nothing to me but be me. so i am not quite as sucked under as i used to be. but i think that there is something about the violence and intensity of those feelings that i forget sometimes, or misremember with age and distance. it’s easy to be a little bit patronizing to my younger self (or by extension to my younger students sometimes), because i now live in a social world that is largely arranged in ways that minimize rather than intensify or amplify gender distress. but when you have no choice in how to arrange your life, and no language with which to understand what is happening to you or what you are experiencing, and no frame of reference to help you understand that this is a period in your life and not forever, and no models you can look to in order to discover alternative ways of inhabiting your body or arranging your life... my god, that’s quite different from being an adult with a wide range of experiences and with much greater autonomy over your own body and life. anyway idk i need to keep thinking but now i must go to bed and try to sleep five hours before the plane.

[xclusivetism]

Debunking ‘gender identity’ by gender ≠ sex.

Having gender identity may seem noble divergence from our gender rigid society, the solution to stop such and embrace self-expression.

However after examining it through, ‘gender identity’ the way the ideology says doesn’t really exist and actually still perpetuates gender conformity.

And no, there’s no need for “there’s only two sexes” or any science  argument at all to disprove gender identity. Gender ideology so f l a w e d that it can do it perfectly itself out of any of above the fastest just by Gender ≠ sex.

You probably read many things that try to disprove gender and thought it was wrong or outdated that scientist have discover there’s people with XXXY.

But after reading this, If it doesn’t peak you or at least make you question gender, then i honestly really don’t know what will other than to call you deluded.

What is Gender

Gender ≠ sex is the essential foundation of gender.

To order to know the difference, we need to know what individually each are.

Gender is a social construct

Gender Identity

Gender expression

That means.

Sex is a physical construct

Sex

Sexual orientation

The first thing that instantly break Gender ≠ sex

“Sex is not binary, Sex is a spectrum or intersex exist”

That already outed you as a hypocrite especially when responding to “there’s only two sexes” saying that they’re conflating sex and gender.

Why should sex being binary or not be relevant to gender identity?

LGB and T are antithetical.

Since Gender ≠ Sex, LGB and T shouldn’t be consider one.

Sexuality is a Sexual orientation not a gender orientation, to suggest it means gender too is conflation.

For a trans-woman to say they’re lesbian or a trans-man to say they’re gay is incorrect & impossible because they’re straight. Gender identity doesn’t shift sexuality status because they’re separate things and to suggest so is homophobic. For a trans to say that invalidates their identity is another conflation of gender and sex.

LGB is a sex-based group while T is a gender-based group. One’s based on sexual attraction and the other is based on changing gender, they are absolutely nothing alike.

‘Cis’ is enough entitlement to be trans exclusive.

Terfs don’t like being called ‘Cis’

But let’s say they drop the belief that “transwomen aren’t real women” and say “transwomen aren’t ciswomen” and want spaces of their own

They put the ‘Cis’ prefix 

Cis woman schools

Cis woman attracted

Cis woman bathroom

Cis woman sports

Cis woman locker rooms

Cis woman administrator 

Cis woman health

Cis women history

etc.

Instead of saying “only women can breastfeed” they use “only AFAB can breastfeed”.

According to TRA logic, all that would be valid.

To for one to say that’s segregation, you would also have to believe separation of men and women or other types groups is segregation as well. A Cis person doesn’t have the trans experience and that goes the other way around.

‘Transwo/man’ is transphobic itself.

Gender ≠ Sex physical transitioning would be a conflation.

If it’s not a conflation, that would imply that physical features are social constructs which includes reproduction, sexuality etc.

Gender is a social construct, all you need to be a gender is identify.

Gender dysphoria is only a social dysphoria, if it’s about the physical then it’s really sex dysphoria. To say it isn’t is conflation.

But even identifying as a ‘wo/man’ itself also is transphobic because the meaning behind it is sex base.

the definition of wo/man.

Adult human fe/male being

What does fe/male mean?

(Female) of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

(Male) of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

One can go down in the definition to point that it also means this.

Relating to wo/men or the fe/male gender.

To say wo/man in the definition also refer to gender, isn’t that a conflation and breaking Gender ≠ Sex? My oh my so many usage of the word conflation.

Gender identity.

Non-binary is not a gender, nothing of it say it’s a gender. It’s just non-binary of something which is usually assumed of not being man or woman. But not being a man or woman doesn’t say of what it is only of what it is not. If the binary part is something else that mean a person who identifies as a woman or man (including cis) can be considered non-binary. Non-binary is really just a slot. 

So far the solid identifies are

Man

Woman

Neutrois

Queer

Agender 

Androgyne is both man and woman. Genderqueer wo/man is both of queer and wo/man. Pangender is all.

Everything else is either a flux, degree, combination of the above or based on a different concept. Things like such as bigender are umbrella because it doesn’t specify if it’s man or woman or something else.

That being said, the only one that’s truly gender non-conformist is agender. Queer is still gender conforming just not to man or woman.

What are the distinctive qualities of each identity?

It’s said that gender expression is different than identity and that someone who identifies as a boy can be very feminine still.

So we’re not gonna use association of masculinity, femininity etc. to define it then.

So what identity mean is it’s usually answered as someone’s ‘personal sense.’

If it’s a personal sense that mean it would be mean it’s a personal construct.

Personal or social construct regardless, it doesn’t say the characteristics. If you can’t point out what to define the labels become hallow. 

There’s many things that aren’t concrete that can show one it’s existence.

An abstract thing like 1, can present it’s existence.

A thing we cannot fully see of like the 4D can present it’s existence.

Even pseudo scientific like zodiacs signs have specific qualities to describe, personality types and even religion has something to define.

In the means of gender, all the identities really sums down to meaningless labels. In the means of sex, the word woman or man are names for physical characteristics that is observed at birth. 

Problem with “assigned gender identity at birth”

No one was “assigned” at birth, “cis” people don’t match what their doctors assign. Assign word implies duty and a job. Assign is often a thing that doesn’t always taking what the subject is to account, for example you being assigned to a seat is sometimes random and not based your rowdiness or attentiveness. 

The doctor characterised people a ‘wo/man’ based on observing them. Woman and Man are distinguisher (just like fruits and veggies) of physical characteristics.

People are assigned a gender expression at life.

Gender identity doesn’t exist other than being a label, gender identity is based on sex hence that label. What’s assigned is actually gender expression.

What Society does

(Biology) Sex → gender identity ↓ ←gender expression (Society)

↓ Gender identity → gender roles

What TRAs think to solve it

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

Sex Ⓧ gender identity (society)

Sex → gender identity (different)

↓ gender identity (different) → sex → society → expression = gender roles

What Gender critical think to solve it

Sex → gender identity → gender expression→ society = gender roles

Putting it to perspective

Whenever GC say this:

Sex → gender identity

This is how TRAs view it:

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

↓ 

Sex → gender identity = gender roles

and thus GC = society pushing gender norm

and the TRA misses this:

→ gender expression→ society = gender roles

Gender ideology pushes gender conformity, just in backwards.

Society enforces femininity on women and masculinity on men to maintain a heteronormative hierarchy aka patriarchy. 

Gender ideology is a patriarchal chest play to keep people from actually breaking such status quo by putting the gender role but backwards.

Societal gender roles

Women must be feminine

Men must be masculine

Gender ideology

Feminine is woman

Masculine is man

Neither is non-binary

Anything else it’s a new gender

‘Cis’ means comfortable of the societal gender role

‘Trans’ means not comfortable of societal gender role

GRA say expression is different from identity to hide the fact that it in a way still pushes gender conformity. They confuse the names for physical characteristics ‘wo/man’ as entire gender construct and expression. 

Here’s the damage Gender ideology does.

So far GRA activist blur what sex and gender is, despite their gender ≠ sex.

Blurring gender and sex create problems for the LGB and women, by making anyone able to appropriates them by identification and transing so long as they feel it, remember these two groups are on the oppressed side. There isn’t even a qualification (not even dyphoria) to be considered trans. Growing kids & teen are getting into this as well ruining their bodies, ask yourselves how are they old enough to block puberty but not drink alcohol?

People’s motivation for why they want to of certain gender is not look thorough enough. 

People in general again who again don’t fit with gender norms

Women with internal misogyny/trauma

Gay/Lesbian with internal homophobia/trauma

Men who want more access to women for misogynistic reasons.

You cannot ever feel something you cannot comprehend.

And you cannot ever comprehend not feeling it.

One’s thought of feeling or not like a boy/girl comes were form by the brain cells of XX or XY chromosome or whatever.

Here’s a color analogy i have to show case the difference between one who feels like wo/man vs someone who actually is.

Identifying as one.

Actually being one.

The gender dysphoric pandemic

The correct word for what people mean by gender dysphoria would be sex dysphoria people who are dysphoric of their physical sex body.

Sometimes transsexual need mechanical intervention to relief their sex dysphoria.

Most people who are ‘trans’ aren’t transsexual as that is rare and projecting the gender dysphoria to their bodies instead should be towards society. There’s some types of transwomen who have autogynephilia (reverse heterosexuality, which is nothing wrong in of itself but alot of them are doing bad with it) are motivated by sexuality and is projecting that thing of wanting to become the opposite sex.

Gender dysphoria

A lot of people in the world have gender dysphoria some in more degree than others. 

Many movement where brought out because of gender dyshoria 

LGB because gender roles often link to heteronormative.

Feminism/Women’s rights including the ‘Terfs’ is a inherently gender dysphoric movement.

Gender criticals are inherently gender dysphoric.

What trans movement doing is conflating gender dysphoria with sex dysphoria but they are actually perpetuating gender norms.

The only gender construct that matters is identity which is woman or man because that exist to distinguish people of certain biological characteristics. “Masculinity” and “Femininity” isn’t real, they’re just many expressions boxed into one or the other enforce to people into gender roles which are by large hierarchy called patriarchy. If there is natural patterns that’s sex behavior.

Most people in the trans community aren’t bad, they’re being exploited by the people who are bad. The people who are bad are motivated to destroy children, LGB and women’s rights, depressedly under all this is essentially a men’s right movement but left wing. We need to take those men (and few women) with evil intent to account now.

Right leaning and traditional etc. people role in this whole thing. 

Conservative/traditionalist/religious people who claim to be gender critical, are most of times far from it and are in fact gender rights activist but trans critical that’s the only different between them and the bad trans people above. The trans movement is mostly a side-effect and these people are kinda the reason for it. Gender roles are toxic considering that people especially have to resort in changing their bodies for not fitting in and the gender ideology is a outlet. 

So it’s pure insanity conservative/traditionalist/religious people to keep insisting that be men masculine and women be feminine and that’s it’s all fine and fail to acknowledge, comprehend or disregard people who are gender dysphoric to those roles (feminism being the biggest example) making them seem pathological abnormalities when complaining about them. 

There’s truly a lot of people who are non-conformist but were too scared to be themselves because people like them and it has been rampant for thousand of years. They use not seeing alot of them as prove to enforce their patriarchal rhetoric.

Conclusion

What people need to talk about is their gender dysphoria (but not ideology kind) but of the roles in society. Let transsexuals be their own group without the gender nonsense in peace. We need start embracing gender non-conformity without needing to change our biological identity.

[kim-ruzek]

It’s been a week since the finales and while I’m over the moon about fire, I’m still so conflicted over pd, specifically Adam and how he talked to Kevin.

I know they’re brothers and the show will have them get over this, but if my white friend said what Adam did? I wouldn’t look at them the same way. I’d lose a lot of love/respect that I had for them.

And a lot of people (of a certain color) are saying it’s not a big deal because of the situation? But like those are his real thoughts, his filter is just gone. Maybe I’m just being too sensitive tho.

I’d love to hear your take on this. If your comfortable sharing it.

I've been thinking of this ask all day, of how to answer it. Because honestly, I have SO many thoughts on this, but I was debating if I should say them all or just sum up but I decided that I'm just gonna speak my mind!!

I, too, have a lot of complexed and conflicting thoughts over this. And I have to say, with stuff like this, with racial issues, you can NEVER be too sensitive.

Firstly, I agree. Kev and Adam are brothers, and the show will have them get over this, it wouldn't be realistic otherwise. But I really do hope they do it in a good, believable and decent way. Because I also agree with what you said about if my white friend said that shit? A little bit of my love and respect for them would be forever tarnished-- at least until I see some REAL improvement, which would take a minimum of a year to properly heal.

This fandom is a real good fandom, but yeah, I HAVE seen a lot of white fans not treating this like the big deal it is. The majority DO accept it's a big deal, but at the same time, they don't seem to truly get just how big, like how they think Kevin and Adam will have to move on from this is quite watered down.

Now, where I stand:

I watched cpd for Kim, Adam and Kev. I got into it for Burzek, and fell so hard in love with Kevin immediately. So when Kevin and Adam fight, I find it really hard because they're my boys! But it's necessary, and I think will help them become even more tight once Adam gets his head screwed on straight.

I do agree that they're his "real thoughts", but my take is that it's a little more complicated than that. Like Adam is a bit of a hothead, and that moment? He was more scared than he's ever been, and Kev, in his mind, is the only other person who loves Kim as much so when Kev did what Adam took as a "betrayal", Adam was angry. And that was shitty. And he should be accountable for that, AND for what he said.

But I think calling them his real thoughts is a little simplistic. They're thoughts that's going to be in his mind a lot, obviously, because Adam doesn't fully get this. So there's two layers to this:

One: People say things out of anger. I've got a temper, and I keep it under control obviously, but it's there, and when you're angry, especially betrayed and hurt, you just want to hurt people the same way you are. And when it's someone you really, really love? You say things you have maybe thought when you were a little annoyed but rationality won and reminded you it's a stupid thought, things that you KNOW will hurt.

And I think that's what this was. Obviously you do this, no matter what the reason, you need to fucking apologize and grovel. Like I'm not saying you shouldn't because I really don't think that. Especially as someone who's said really hurtful things out of anger, I PASSIONATELY believe that you should be held to a high standard about your actions. Because anger is not good, it's an ugly emotion, and you have to fight it.

Two: I definitely think those things are stuff Adam has thought before. I mean, thoughts in anger rarely appears out of nowhere, they're there in the background. But this isn't necessary a bad thing, or makes Adam a bad person. Like we ALL have less than nice thoughts, it's human nature.

And for Adam, he tries, he really does, but the man just Does Not Get all the deep complexities of the police reform. So I think his stance is, he doesn't get it, but he goes along. There's been those times he's argued, but I think most of the time when he's confused, he kinda just...has one of those thoughts but doesn't express it because he KNOWS it's more complicated than that, even if he doesn't understand it.

So when Kevin and Adam fought, Adam got ANGRY, because he felt scared and betrayed, and that's when he voiced all these thoughts he's thought before but kept inside because even though he doesn't understand why or how, he knows it's more complicated. But he was angry because Kim was in danger, and suddenly, it didn't seem logical or rational to keep by book.

Okay so now I've said that, onto what I think this means and how I want this go moving forward.

Adam was a jerk. What he said to Kevin was such a low blow, and things are going to be fractured between those two. And I think nothing Adam feels towards Kev has changed, but I do think they'll be that little emptiness in Kev, because hearing your white best friend say that? Ugh. Pain.

In a general sense, I think they'll be fine. But they can't be as close as they were, without Kevin feeling some sort of distance without any closure.

So in season nine, we definitely need our boys to have a conversation. And not just one, but several. And we need to see Adam make some actual changes to his beliefs. Not just half assing it bc he knows he's wrong even if he doesn't understand the complexities of why, but actually challenging his own beliefs and learning.

I think one of my main problems with this fandom (the white fans) is how much emphasis is put on both Adam and Kev seeking each other out to have a conversation. That's just wrong-- Adam should be the one. None of this, fixing this, educating Adam is on this is NOT in any way, shape or form is on Kevin.

What Adam said is hurtful, and I think Kevin still loves Adam, still sees him as his brother. But siblings don't always get along, or even like each other, even if there's that I'll-die-for-you love. And I think that's where Kevin is at. Adam hurt him, and that's gonna do some damage, and so even though Kev does understand, he's not gonna seek him out or try to fix it AS HE SHOULDN'T, because that onus is purely on Adam's shoulders.

Like. I think what white fans don't get is just how exhausting it is always having to understand, always having to be patient. Like yeah white people don't get the ins and outs like we do, so we're forced to always be understanding bc while we have to learn these things from our first days, they're just learning now. But it's exhausting, so that's why I really hope they have Adam seek Kev out, not have Kev approach him to talk about this.

(it's always why I love how they had Kevin full on yeet Adam, and beat the crap out of him. Poc always have been portrayed as patient when cruel remarks are hurled at us from people we love in anger, and I'm happy they showed Kevin snapping. Bc that was not on, and Kevin was just as worried about Kim, and Adam implying otherwise is wrong. It's also though why I also love that as soon as they were pulled apart, Kev stopped fighting/looking so angry quicker than Adam).

Like I'd be okay with Kev just saying, simply, to Adam "you don't ever say that stuff to me again." And that's that. But for them to actually have a conversation about this, has to come from Adam and HAS to start with an apology.

And Adam has to actively do better. Like no more just accepting things are different even if he doesn't understand, he HAS to learn everything, all the ins and outs, all the complexities, until he lives and breathes it as much as any white man can. Because I can't see Kevin having what was fracture ever feeling completely solid again without that.

And I do like that the show went there, because it's necessary and I think it's the best position for Adam to realise just how Shitty he was. Because Kim was found-- by the book. Like most of his anger was from how in the past, they've gotten their results by being off book, so I think in Adam's mind, he thinks that's the best way to secure safety. But it was by the book that found Kim, and I think that will really make Adam realise that these enforced policies DON'T make it harder to secure their own safety.

Also, Adam's presumably going to spend a lot of time around Makayla, and so forth, will probably get a lot of firsthand experience of seeing racism or it's affects. Like I know we wish he'd see if bc of Kev, and he does with a lot, just not other stuff, but it's different when you're seeing it through the eyes of a little kid, not a grown adult. And I think this will make Adam a lot more humble, which will help patch things up between him and Kevin.

And then there's Kim. People often forget how when you have multiple white friends, when you're hurt, your more knowledgeable friend steps in. Kim gets this stuff a lot more than Adam, even if she can never understand like Kev, and so I can COMPLETELY see her teaching Adam more stuff. Like because she'd want to help her boys, because Adam's a part of Makayla's life, because Kevin shouldn't HAVE to be the one to educate Adam, whereas Kim can bring him up to her own level, and that's when they rely on Kev.

So I think overall, I'm not that conflicted over PD because I'm really hoping this will spark deeper conversations and that Adam will grovel and fix his ignorant stances. And I hope to god they let Kevin heal and forgive in the way he should be allowed to.

I have a LOT more thoughts on this, including how I hate that they only show Adam's ignorance when a lot of the unit is also Not Great, and about partnerships and how Jay and Kev should be going forward. But this is getting really long now, so I won't delve into that or this any further. But I might, especially if it's wanted, because I have so many thoughts.

Also, thank you for sending me this ask!! I am ALWAYS comfortable sharing my thoughts on this fandom (about anything really, racism, sexism, ships ect) but especially the racism and the racial storylines and issues. Sorry it took so long to answer; I've been thinking on it all day, wanting to give you the best answer I could!!

[mr-and-mr-diaz]

I Don’t Understand Buck Begins.

PSA this is a bit of rant. Not a hate-rant or anything like that, but I do express frustration and if you’re not here for that right now, please skip this. It is complicated and ended upa bit long. But if you’re up for it, I’d LOVE to know your thoughts.

I actually want to talk about this with people. I’m not here to drop a statement like a microphone and walk away. The first time I watched Buck Begins, I loved it. I still do. But as I think back on it and rewatch, there are some major issues I’m spotting:

1. Buck in his whole life has been endangering himself in order to get the attention (dare I say LOVE) of those around him. I feel like the Firefam’s (very OOC) responses to him recklessly endangering himself again only enforced these destructive habits?

2. Firefam’s OOC reaction: In literally every other episode, when Buck recklessly endangers himself the firefam immediately put the brakes on, tell Buck to treasure himself, not to be reckless, to think things through, to realize that the victim got out because of sheer good luck (as well as hair-brained thinking on Buck’s part, but some of Buck’s decision making also really endangered him, more on that later.) The fact that Bobby let Buck work that fire at all in the state of mind he was in is odd. The fact that Hen told him he was for whatever reason correct in choosing to split from the party and go on his own in his current state of mind was beyond odd. Looking back, it doesn’t feel like real moments, but rather contrivances dressed in nice words like “I don’t this often but you’re right” (NO HE’S F**KING NOT!!) so that we wouldn’t question them immediately. Was Buck correct that the other team needed anotehr man? Yeah. Was he right that it should be him? NOPE. Anyone could see that, we could see that, the Firefam could see that. but they let him go anyway. This is OOC, they’re smarter than that, and they’ve known Buck for long enough to know when he’s triggered and more likely to make poor decisions. During it, when Buck disobeys orders and Bobby is calmly just like “Yeah he does that sometimes.” I’m sorry, did someone put Xanax in Bobby’s coffee? Why on earth would he be so calm?? In a normal situation he would never be calm about that--add to it the fact that he KNEW Buck wasn’t at his most stable at the moment? He should have been shouting into his radio and hauling ass, not shrgging and smiling with pride like “Yup! It’s cool with me” like what?? Then afterward, nothing but kind words and praise. Good job risking your life like an idiot, good job risking the other guy because you were so determined to get him out asap you didn’t stop to think. That’s what you do, Buck. 

Like did they really just say that!?

The only nuance that I thought was right here, the only thing that was given emphasis that felt RIGHT, was not that Buck stays behind, not that he makes reckless decisions sometimes, not that he jumped into a fire while unstable, THE ONLY THING that should have been emphasized here, that the episode should have been based on? Is that BUCK DOESN’T GIVE UP. There’s a quality in him that we’ve seen before. one that Buck doesn’t seem to realize about himself. Athena’s moment was the only moment that looking back gives me any kind of cathartsis, because it is the only healthy reaction from the firefam that I saw (aside from them all running in after him--still love that moment.) they should’ve been gentle baout it, but nonetheless should’ve told Buck to treasure himself more, not be like “And here’s our most rekless memeber, pat on the back, kid, we love that you throw yourself into danger without thinking, in fact that’s what we love most about you!” Thinking back, I could SCREAM that that’s the message they left Buck with.

3. The victim: Let’s face it, the only reason the victim didn’t die is because the writers didn’t want him to. They made sure the tank landed somewhere non-fatal so that Buck could still get a win, even though many of his decisions thus far had been hare-brained and ill-advised, driven by a mad need to prove himself, and to never leave people behind, even if stopping and waiting and thinking might be more advisable at some points. In fact, when the victim first falls, and buck wakes up and he looks at him and I thought the victim was dead, first of all I was really sad for the victim, but I also felt like that was the right way to go. Buck’s decision making wasn’t sound, he wasn’t thinking straight, he went in anyway, by all rights the only reason the victim stayed alive after everything he went through was because the writers wanted him to stay alive which they followed with a big and in my opinion inappropriate Pat on the back Moment. The victim dying would’ve been tragic, but it would’ve driven home a lesson for buck, that hurting himself, endangering himself isn’t the answer, won’t always save the day. It would’ve taught Buck (harshly yes, but) that he needs to get his head  on straight in this job. And if he had lost teh victim and the firefam had been there for him anyway, it would’ve been a whole different scenario.

In the episode, while it was super sweet and had some incredible moments, Buck learns nothing, his relationship with the Firefam doesn’t actually change at all, and his relationship with his family doesn’t appear to have actually progressed. He’s still prioritizing them over himself (bringing the parents into therapy since well, they’re trying which is apparently enough now), he’s now been encouraged to continue the reckless streak of self-sacrificing decision making that he’s been on in the past in order to gain teh love and recognition of the poeple around him.

I wish the writers had placed focus, not on Buck being accepting, not on Buck being restless, but on Buck not giving up. We saw bits of that yeah, but it wasn’t as highlighted as Buck ebing reckless and feeling overall like he’s not enough. I wish the episode had been centered there, and they had created an entirely different scenario start-to-finish that (like in Eddie begins, where there were no contrivances, the only reckless thing he does--cutting the line--is something that there isn’t a quetsion in a single brain he WOULD do and should do) where Buck is level-headed, where he’s in some kind of scenario where only he could uniquely succeed in because he never gives up. This episode had bits of it here and there, but ultimately what was running teh day was buck vulnerabilities, not his strengths. Insead of pointing out where Buck shines (like the other Begins episodes), they really only further highlighted what his weaknesses are and then proceeded to have the people around him encourage those weaknesses. Like, what?!

I also think this was the moment to solidify the firefam as his family. Instead, we see Buck retreating back toward a very unhealthy family situation and the firefam remains where they always are. What they did for buck in this episode was something incredible, but it’s also something they would do for any member of the firefam. What I wanted was for the firefam to show up for Buck in a way that he uniquely needs. How, I don’t know--perhaps taking a jab at his loneliness, surprising him with a dinner party at the loft, whatever. Something that told Buck “we see your pain, we see how tough your parents are, how you and Maddie need family who will show up and treasure you no matter what (WHICH BTW INCLUDES YELING AT YOU WHEN YOU’VE BEEN AN IDIOT AND TELLING YOU TO PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF CRAP DON’T ENDANGER YOURSELF LIKE THAT AGAIN, PLEASE VALUE YOURSELF), that’s what Buck needed. An episode that would help him learn to treasure himself, believe in himself more, love the fact that he never gives up about himself, learn that dangerous stunts and running into things without thinking because he bleives that’s what gets him love is incorrect and unecessary. We didn’t get any of that. The episode was also trying to kill two birds with one stone, which brings me to my last point:

4. Framing Buck Begins around the sibling’s relationship, while GORGEOUS (seriously LOVED these moments they did and the casting was amazing, and both JLH and OS played their younger selves to perfection) I wish had been placed in a completely different episode. They didn’t belong here in an episode of Buck learning about himself. And because of the amount of airtime they took up, we ended up with an episode where Buck doesn’t really learn about himself in the end. Everything remains largely external instead of internal.

All in all, I feel like we need another Buck Begins episode to right the wrongs of this one. Nothing has been solved or fixed. Buck’s relationships remain pretty much the same going in as they do leaving. He has found no peace, no resolution (except in confirmation that Maddie loves him, which is nice, but largely external) he is still fuled by the belief that reckless behavior is what wins him teh love and attention of those around him.

This frustrates me to no end. If you feel like Buck Begins did scratch every itch for you, I’d love to talk and see your perspective as well, because I hate this itchy feeling of dissatisfaction and I dearly hope I’ve missed something here.

Anyway sorry this got so long. Didn’t realize I had QUITE so many thoughts until I started writing and then shit happened. If you made it to the end, thank youa nd I’d LOVE to hear your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree.

[tricktster]

Is TST for the satanic temple

It is merely a happy happy happy coincidence, but don’t take that to mean that they don’t have my full-throated support and admiration.

Since you kids are on tumblr, I’m guessing a lot of you already know that The Satanic Temple (TST) is not, in fact, a group of people who worship Satan. For those of you who might (understandably) have TST confused with an an actual Satan-worshipping entity, rest assured - supporting TST requires no actual Satan worship - or anything worship, it’s a “non-theistic religion.” 

So, you might be wondering, what’s the point of a purported Satanic church that explicitly does not believe in, nor worship, Satan? 

Great rhetorical question! Thank you for the invitation to geek out! In this essay I will explain why The Satanic Temple is an incredibly clever maneuver to protect the individual rights and liberties of people in the United States of America, and why you should all, regardless of religious belief, stan them. I am sorry! This is going to be a long one! I’m going to use a page break!

(Apologies if anything I say here is really basic obvious stuff that you already know. I will probably cover some familiar ground, but I didn’t get taught about any of this in high school beyond a few throwaway paragraphs in a textbook, so I’m writing with an audience of ‘me in high school’ in mind.)

As you know, the founding fathers did some pretty wild shit when they decided on what the United States of America was going to look like, and among the wildest was the decision that America would not have a state religion. I cannot express to you guys how significant this decision was in shaping American culture... soooo I won’t try because it’s beside the point and this is already going to be way too long. All you really need to take away is the following:

The U.S. constitution provides both that religion and government are to be kept separate, and that the free exercise of religion is a fundamental individual right, and those portions of the constitution have pissed a lot of people off over the last 244 years.

So there’s actually three parts of the bill of rights that are in play here. In the First Amendment, we have the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [The Establishment Clause], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [The Free Exercise Clause]; or abridging the freedom of speech [...]”

These clauses were the only part of the Constitution that touched on religion until the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. For those of you who are curious about the timing of a new amendment in 1869 and are as bad with significant dates as I am, the Civil War ended in 1865, and, as such, it’s worth noting that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black people. I am not the first person to note that uh, we are clearly still working on that.

Anyway, for our purposes, the pertinent part of the 14th amendment is the Equal Protection Clause:

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Okay, very broadly, here’s what each clause actually does:

The Establishment Clause says that the US government cannot sponsor any religion, or involve itself in religion to the benefit of one religion over another. 

The Free Exercise clause says that the US government cannot stop someone from holding a religious belief (or force them to adhere to another religious belief)

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination on the basis of religious belief

These all look pretty great on paper, but in practice, enforcing them has been wildly hit or miss. I’m going to discuss why, so I’ll say up front that none of this should not be construed as an attack on Christianity. Religious faith is intensely personal, and I want to emphasize that I am in no way advocating for adherents to the Christian faith to be unable to practice that faith. I am a sincere advocate for everyone to be able to freely practice their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and that’s exactly what’s at issue here - when one religion is positioned above all others, anyone who does not believe in that particular religion is impacted detrimentally.

So with that caveat in place, it’s important to recognize the following: the United States is, and has always been, a majority Christian nation. 65% of Americans identified as Christian in 2019, which is a historic low. Even ten years back, it was closer to 85%. In accordance with the demographics of the US, Christianity is, if anything, over-represented in US government. 85.4% of US congressmen identify as Christian. 82 out of the 100 senators identify as Christian (I’m not counting members of congress or the senate who identify as members of the Church of Latter Day Saints in those numbers). Furthermore, every single president has identified themselves as Christian - the spiciest America has gotten in re: the religious beliefs of a POTUS was JFK, who was, you know, Catholic.

This is important, because it directly impacts how we interpret what “separation of church and state,” “free exercise of religion,” and “nondiscrimination on the basis of faith” actually mean. When a country is predominantly comprised of people who share the same faith, that faith becomes part of the shared cultural concept of national identity: even though the US is, in practice, relatively diverse in terms of ethnicities and religious faiths (as far as countries go), if you ask someone on the street to imagine an American, they are probably going to imagine a white dude who loves Flag and also Jesus. That national identity is reflected in the country’s chosen representatives, and in return, in the legislation passed by those representatives and the behavior expressly condoned by the government as a whole. The end result of all of this is that in the United States of America, Christianity and the exercise of government frequently intersect.

Take the late forties and early fifties. WWII is over, and two global superpowers have emerged that are at diametrical positions; there’s our old capitalist pal the US in one corner, and in the other, the godless, socialist menace of the USSR. I’m being silly and hyperbolic here, but not about the godless bit: the USSR was officially an athiest state, and the government forcibly converted its citizens to atheism. So, the US squints at this and swings hard in the opposite direction; this is a Christian nation, we are sticking “under god” in the pledge of allegiance, we are putting Ten Commandment sculptures in front of our courthouses, we are mandating prayer in school, and if you have an issue with any of that, you are not a patriotic American.

Some of that stuff from the 50s still exists today (“under god” is still kicking around), but a lot more of it is essentially outlawed thanks to the branch of government that I haven’t mentioned yet, the federal judiciary. How this played out was essentially that someone would be impacted by state-sponsored Christianity, they would sue, and their case would eventually be appealed up to the level of the Supreme Court, who would look at the Constitution, admit that it’s pretty unequivocal about the whole separation of church and state thing, and bar the state sponsored religious practice at issue, or at the very least ensure that the state was not sponsoring one faith to the exclusion of others. So, to return to our ten commandments in front of the courthouse or nativity scene outside of a government building; (I’m really simplifying things here but this is the gist) the court has repeatedly decided, those are fine, as long as you give fair play to any other religion that wants to erect their own religious display there too. It’s either that all religions have an equal opportunity to be represented, or no religion does.

I know, this is supposed to be about why The Satanic Temple is cool. We’re getting there.

Let’s jump ahead to the early 2000s. Bush Jr. is president, thanks in no small part to massive evangelical Christian support, and those evangelical Christians have some demands: they want schools to teach creationism, they’re gunning directly for reproductive rights, and they have had enough of this whole gay nonsense. A lot of legislation gets passed during the Bush era that gives the Evangelical base what they want, and among those big evangelical wins was on teaching intelligent design in schools. This didn’t happen everywhere, but some states basically said that intelligent design could be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes, and that evolution and intelligent design had to be portayed as equally valid theories.

Obviously, a lot people were upset about this, because... well, it’s science class. Among the people who thought this whole thing was bullshit was a guy named Bobby Henderson, who wrote an open letter to the Kansas Board of Education in 2005. Referencing the Supreme Court decisions I discussed earlier (either all religious beliefs get equal play or none of them do), Bobby demanded that along with evolution and intelligent design, Kansas schools devote equal time to teaching the creation story of his religious faith, and if any of this is sounding familiar, that’s because Bobby described his religious faith as “Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.”

The memetic potential of this argument was basically designed for the internet era, and it wasn’t too long before purported adherents to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was filing lawsuits that challenged all sorts of government practices that obviously skewed Christian. They were making classic reductio ad absurdum arguments; if it was ridiculous that the government should promote the message of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a given sphere, it was equally ridiculous that the government should promote the message of other religious faiths in that same sphere.

The whole pastafarian movement had one major weakness, however - it was expressly, deliberately silly. Nobody could mistake a Flying Spaghetti Monster argument to be made in good faith, and the courts used this to basically ignore FSM challenges that would otherwise be valid. Here’s what the Nebraska federal district court decided in the big Flying Spaghetti Monster case, Cavanaugh v. Bartlet:

“The Court finds that FSMism is not a ‘religion’ within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and FSMism contains a serious argument, but that does not mean that the trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection as a ‘religion.’”

That’s the Pastafarian problem in a nutshell. They had great points, but they weren’t actually a religion, and that left the courts free to disregard their arguments by saying that they lacked standing. “Standing” is legalese for the concept of who is able to bring a lawsuit based on a particular act or law. This sounds esoteric, but it makes logical sense: If your neighbor gets hit by an ice cream truck, is injured, and is now hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole for medical debt, he has standing to sue the ice cream truck driver. He suffered an injury that was caused by the ice cream truck driver, and the court has the ability to direct the ice cream truck driver to pay for his medical bills and pain and suffering etc. If you, on the other hand, decide to sue the ice cream truck driver because they ran over your neighbor, well, did you actually get injured? Would it being about any sort of justice if the ice cream truck driver had to pay you money? If the answer is no and you try to sue anyway, the court’s going to kick that lawsuit out.

Constitutional challenges often die because the person suing doesn’t have standing to bring the case. Remember how I mentioned earlier that “one nation under god” is still in the Pledge of Allegiance? A case about that actually got all the way to the Supreme Court, before it was tossed out for lack of standing - the problem was that a student’s father had brought the lawsuit, instead of the student herself. Likewise, the Flying Spaghetti Monster cases usually went nowhere because the courts would say “okay, you’re claiming that this law is trampling on your right to practice your chosen religion, but your religion is deliberately ludicrous. Your holy book was published in 2006 and heavily features a beer volcano. You don’t actually believe in any of this, so you haven’t actually suffered the harm that you’re claiming this legislation caused.”

So, uh, how the hell does an athiest challenge the constitutionality of laws like the FSM movement tried to without just getting tossed out for lack of sincerity?

Okay. Okay. We’re finally here. Let’s talk about The Satanic Temple.

In 2013, after witnessing how the FSM movement failed to accomplish meaningful change, Lucien Greaves realized that even though the basic concept of what FSM was trying to accomplish was solid, the issue was in its execution. If you wanted to challenge laws that unconstitutionally favored Christianity, you couldn’t be joking around about your fake religion; you had to play it absolutely straight.

What Greaves came up with is incredibly clever. He set about constructing a new religion for the purpose of using the FSM playbook without falling into the same judicial pitfalls. He made sure that the new religion would constitute an actual belief system in the eyes of the law, which involved identifying the mission and core articulable tenents of the religion. I’m quoting them both below because they’re cool as hell:

The Mission of The Satanic Temple

“The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits.

The Satanic Temple has publicly confronted hate groups, fought for the abolition of corporal punishment in public schools, applied for equal representation when religious installations are placed on public property, provided religious exemption and legal protection against laws that unscientifically restrict women's reproductive autonomy, exposed harmful pseudo-scientific practitioners in mental health care, organized clubs alongside other religious after-school clubs in schools besieged by proselytizing organizations, and engaged in other advocacy in accordance with our tenets.”

The Seven Tenets of The Satanic Temple

1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

3. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.

4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

5. Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

6. People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

Tenets aside, though, this next bit is what just delights me to my core with how crafty it is: Instead of making up his own religious text and history, he went directly to the Bible and said (I’m paraphrasing) “the historical foundation of The Satanic Temple is the exact same as the historical foundation of Christianity. We share the same holy book, and our faiths are grounded in the same tradition. Here’s the only difference: We believe with all sincerity that the character in that book who said ‘hey, try the apple, the pursuit of knowledge is worth rebelling against authority for’ is actually the good guy in the story, and although we are not a theistic organization, it is our sincere religious belief to comport ourselves in the manner espoused by the literary character Satan.”

Holy shit, guys. Holy shit, that is smart. He set up his religion so that you couldn’t attack it for being fake without also attacking Christianity for being fake! Simultaneously, he designed a religion that would reliably produce the perfect reductio ad absurdum argument- you want to display your ten commandment statue on public land? Okay, chill, but per the Constitution, we get equal play, so if you want those ten commandments, you’d better be cool with them sitting right next to our 3000 lb bronze statue of children gazing adoringly up at Baphomet:

Oh, wait, you don’t want to have that statue on government property? Cool. Totally fine. Just take your ten commandments slabs away too, and we’ll call it a truce.

The Satanic Temple exists to protect individual constitutional rights. Regardless of your own religious sentiment, it’s hopefully easy enough to see how incredibly shitty it would be to have your elected government promote religious beliefs that you do not share, to have religious sentiments that you find abhorrent expressly condoned by the government, or to have your own rights of expression and against discrimination constrained by a government that expressly santions only the religious beliefs of the majority, in spite of the concepts expressed in the United States Constitution. The only way to challenge an unconstitutional law is to sue, and it takes a lot of time, effort, and most of all resources to see a constitutional lawsuit through. Organized religion and government entities have a much easier time defending those cases than an individual does in suing them; by supporting The Satanic Temple, you’re directly evening the odds.

P.S. I know I talk a big game about how cleverly The Satanic Temple was designed, but you know how you can tell that it’s actually brilliant? The IRS granted it tax exempt status as a religious entity in 2019. Yup. Even with the IRS directly under the thumb of Donald J. Trump, a man desperate to maintain evangelical support, the IRS finally had to concede that they could not find any reason why The Satanic Temple shouldn’t be treated the exact same way as any other church. Angry that a Satanic entity doesn’t have to pay taxes on its income? Well, buddy, get ready to learn what megachurches get away with.

[ladylee13]

All right, y'all, I've had enough with shitty society. I say we start a cult called "Actual Inclusivity."

Instead of the center of the cult's teachings being some manipulative bullshit, it's literally just love, acceptance, and respect.

We buy some land and start a communal living situation but instead of the money going up to whoever is on top and making them rich, all the money goes toward upkeep and improvement for the whole community. The finances are transparent and available for anyone to see and anyone shown to be corrupt or messing with the money gets kicked out.

We keep a farm to feed everyone. We have high speed wi-fi and some apartments (maybe with communal kitchens, maybe with private ones, idk logistics aren't my strong suit but I wouldn't be the only one running this, so we'd work out the kinks)

Everyone gets to do what they enjoy. Artists make art (and they could do commissions and freelance work and stuff like that to help raise money for the community in addition to art for art's sake), scientists can do their science thing, people who enjoy gardening can tend the farm. Tech people can do tech stuff (idk, I don't do much stem stuff, but we wouldn't be amish, so there'd be upkeep for tech stuff needed, so y'know). Whatever else. Autistic people can spend loads of time focused on their special interests. Non-verbals are not expected to talk. Depressed people or people with anxiety are not expected to work on days when getting out of bed is too difficult. Anyone having a panic attack or PTSD episode while working immediately gets to put down their work, walk away, and come back when they are again capable of giving their work their attention, be that in an hour or not until the next morning. Everyone uses whatever pronouns they prefer, and everyone else uses the appropriate pronouns when addressing or referring to them. If swearing makes someone uncomfortable, people will be expected to respect that and filter their language around them. Everyone gets to love whoever they want with zero societal repercussions. If two people want to get married, they get to. If two people want to live together without getting married, no prob (living together pre-marriage is against my religious beliefs, so I wouldn't do so, but that doesn't mean no one is allowed to. Live according to your own beliefs as long as they don't hurt anyone else. The goal here isn't to make everyone believe same thing or act the same way. It's to respect each other, and hopefully foster more understanding for others and lower discrimination and hate). In that vein, polygamy makes me feel weird, (admittedly, I don't really understand it,) but if some people in a polygamous marriage wanted to join us and were willing to follow the rules, great! Hop in! Let's even have a talk about it. You can help me be more understanding. No one is allowed to force their beliefs into anyone else and if someone feels pressured by someone else, all they have to do is say so and the other person will stop. I've had enlightening and wonderful conversations about religion with people of other religions/also atheists (once even with a drunk atheists and that was great). And all those conversations were great because in no way did they expect me to change my beliefs and vice versa. There was just a sharing of perspectives. And afterward, I felt like I understood them better and they understood me better. And that's what I'm aiming for here.

We can have a few sensory deprivation tanks and weighted blankets available for people with anxiety/PTSD. We can have tons of fidget toys for anyone who needs them to help them focus. We can have anything people need to function their best (I don't know much about what people with neurological disorders that I don't also have need, but whatever they need we'd have). Everything written is also written in braile. There's elevators and ramps in every building. Guide dogs and ESAs are accepted anywhere except in the space of people with animal allergies (Like, the communal areas are regularly cleaned to prevent hair causing allergic reactions and such and there are signs designating pet-free zones). We could maybe have like an animal shelter in a nearby town that anyone can come into to help with and spend time with animals. There would be a prayer room for quiet meditation (with whatever anyone needs for their best prayer environment, like I know Muslims pray toward Mecca and I don't know if there's any ornamentations or anything that they would prefer to have, but if so, it would be there). There'd be a gym to give people access to exercise equipment. There'd be a big old clock tower with bells to indicate prayer times for anyone who needs them. There would be a church building for use by any religious denomination. There'd be regular community activities to give people the chance to have leisurely social interaction and also sometimes exercise in small or large groups, but no one is expected to take part. Everyone with any form of neurodiversity or from any minority group gets to be treated fairly and have their needs accommodated.

No proving you have a disability like you have to to get accommodations from colleges. No one telling you it's all in your head or it's not natural or you should try harder or you just haven't met the right person yet or treating you as being under them for your gender or skin color or anything else you have no control over. Just actual acceptance on every front.

Basically, you'd pretty much be able to live your best life under the principle I learned as a kid: "your agency ends where the next person begins." As long as your actions do not harm anyone, you are free to do as you like.

The rules for living here? Everyone will be expected to contribute however they can (no punching a time clock, but contribute to the best of your ability). There will be no discrimination or hatred toward others. That's pretty much it. It's not that complicated. You will be expected to respect others and they will be expected to respect you. Any crime of any kind would be punished (and I mean things like theft, which I expect would be far less likely to happen given that everyone would have their basic needs fulfilled, and not like things like drug addiction because criminalizing addicts doesn't really prevent people getting addicted and just makes the problem worse.)

I figure the system would be run by committee. Any issues would be put to a vote, and given the size of the group, everyone would get a vote and everyone's vote counts. There would be no one person in charge of the community. Not me, not anyone. Everyone is equally in charge. Issues of things like accusations of discrimination would be handled by a court type situation where a mediator is chosen and both people get to explain what happened (in case of false accusations, which hopefully wouldn't happen, but y'know), and if the problem is based on a misunderstanding or an unchecked or unevaluated privilege, maybe the discussion alone could help the two people work it out, and if not, they get a big meeting with everyone there, and they get a chance to give their side to the group and the group votes on whether or not the accusation is solid and if the accused person will be punished (idk 100% how the punishment would work, but I figure depending on the severity it could be like a first offense would get community service and some kind of lesson in bridging cultural differences or something and a second offense would get something harsher and a third offense would be getting booted from the community. And then something like rape would get an immediate boot.).

Straight/white/cis/NT/any other non-minority people would also be accepted and welcomed so long as they treat everyone there with respect.

And anyone who says or does something homophobic or misogynistic or racist or ableist or anything else along those lines gets first a gentle warning and a chance to re-evaluate their prejudice and if they refuse to check themselves they get kicked out with whatever money they came in with.

I know that no matter what system is in use, there will always be someone ready and willing to find holes and take advantage. So we'd run on a spirit-of-the-law system instead of a letter-of-the-law system, and with everyone getting a say and everyone basing their decisions on that foundation of respect, it would be easier to enforce.

And sure, maybe this is just a fantasy-land-pipe-dream, but come on. How cool would it be? No more forcing our triangle or star or pentagon or splatter-shaped peg asses into circular holes? I don't believe in humanity at large to implement large-scale actual acceptance, but a little mini-society? That seems a little less impossible, right?

This is all spitballing, but the more I think about it, the more I love it. Feel free to add on.

[carlatsukinamistolemyhamsandwich]

@herdeandragonpainter replied to this post I made regarding Shin’s feelings towards Carla. I hope you don’t mind me posting your reply like this but you raise some interesting points and there’s some stuff I’d like to address.

Honestly I understand why he and others would hate Carla for what he did more but I blame shin more for being stupid and forcing Carla in that position in that first place I don't think he it was just his immaturity I think was too spoiled rotten and defended by his family even by Carla to some extent he got praised for beating up his clan members I think this matter could have been avoid if they properly taught shin what it truly mean to be strong and be a leader and is Always hard no matter what instead of seeing him as a kid and if he was more sen They never truly treat him as a young adult that needs to be more responsible as the prince of the first blood clan and help lead and defended the clan they pretty more saw him as a being too immature and kept him in the dark about all the problems with the clan and his dad and protected him in a way they didn't think he could be strong enough to handle the severity of the problems giessbach was causing or truly support him as a person to be strong the only 1 who did That was yui in his route his aunt left and his mom relied more on carla And if shin was more sensible and did his responsibility as a prince and 1 of the the leaders and protector of the clan more instead of picking fights and being immature about his inferiority complex his family would have seen him in a better light and view him more as a young adult and prince able to take care of himself and protect and lead the clan instead of a immature self centered kid that Can't handle the harsh reality of life life is hard no matter what if he doesn't have what it takes to do whatever it takes to survive he would never be able to fully defend himself much less others I don't think he realised him people respected Carla more not just because of his abilities but he was doing his responsibilities as a leader well shin never did anything like that and spent his days seething in his own inferiority complex and beating founders up all day I am kind of worried about the founders I think part of their demise had to do with how prideful they are it like other than their pride as a founder their life has no meaning I don't think they have the courage to retreat when necessary and plan for a counter attack or handle being weak well if everyone thinks like shin the clan is screwed if the males are dying in their prime before they start a family I can see how they lost their power before endziet fully devoured The clan even the wise Carla and his experienced uncle did sucidail acts because they are Pround founders yui got in danger because of this philosophy it makes me worried about the all the founders wives in the past and if they were left defendless with their children because the males tried to be "proud founders" krone also died because her trash husband was crazy with this Even if they were ghouls with their experience they would have taught the next generation and other founders well but Carla uncle killed himself and his knowledge died with him

Firstly, regarding Shin, yes a lot of his problems lie in the fact that no one really addressed them while he was growing up (even if Carla tried in his own way, and was less than successful), BUT do I think he would have been treated any differently if he was more responsible? Honestly no. Carla didn’t have any time for Shin, not because of Shin’s personality, but because he was busy with a lot of other things, a change in Shin’s behavior wouldn’t have altered that. We don’t get much of a look into what Krone and Shin’s relationship was like when he was older, but ultimately she didn’t have very much power and I still think she would have relied on Carla more as the eldest. Giesbach definitely wouldn’t have done anything differently. The reason he didn’t send Shin to the front lines in the war against Karl wasn’t because he didn’t think Shin was responsible enough, it’s because, for all his faults, Gies did love Shin and in my opinion didn’t want him to get killed or injured (whereas to Gies Carla was disposable yes he was dreadful I know).

(This got super long so I have put the rest below the cut)

I also don’t think the other founders would have treated Shin particularly differently either. If you listen to what they say about Carla in the flashbacks in Shin’s DF route in terms of defeating Karl, they might have respected Carla for  his attitude but from the way they talk about defeating Karl, honestly I think they respected his raw power more, something Shin simply didn’t have (and which caused so much friction between them). 

Yes, the founder’s prideful attitudes certainly didn’t endear them other members of the demon world, although it is still important to remember that some members of the other clans did in fact support the founders (sort of enforcing this belief in a way) which we know from Carla’s DF route, and also in one of the bonus CDs, I believe Shin mentions that the Tsukinami brothers get their money from sponsors in the demon world (and we know they can’t be other founders because the other founders are all dead).

We don’t get to see very much of the other founders, but they seem to have been doing okay until Endzeit and Gies decided to pick a war with Karl, so I certainly wouldn’t have said there was an issue of them “dying in their prime”. From the little we do see, not all of them were as combative as Shin and Shin says in his monologue at the start of his DF Ectsasy Prologue that there were some founders who didn’t like conflict. 

The key thing that ultimately lead to their downfall was Giesbach taking action against Karlheinz and Burai, which wasn’t a matter of pride but was solely due to Gies going nuts (I think at the idea that he might not be the most powerful demon around).

As for the matter with founders becoming ghouls to avoid dying from Endzeit, I think it’s important to remember that, from the information we get in the games, I’m pretty sure the only one who knew that you could be cured by staying in Rotigenburg and becoming a ghoul was Felsen because it happened to him. When Kino tells Carla about this in LE, Carla’s clearly never heard of it before, and if he hadn’t I doubt any of the other founders did either. And even if they had known, after they were sealed in Bandmaden, there would have been no way for them to reach Rotigenburg anyway so they didn’t really get a choice. (And it means we don’t actually know whether all of them would have decided to die as a founder rather than live).

Admittedly, I don’t think many of them would choose to give up being a founder and while pride does play a part in it, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Firstly, we get told multiple times in DL that immortals perceive death differently to humans and that it’s something to be celebrated. As for the matter of pride, like I said, that’s going to play a part in it but, their species was part of their identity. Think for a moment about the things that make you up as a person, things you value (could be your sexuality, your gender, your religion, etc.) Now imagine having to give up one of those parts of yourself. I’m not sure how easy it is to think about but I think that’s the best way I can try to get you to visualize the sort of decision a founder would be facing when deciding to live as a ghoul or die a founder.

Finally, ghouls are significantly less powerful than founders, so in being cured of Endzeit, they’d lose most if not all of their magical abilities, which I imagine would be a pretty terrifying concept to someone who had spent their entire life as an individual with power. Yes, as you said they could potentially have tried to raise the next generation, but everyone in Banmaden (with the lone exception of Shin) eventually caught Endzeit, in which case they all would have ended up just living as ghouls (and I’m certain that if this had happened, the other demon races would have just ended up treating them as terribly as they treat the other ghouls). 

TD;LR

I don’t think Shin would have been treated any differently by his family or the other founders, even if he were the most responsible individual in the demon world.

The founders do have some major issues when it comes to pride, but ultimately that wasn’t the cause of their downfall (although it certainly didn’t help). The reason why Carla and Shin are in the position they are now is because of a combination of Endzeit and Giesbach going mad and entering into a war with Karl. 

As for the matter of founders choosing to die from Endzeit rather than living on as ghouls. We don’t get a good enough look at other founders to know if all of them would have chosen to die as a founder. While it might seem like stupid decision from our perspective as ordinary humans in a non-magical society, to them it would have been a very big deal and it’s important to try to look at it from their angle to understand why they would choose to do such a thing.

Hope you’re all having a lovely day and that this makes sense!