#that is one of his v core doctrines

[punkmacabre-arc]

#    ( 𝔮. )     —     ◟   WHICH  TRAGIC  DEATH  WOULD  YOU  SUFFER  ???

THE SACRIFICE:

you     die     saving     the     thing     you     love.     maybe     it     is     family,     friends,    perhaps     even     a     cause.     they     will     carry     your     face     with     them     for     the     rest     of     their     lives,     &     every     milestone     they     pass     will     make     them     think     of     you.     it     does     not     matter     because     you     won't     be     there     to     experience     it     with     them.     years     down     the     line,     they     will     meet     people     who     do     not     even     know     the     weight     of     your     name     upon     their     skin.     this     is     what     your     selflessness     gets     you     in     the     end.

tagged by: @ducygnenoir ( mwah 🖤 ) tagging: @ofsoul, @whitelace, @lakeletters ( zee & daenerys ), @selinaes, @lusifr & if you see this ur tagged now < 33

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Professor Laurence Tribe’s reflection on Project 2025

Professor Tribe’s career as America’s leading constitutional scholar spans half a century. From that unique vantage, he is raising the alarm about Project 2025’s most pernicious goal—one that is frequently lost in understandable concern about the plan to weaponize the DOJ against Trump's political enemies.

In a thoughtful essay in The New York Review of Books, Professor Tribe identifies Project 2025’s most dangerous aim as that of imposing a “theocratic autocracy” to extinguish fundamental liberties at the core of our democratic existence. See Laurence H. Tribe, The New York Review of Books, Where Freedom Ends.

Professor Tribe addresses the current threat to constitutional liberties by tracing his career defending those liberties before the Supreme Court. His career began during a hopeful time when the Court was recognizing and defending personal liberties against encroachment by a web of theocratic prohibitions masquerading as civil law. The watershed case of Roe v. Wade was one of many cases that challenged religious dogma posing as legislative policy. The victories that began with Roe v. Wade (reproductive liberty) ran through Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage equality).

Since the 2015 high water mark, small groups of religious fundamentalists have engineered a “regulatory capture” of the Supreme Court. The Court has been reduced to the political action arm of the Christian nationalism. That movement aims to extinguish all rights that conflict with its extreme religious doctrine. As Professor Tribe writes,

Law can oppress as easily as it can liberate, and it is the everyday life we lead at our kitchen tables and in our bedrooms that is most dangerously threatened by a return of Trump to power.

As Professor Tribe notes, Project 2025 is at root a religiously motivated effort to replace civil rights with religious dogma. The trappings of an imperial presidency are the means to imposing the religious values of a small minority on the personal lives of all Americans. As Professor Tribe writes,

The threat to all our personal freedoms and civil liberties posed by a second Trump administration is not principally that Trump will finally have learned how to thoroughly weaponize his Department of Justice, filling it with obedient acolytes. We needn’t underestimate this threat to recognize that we look through the wrong end of the telescope if we focus on the powers an unleashed president might exercise through his underlings rather than on the freedoms that exercise would suffocate.

There is much more in Professor Tribe’s essay that merits your consideration. But if we take nothing else away from his essay, it is that the threat of a second Trump term is that it aims to erase the promise that lies at the heart of American democracy: “Liberty and justice for all.”

But Professor Tribe is not merely raising the alarm. He notes that he is “tirelessly working” to achieve the results in 2024 that will allow for the restoration of the rights abrogated in Dobbs. Like Professor Tribe, we must simultaneously recognize the true nature of the threats we face while working diligently to prevent those threats from materializing. The fact that the nation’s preeminent constitutional scholar of the last half century is on the front lines in the defense of liberty tells us all we need to know about the urgency of our own actions.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[adickaboutspoons]

bad writing where? I don't think you know what bad writing is and I have doubts you understand the core of the characters.

Hi Nonnie! Girl, how ARE you? Because you seem to be taking it awfully personally that I am not enjoying this season as much as you are. To be perfectly clear, if you ARE, I'm DELIRIOUSLY happy for you! I wish I was too! I was SO looking forward to it! And even though I didn't care for some stuff here and there for the first half of the season, there was a LOT that I LOVED, and I was still holding out hope for the rest of the season! After the last 3 episodes, I am decidedly less optimistic. I'm glad to tell you exactly why, and At Great Length, because that's kind of just What I Do, but here's the thing... It's ok if you like a thing that other people don't. It doesn't reflect poorly on you as a person. You don't have to defend a thing that you like as though it was an extention of yourself. Also? You and I don't have to agree. There's room for interpretation. I have mine, but that doesn't make it Objective Truth. My positions are only as good as I can offer coherent, well-supported arguements to back them up. I like doing that. I think it's fun. You may still not be convinced. That's ok. I don't need you to agree with me. And, frankly, you don't even need to worry about other people agreeing with me. I am small potatoes. I have maybe two posts ever that have made it into the low thousands in terms of notes - not reblogs, but notes cumulative. Most of my original stuff don't even break triple digits. Believe me NO ONE is rushing to espouse the doctrine of spoondick llc. And that's fine. So I'm gonna go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're asking genuine questions and not just lashing out. But I'm also gonna put my answers below a cut. Because, frankly, you may not entirely agree with me, but you also may not be able to unsee some of the things I point out once I do, and I don't want to take your enjoyment of the show away from you.

So second claim first: that I don't understand the core of the characters. I mean... I have written quite a lot and at length about these characters and their motivations. I mean, each of those is a link to a different meta I've written, and it's not even close to all of them. Which reminds me - I need to update my pinned page. So while you may not agree with my interpretations, at the v. least, you can't argue that I haven't put SOME thought into the matter. With regard to bad writing, the qualifiers may vary from person to person, but to me, it mainly comes down to three interconnected things: Inconsistency, telling rather than showing, and contrivance. I feel that there have been a LOT of inconsistencies with the characters, both between seasons and just within season 2 itself. I'm an unapologetic Stede girlie and he IS the main character, so most of my big qualms are with how his character is being butchered handled.

How the are we supposed to square Stede "had multiple breakdowns over Nigel's accidental death and was so traumatized over everything with Chauncy that he walked back to Bridgetown in his bare feet" Bonnet with the man from last night who murdered Ned in cold blood, and then went on to casually set a man on fire and QUIP about it? It's one thing to butch up with a "how to pirate" montage, it's quite another to become a psychopath, completely unbothered by taking a human life.

And about butching up. While I would, and have, argued that a lot of Stede's insecurities in the first season stemmed from insufficient performance of masculinity, I would NOT say that it was because he wanted to BE more typically masc himself - but rather from the way he has been TREATED for being soft, and internalizing the distain and derision of his bullies. Rather, the whole central thesis to his approach to piracy is it's "traditionally a culture of abuse... And my thought is: why? And also, what if it weren’t like that?" He's flattered when Yi Sao clocks his energy as soft. So his mid-season pivot to needing to embrace these "traditional pirate" behaviors? Yeah - I'd say that's a pretty glaring inconsistency.

Speaking of Yi Sao, lets talk about his fight with her. Because Stede in the first season is consistently shown to be a master of improvisation and using his environment and people's underestimation of him to his advantage to overcome stronger and more skilled opponents. He sends Officer Show Daddy rowing back to the British ship with some impromptu mannequins to give the Revenge time to escape after Nigel's death. He uses distraction and supersition to get the upper hand on Izz during their first encounter. He bests Izzy again in the duel using gunpowder to the eyes when he's pinned, and then using what Ed taught him about taking a stab angling to have it happen against a mast he knew would cause Izzy's sword to break. This initially carries over to the second season with Stede using his lowly position in Towels to acclimate people to deeply inhaling the scent he adds to the towels, and later uses that to his advantage to knock out the guards and escape. So it might have been one thing if Stede was in his cups and mourning Ed's departure that led him to getting overly possessive of his remaining crew and pick a fight with Zheng as a parallel of the Art Exhibition scene from season 1, and getting his ass handed to him as a parallel to Mary's attempted murder/an expression of what a deep impact Ed leaving has made on him that his normal strategizing fails him, but instead, he's getting emotional support (from IZZY of all people) and doesn't even seem tipsy, so he's got no reason to fail so profoundly, and it's played as though Yi Sao is RIGHT about him being "a mediocre man who thinks he's exceptional" when he legit JUST bested her with fucking tea towels 4 episodes ago.

Another big inconsistency for me is Stede's attitude toward Ed, over the first half of the season especially. At the end of season 1, we have Stede irrevocably torching his life as a gentleman of leisure to the ground because Mary has helped him to realize that 1) no body's life in improve by him doggedly trying to insert himself into a life he never wanted or chose for himself, and 2) he and Ed are in love with one another, and he should got find Ed about that. Then we get Stede dragging his heels in the Republic of Pirates while he "earns enough money," but his convo with Blackbeard's wanted poster reveals that he's afraid Ed's life is better off without him. Which? Real Chauncy-coded take there (and also, really? When Stede KNOWS that Ed is weary of the pirate life, but the wanted poster and rumor mill suggest he's thrown himself into it full tilt?). I could understand being worried that Ed doesn't love him anymore because Stede broke his heart, but NOT that "his life is better." But still, Stede IS determined to get back to Ed - he's just nervous about what he'll find when he does. He won't stop talking about it to anyone and everyone. He even yeets himself overboard shouting for Ed when he hears that the Red Flag has come across the Revenge. And then he thinks that he's come too late - that Ed is dead. And he manages to forestall his grief over that long enough to effect an escape, but then goes to do his mourning in private. But wonder of wonders! Ed is still alive! Stede didn't lose him after all! Imagine the rapture within his heart! And then he lets Ed leave without so much as offering to come with, when Ed has barely recovered from 1) a coma, & 2) a suicide attempt. It just doesn't make any sense in any possible world.

I also have a big problem with Mr. "Talk it through as a crew" running away from Lucius when he finally started opening up about the traumtic things he's lived through since he got shoved overboard. I've seen some posts suggesting Stede isn't doesn't prioritize or seem to care much about his crew, but that's just demonstrably not true? His first concern on awakening from being gut-stabbed was about his crew. He apologized when he lost his temper about the fuckery (Never heard an apology, Roach? Really?) and incorperated all of their ideas into the final product. Before he bought the treasure map, he inquired and found out there were no oranges for sale in St. Augustine due to a blight. Stede let Olu crash on his couch instead of having him bunk down with the rest of the crew because they were the charter members of the "my crush just left me for their old life" club and misery loves company. Even in the new season, he set aside his grief over Ed until he made sure his crew - INCLUDING the ones he thought were the ones who MURDERED THE LOVE OF HIS LIFE - were safe. So Stede running away from Lucius in his moment of unburdening himself? And it being played for COMEDY? Is not only antithetical to the established character, but to the central thesis of change being effected by the application of loving support that (I THOUGHT) was central to the whole show.

With Ed, it's mostly better, but even he doesn't escape unscathed. I'm absolutely baffled by the suggestion in episode 5 that Ed doesn't know how to be quiet and sit with his feelings when we see him: 1) stimming quietly with his silk after the "donkey" comment until Stede invited him to open up 2) stimming quietly with his silk after the French Boat Party 3) staring broodingly out to sea after the doggy heaven convo 4) isolating himself in the tub after his kraken meltdown 5) quietly sitting and folding socks 6) pillow fort isolation pod 7) standing quiet and alone after the Izzy confrontation, and apparently not seeing anyone until that night 8) stimming with silk before giving Lucius impromptu late night swimming lessons 9) playing with his dollies 10) cry alone in his room multiple times And maybe it's just that Fang doesn't see those times, because, for the most part, Ed self-isolates when he's feeling particularly emotionally vulnerable. But the show frames it as though Fang is correct? Especially in the after-credits scene where we're listening to Ed's non-stop internal monologue as he fails to sit quietly?

There's more with other characters, but, like I said, the categories are overlapping and inform one another, so I'd like to pivot to Tell-Don't-Show. Because whooo boy is there a lot of it going on. The most glaring one to me is Izzy's whole arc. I've seen a lot of people talking about extending unearned grace and how it's for the healing of the crew, not for Izzy, and that the crew are showing that they've embraced the loving support model they experienced under Stede's tenure as captain. But that doesn't change the fact that Izzy was SUCH a dick that even human-ray-of-sunshine-OLU was rooting for Stede to stab him in the duel, and by the end of last season Izzy sold them out to the English and did such a shit job at captaining that the crew (of which Fang and Frenchie were a part) unanimously voted to throw him overboard bound hand-and-foot. SOMETHING must have happened in the interim to move the needle from "gleefully ready to murder him" to "giving him hugs and unconditional positive regard therapy". But whatever it was happened entirely off-camera. We're just being asked to go along with it. And, to me, that's just bad, lazy writing.

The rest of his arc isn't much better, and highlights more of those inconsistencies. Last season, Izzy was openly dismissive and derisive about sharing feelings - it was one of his driving motivations at taking down Ed and inducing the Krakening. And now he seems to have taken the season-1-Lucius role of being the ship's emotional intelligence? Offering coping advice to Lucius. Suggesting to Ed that he should talk his feelings through. Giving support to Stede after Ed left him (again). Where would he even have accrued that skillset? I'm not saying that it's impossible for him to have changed with the loving support of his crew and in the wake of an identity crisis when he has to figure out who he is if not Blackbeard's right-hand man. What I'm saying is that very little of the actual changes happened on camera. And THAT'S what I have a problem with.

Similarly, I have a problem with the whole Yi Sao-Olu-Jim-Archie relationship tangle. Olu didn't even seem to realize Yi Sao was flirting with him until she said as much. I think he was flattered by the attention, and not averse to the idea, but that's not the same thing as being into her in return. And then, when it's relevant to the plot, we're meant to just trust that he's been secretly pining this whole time? Compare to when Jim left - before they'd even kissed. Olu spent his time mooning over the railing, telling everyone how much he missed JIm, getting drunk, and giving away his room. Since he left Yi Sao, there's been not a single word about missing her, not a moment where he even looks slightly broody. We HAVE seen him bonding with Jim and Archie. Hunkering down against the curse on the same bed as Jim and Archie. Dancing with Jim and Archie. Do you see how this LOOKS like the show is possibly moving in a throuple direction? And then we suddenly get Olu saying out of nowhere that he misses Yi Sao, Jim playing matchmaker for them, and Olu announcing that he's going to leave the revenge to be with Yi Sao. Bye, I guess. And this level of Telling-Not-Showing and inconsistency smacks of Contrivance. And Contrivance really feels like the engine that is driving most of the season to me. It looks an awful lot like the writers had an end-goal in mind, and worked backwards to get there, and along the way did all the hand-waving they had to in order to get where they wanted. Gotta have Stede & Zheng team up against Ricky for an Epic Beach Battle that pits Pirates against The Crown, but why would she want him - especially if she thinks he's "a mediocre man who thinks he's exceptional"?

Oh, what if she loses all her ships because Ricky blew them all up with the world's most contrived bombs?

But why wasn't she on the ship?

Well she was beating Stede's ass at the time.

Why was she beating his ass?

Because he picked a fight with her because he was drunk and she was poaching his crew?

Why are some of Stede's crew willing to leave him even though they were literally ride-or-die even when he was trying to find the guy that marooned them?

Oh, Olu's been in love with Yi Sao this whole time, but, like, never fucking mentioned it, just trust us.

Why was he drunk - Stede thinks drinking 'til you puke isn't fun, remember?

Oh, he is getting plied with drinks because all the pirates love him now.

Why do all the pirates love Stede now?

Because he killed some Big Name Pirate.

Stede? "I'm having a bit of a hard time adjusting to being a mur... mur... murderer?" Stede? Are you sure?

Yeah. He's totally butch now.

....How?

He trained on how to be a pirate with Izzy.

Izzy. The guy that conspired with the British specifically to murder Stede Bonnet? Why?

Ed said he needed to work on his "mean voice" and be more dom assertive.

Why would Ed ever say that? He loves that Stede is out there doing things like no one else.

Because Stede doesn't feel like a captain.

Even though he's calling all-hands meetings and mediating crew grievences and rescuing his crew and no one is challenging his authority or even questioning whether his devotion to his boyfriend is possibly compromising his ability to do his job?

...Yes?

But why Izzy? Stede hates Izzy. Izzy hates Stede. Surely these are universal constants.

Izzy's nice now. He's been rehabilitated by the love of the crew.

...How?

Jingly keys.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Somewhere — probably in hell — Roger Ailes, the Richard Nixon acolyte who co-founded Fox News, is smiling at the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. The majority’s ruling is another strike against the institutions that brought accountability to Ailes’ old boss over the Watergate scandal. And Ailes’ fingerprints are all over the result.

The court’s decision gifts presidents with extraordinary immunity from criminal prosecution that will hamstring the prosecution of Donald Trump over his 2020 election subversion plot. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for himself and the other five justices appointed by Republican presidents, declared that Trump and other presidents “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” Roberts stipulates that Trump’s efforts to pressure Justice Department officials to support his false claims of election fraud fall under the former category, while the then-president’s attempts to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to throw out electoral vote slates are an example of the latter.

This is a new and radical doctrine. The majority defies “an established understanding, shared by both Presidents and the Justice Department, that former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor notes in her dissent. “Consider Watergate, for example,” Sotomayor continues. “After the Watergate tapes revealed President Nixon’s misuse of official power to obstruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of the Watergate burglary, President Ford pardoned Nixon. Both Ford’s pardon and Nixon’s acceptance of the pardon necessarily ‘rested on the understanding that the former President faced potential criminal liability.’”

Observers are noting — in horror or with glee — that Nixon would likely have been immune from prosecution for Watergate under the majority’s doctrine. That’s not a coincidence, but the result of a decades-long effort by the right to delegitimize and defang the institutions that stymied the Republican president — the press, the Congress, and the criminal justice system.

Ailes was part of a generation of Nixon aides who blamed the supposed depravations of liberal journalists for driving Nixon from office. Rather than accept that the former president had committed crimes and abuses of power, they organized and strategized, building the right’s massive parallel information ecosystem.

Fox is the crown jewel of that apparatus. As the network grew and solidified its audience over the years following its 1996 launch, it evolved from a right-wing propaganda machine to a GOP power center. But part of Fox’s key function is preventing Republican presidents from suffering the indignities of another Watergate. And no one has benefited more from that effort than Trump, as demonstrated by the aborted efforts to secure accountability for his attempted coup.

[...] Here, too, we see the ramifications of Ailes and his Fox apparatus. His network helped elect Presidents George W. Bush and Trump, who appointed five of the six justices who signed on to the opinion. And the three Trump appointees in particular were heavily supported by Ailes’ foot soldiers during their nomination fights, smoothing their way to the bench. Nixon’s depravities made him vulnerable to the press, Congress, and the criminal justice system. But thanks to Fox, Trump has a level of protection his predecessor lacked.

Matt Gertz wrote yesterday in Media Matters For America that Monday’s Trump v. United States SCOTUS ruling is a win for autocrats and corrupt politicians such as Donald Trump and the late Richard Nixon.

The late Fox “News” co-founder Roger Ailes has his bloodprints all over this ruling, as the reason of creating a GOP propaganda organ like Fox was to prevent another scenario in which Nixon was forced to resign as a result of Watergate.

[foreverlogical]

Well-known political expert, author, journalist, and CEO David Rothkopf is blasting conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court after their disastrous rulings last week, warning the Court is now a “threat to democracy” and suggesting some justices should be “considered” for impeachment.

Rothkopf, also a national security and foreign policy commentator, is a columnist for The Daily Beast and the author at least seven books, including American Resistance.

“Watching debates about Supreme Court here and elsewhere is the latest study in GOP efforts to normalize the unconscionable, the corrupt, and the contra-constitutional. This is a court in which a majority of those on the right took their seats under questionable circumstances,” Rothkopf said at the start of a lengthy thread on Twitter.

“Of them, a cloud of corruption hangs over Thomas & Alito. Kavanaugh took [his] seat despite allegations against him that were not properly investigated. Questions surround his payoff of personal debts. Gorsuch’s ascension is also clouded by questions surrounding Kennedy’s departure,” he says.

READ MORE: ‘Treacherous March of Normalization’: ABC News Slammed for ‘Puff Piece’ Profile on Moms for Liberty

Justice Clarence Thomas has been under fire for months over his relationship with billionaire GOP donor and businessman Harlan Crow, who reportedly has had business before the high court. The far-right wing justice and his wife, Ginni Thomas, (who has been accused of working to undermine the 2020 presidential election results,) may have received gifts totaling over $1 million in luxury vacations, travel, food, lodging, and clothing. Experts say Thomas was required to disclose portions of those gifts and that he did not.

Justice Samuel Alito is also the beneficiary of luxury travel, including a fishing trip to Alaska courtesy of another billionaire, and a trip to Rome during which he delivered a highly-criticized speech just days after delivering his opinion striking down Roe v. Wade. That trip was reportedly paid for by a religious liberty organization whose leader reportedly bought Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Indiana home.

Indeed, Rothkopf also skewers Justice Barrett, or at least her confirmation.

“Barrett received her seat in a rush to judgment that was unlike any we have ever seen and completely contrary to the way the GOP Senate treated prior Dem nominees (Garland). In the time since the majority took over, they have cast aside one core principle after another,” he observes.

READ MORE: ‘Tyranny’: Legal Expert Says Ruling in Favor of Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination Makes It ‘Impossible’ to Respect Supreme Court

“Stare decisis went out the window. (Precedents were ignored without any sound justification.) Promises to honor past decisions as established law (like Roe) proved worthless. Past claims that the right valued originalism and condemned judicial activism were wholly ignored,” Rothkopf charges.

“When precedent went against them, absurd arguments drawing on ancient and irrelevant legal decisions were used to supersede the clear intent of the framers and decades, sometimes centuries of legal precedent.”

Last week, he says, we saw “a decision on affirmative action that ignored precedent, reality, and justice and contained, in its carve-out for military academies, a sub-decision that refuted the logic of the main opinion. In the case of reversing the Biden student loan decision,” Rothkopf writes, “a brand new doctrine was presented out of whole cloth. The decision regarding the ‘right’ of a website designer to refuse to do work for a ‘gay’ couple was based on both a lie and a hypothetical, should never have been taken on as a case and was grossly wrong on the law,” he adds.

Rothkopf appears to believe the conservative justices will not stop.

“These judges are acting with impunity because they believe a GOP controlled Senate will never challenge them and that a fundamental flaw in the way the Constitution grants power to underpopulated states assures that the document that was created to evolve never will,” he writes.

And he suggests some of the Supreme Court’s justices might need to be impeached.

“They also know that Senate rules essentially mean they can act with impunity despite their wholesale corruption and the fact that several of them should, in all likelihood, be seriously considered for impeachment.”

READ MORE: Sotomayor Slams ‘Embarrassing’ SCOTUS Anti-LGBTQ Decision That Marks ‘Gays and Lesbians for Second-Class Status’

Pointing to Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, he adds: “This is, as [she] has said a constitutional crisis. This is an illegitimate, rogue institution that is seeking to reverse decades of progress and impose the will of a white, wealthy, Christian, male, straight minority on the majority of Americans.”

“This is a moment that calls for action on the part of Democrats in power to use their ability to call Senate hearings and to challenge this extremist cluster of judicial terrorists wherever possible. But more than that, it demands absolutely clarity from the voting public,” he says.

Rothkopf warns conservatives in the Court are poised to do even more damage to democracy and the American people.

“Unless Democrats win the presidency, hold and increase their majority in the Senate and retake the House, this tiny band of malevolent and dangerous actors will gut many of the most important provisions of the past century and a half of American law.”

“They will destroy lives and put millions of others at risk. Next year’s election must be in part, about this threat to democracy even as it is also about the threat posed by GOP presidential candidates. Stop. Consider the consequences.”

He warns minority Americans will continue to see their civil rights “stripped” away.

“Consider the basic rights that will be stripped away from women, people of color, our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, voters, and all who believe in the ideals that have guided American leaders as we have struggled to perfect our nation,” he says. “The only people who can save us are you and your fellow voters. The only way to do so is to mobilize, be active, donate to candidates and remain committed to defending our country against the threat posed by the MAGA GOP in our legislature and our judiciary. Starting right now.”

[ausetkmt]

Police Misconduct and Unjust Impunity

Perhaps the most visible and poignant example of the need to end qualified immunity comes from cases of police misconduct. Under this legal doctrine, police officers have often been shielded from personal liability even in cases of clear abuse of power, excessive force, or violations of individual rights. Libertarians argue that this immunity undermines the principles of accountability and equal treatment under the law.

Consider a scenario where a police officer uses excessive force during an arrest, causing severe injury or even death. One such case is Corbitt v. Vickers, where Coffee Co, GA deputy sheriff Matthew Vickers attempted to shoot the Corbitt’s family dog and instead shot their 10 year old son in the leg. Qualified immunity has frequently protected such officers from facing appropriate legal consequences, leaving victims and their families without recourse for justice. Libertarians contend that this practice perpetuates a culture of impunity and reinforces the idea that certain individuals are above the law, directly contradicting their core principle of equal treatment.

Government Officials and Overreach

Qualified immunity is not confined to law enforcement; it extends to all government officials. This broad application can lead to instances of government overreach and infringement on individual rights. Libertarians argue that this blanket protection encourages officials to act without due diligence, as they are less likely to be held personally liable for their actions.

Imagine a case where a teacher or school administrator uses excessive force against a student, especially one with special learning needs. This very thing happened in T.O. v. Fort Bend Independent School District. A teacher, Angela Abbot, threw the first grade T.O. to the ground, seizing his throat and choking him, after he had an episode consistent with his ADHD diagnosis, even though T.O.’s behavioral aid said all was under control. If these actions violate established legal boundaries, qualified immunity might shield the official from legal repercussions. Libertarians posit that such instances directly undermine the respect for individual rights and the principle that those in power should be held accountable for their actions.

Healthcare and Negligence

Even in the realm of healthcare, qualified immunity can have far-reaching consequences. Medical practitioners, when acting in their official capacities, have been granted protection that often goes beyond what is reasonable. While some level of protection is necessary to prevent frivolous lawsuits, the current state of qualified immunity can hinder genuine cases of negligence from receiving due compensation.

Suppose a medical professional acts negligently during a procedure, leading to severe harm or loss of life. If qualified immunity stands in the way of holding the practitioner accountable, it not only denies justice to the affected individuals but also fails to ensure that medical professionals remain committed to the highest standards of care. The State of Ohio did this during the Covid-19 emergency declarations with the passage of HB 606. Libertarians argue that accountability in the medical field is vital to maintaining the integrity of healthcare and protecting individual rights to life and well-being.

Embracing Accountability and Equal Treatment

From a libertarian standpoint, ending qualified immunity is a step toward achieving accountability, safeguarding individual rights, and upholding the principle of equal treatment under the law. The examples provided above illustrate the potential dangers of a legal doctrine that grants excessive protection to government officials, often at the expense of the very citizens they are meant to serve.

By advocating for the end of qualified immunity and having government officials carrying liability insurance, libertarians are championing a society where individuals are not above the law, where government officials are held accountable for their actions, and where the principles of justice and fairness prevail.

[annieqattheperipheral]

full article

More than 100 days into the writers strike, fears have kept mounting over the possibility of studios deploying generative artificial intelligence to completely pen scripts. But intellectual property law has long said that copyrights are only granted to works created by humans, and that doesn’t look like it’s changing anytime soon.

A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection. The ruling was delivered in an order turning down Stephen Thaler’s bid challenging the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI. Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found.

The opinion stressed, “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement.”

The push for protection of works created by AI has been spearheaded by Thaler, chief executive of neural network firm Imagination Engines. In 2018, he listed an AI system, the Creativity Machine, as the sole creator of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was described as “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” The Copyright Office denied the application on the grounds that “the nexus between the human mind and creative expression” is a crucial element of protection.

Thaler, who listed himself as the owner of the copyright under the work-for-hire doctrine, sued in a lawsuit contesting the denial and the office’s human authorship requirement. He argued that AI should be acknowledged “as an author where it otherwise meets authorship criteria,” with any ownership vesting in the machine’s owner. His complaint argued that the office’s refusal was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides for judicial review of agency actions. The question presented in the suit was whether a work generated solely by a computer falls under the protection of copyright law.

“In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No,” Howell wrote.

U.S. copyright law, she underscored, “protects only works of human creation” and is “designed to adapt with the times.” There’s been a consistent understanding that human creativity is “at the core of copyrightability, even as that human creativity is channeled through new tools or into new media,” the ruling stated.

While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that they do so only after a human develops a “mental conception” of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.

“Human involvement in, and ultimate creative control over, the work at issue was key to the conclusion that the new type of work fell within the bounds of copyright,” Howell wrote.

Various courts have reached the same conclusion. In one of the leading cases on copyright authorship, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, the Supreme Court held that there was “no doubt” that protection can be extended to photographs as long as “they are representative of original intellectual conceptions of the author.” The justices exclusively referred to such authors as human, describing them as a class of “persons” and a copyright as the “right of a man to the production of his own genius or intellect.”

In another case, the a federal appeals court said that a photo captured by a monkey can’t be granted a copyright since animals don’t qualify for protection, though the suit was decided on other grounds. Howell cited the ruling in her decision. “Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court has recognized copyright in a work originating with a non-human,” the order, which granted summary judgment in favor of the copyright office, stated.

The judge also explored the purpose of copyright law, which she said is to encourage “human individuals to engage in” creation. Copyrights and patents, she said, were conceived as “forms of property that the government was established to protect, and it was understood that recognizing exclusive rights in that property would further the public good by incentivizing individuals to create and invent.” The ruling continued, “The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — was thus central to American copyright from its very inception.” Copyright law wasn’t designed to reach nonhuman actors, Howell said.

The order was delivered as courts weigh the legality of AI companies training their systems on copyrighted works. The suits, filed by artists and artists in California federal court, allege copyright infringement and could result in the firms having to destroy their large language models.

In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said.

This really makes the Studios costing themselves even more money (and getting more unions involved) by prolonging the strike for the promise of free ai labor even more fucking funny. you dumb fucking bastards lol

[thefernmanner]

"The Tekton." From the Book of Sirach, "The Manner of the Fern" 4: 7-10.

Obligations to the poor continue, including a reference to the responsibilities of the Nsh, the Prince, the joiner of the Kingdom of Israel. One is to outline the duties of a congregation. Angels make companies, human beings form congregations. Just as the atoms in a molecule contribute to the properties of a compound, so are individual Jews expected to provide the matter and energy ofJewish life on earth at the behest of the angelic script, but that is the end of the obligations of the angels.

The Nsh must be able to do even more than this and be as a "husband the mother" of congregational life:

7 Endear yourself to the congregation;  bow your head low to the great.

8 Give a hearing to the poor,     and return their greeting kindly.

9 Rescue the oppressed from the oppressor,     and do not be hesitant in giving a verdict. 10 Be a father to orphans,     and be like a husband to their mother; you will then be like a son of the Most High,     and he will love you more than does your mother.

The Values in Gematria are:

v. 7-8: Endear yourself to the congregation, return their greeting kindly. The Number is 7630, ז‎ו‎ל, "do not be cheap, inexpensive or shoddy."

v. 9: Rescue the oppressed. The Number is 4156, םאןו‎, mhampu, "from his cover".

The term Lot and cover, refer to the lid on the Ark of the Covenant. Abraham ,"father of compassion" and Sarah, "the senate" "cover" the universe with their protection. Abraham went to the rescue of Lot as you recall, and was successful at rescuing him from a tyranny.

Now imagine the opposite- a doctrine or dogma that states there shall be no compassion or "coverage" from within the goverment and oppression and holocaust become the norm, which they threaten to do all of the time.

The Torah states this shall not come to pass. Everything that can be done to close and destroy the devil's lunchbox must be done and it is not being done.

v. 10: Be like a son to the Most High. A brand new personal Shiva! The Number is 8107, חיז‎, hiz, "the chest of the husband."

The expectation of men placed upon them by the Torah is they will react to evil with heroism. It is wrong to watch other people languish in suffering. We can cure nearly every disease, protect ourselves from the elements and feed ourselves very well, but life on earth is failing.

The Zohar says evil men are supposed to be game for good men, and they are supposed to be game for marriage, "like joining pieces of furniture."

"The noun γαμος (gamos) means marriage and lives on in English words like monogamy and gamete. The similar English noun "game", we're sorry to report, is not part of these words, as it consists of two ancient Germanic elements, namely "ga" (together) and "mann" (person), although the first part "ga" may very well share its own origin with the ultimate core idea of γαμος (gamos).

Our noun γαμος (gamos) stems from the Proto-Indo-European root "gem-", which also means marriage, although it's not clear what precisely the speakers of that ancient language meant to express in it: did it express a mechanical joining, like the components of a piece of furniture, or a dynamic but lasting joining of two living people, or rather a social joining of two whole families?

Our noun occurs in the New Testament suspiciously often in plural (Matthew 22:2, Luke 14:8), and a group of Greek derivatives that describe various in-laws seems to suggest that indeed our root may have spoken of a broad social joining rather than that of only two people.

Note that the name Levi comes from the verb לוה (lawa), to join, and that the Levites, like most priestly classes in antiquity, were to create social cohesion among the people at large. This may help to explain the presence of Mary, a Levite, and Jesus, a professional τεκτων (tekton) or joiner, at the wedding at Cana of Galilee (John 2:1)."

If we can join two people in marriage, we can join two more, and so on. But first, God must be married to the Temple and that requires we anoint a Nsh. This primary join is the one that will ensure Israel is never sundered again. From this humanity will gain a champion in the cause of man it will never again need to fear being without.

[pashterlengkap]

The right has a hot new legal theory to destroy LGBTQ+ rights

The Federalist Society – the right-wing legal group that Donald Trump made the selection committee for his judicial appointees – has had a lot of success peeling back LGBTQ+ rights by promoting the doctrine of originalism. Originalism tests laws on the principle of whether the nation’s founders intended the Constitution to be interpreted in a particular way. Unsurprisingly, conservatives like the ways things looked in the 18th century a lot more than they do today, so originalism has been a handy way of bending the law rightward. The apotheosis of originalism was the Supreme Court’s decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The majority decision included a tour of legal theory about abortion dating back not just to the founding of this country but 13th century England.  However, for an increasingly fervent and authoritarian-minded group, originalism is no longer good enough. They want something more direct. That’s where a new legal theory, “common good constitutionalism,” comes in. Common good constitutionalism is, in essence, the right wing deciding how to use the law to impose its view of the world on U.S. citizens. Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule, the most prominent advocate for the idea, describes it slightly differently, of course. In a 2020 essay in The Atlantic, he relies heavily upon the “substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good, principles that officials (including, but by no means limited to, judges) should read into the majestic generalities and ambiguities of the written Constitution.” However, that list of principles is, in many ways, antithetical to what many Americans think of as liberty. They include “respect for the authority of rule and of rulers,” “respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function,” and most frighteningly, “a candid willingness to ‘legislate morality’—indeed, a recognition that all legislation is necessarily founded on some substantive conception of morality, and that the promotion of morality is a core and legitimate function of authority.” As Politico points out in a profile of the idea, the ramifications are radical: “the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them.” The theory would allow the right to achieve most of its goals through the courts without worrying about precedent. That includes banning marriage equality outright. Common good constitutionalism is emerging as a hot idea because some right-wing legal eagles are worried that originalism won’t be good enough to destroy decades of advances enabled by more liberal courts. They want to jumpstart the revolution now, and they need a legal fig leaf to do it. While the debate may seem academic, the implications are not. It’s especially worrisome that the philosophy is popular among a particular segment of young lawyers, particularly conservative Catholics. “These are the things that people are talking about in FedSoc chapters all over the place,” one law student from Georgetown Universityt told Politico, using shorthand for the Federalist Society. “I think our generation is a lot more open to it than the older generation.” What turbocharged the debate about common good constitutionalism was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, the majority ruled that an LGBTQ+ employee cannot be fired under federal civil rights law. That decision sent the right into orbit and provided momentum for a theory that would ensure them victory no matter what the law said. Whether common good constitutionalism supplants originalism remains to be seen. But the idea that it can impose the society it wants through its own interpretation of “the common good” is a sign of just how far the right has moved toward authoritarianism. One thing is sure: They will never give up their attempt to eliminate LGBTQ+ rights. Marriage equality would just be the first step. http://dlvr.it/Sg2j0R

[xiaq]

Hi, I have a question re:sex and Christianity. Small background: I still go to church, and I still live with my parents even though I'm not much younger than you, because housing is very very expensive where I live (pretty common here, I would say about 2/3 of my friends live with their parents and we are decently privileged kids)

Anyway. How does one get over purity culture? To be clear, I've never been told in church not to have sex, I've never gotten the gendered lessons that you got. But I am terrified of having sex. My first real, multi-year relationship just ended and while there was hand stuff etc, there was never any p in v sex (lol I feel 12). But I still had insane anxiety about being pregnant despite being on bc. And I think its because I know my parents would be so disappointed if I had sex. And if I was pregnant I could imagine all the gossip. And honestly I think im from a pretty open church, b/c one of our previous ministers kids recently got married at 8 months pregnant and lots of church people were at the wedding and supportive and her parents were there and everything.

I dont even think I particularly like sex, i might be on the ace spectrum, but how do I remove it from all the anxiety that's tied to it so I can even give myself the chance to find out???

(Asking because it seems like you've been pretty open about purity culture/removing yourself from it)

CW for sex talk (again)

How does one get over purity culture?

Oh man. That really is the million-dollar question, huh? Obviously, I can only answer re my personal experiences, and this is something you should talk to a therapist about, but I can tell you how I’ve tackled it with my therapist at least.

Purity culture is, at its core, an ideology that is perpetuated by shame. If you’re indoctrinated into purity culture when you’re a kid, the concepts become baked into the way you construct your identity, your perception of self, and your perception of your sexuality. It’s practically intrinsic, by the time you’re an adult, to feel shame any time you’re reminded you have a body, much less a sexuality.

According to the chapels I sat through every week as a kid, a girl's body could be 3 things: an intentional stumbling block for men, an accidental stumbling block for men, or unnoticeable. Women were to strive for the third option so as to keep their (and their male friends/authority figures) purity intact. After all, if a boy, or even your male teacher, had impure thoughts about you, it was your fault for tempting them (which, holy shit. I still can’t believe that was a thing I bought into for so long. If my 45 yr old grown-ass teacher had impure thoughts because he could see my 12 yr old collarbone, that sure as hell wasn’t my fault. But I digress.) The Only time a woman’s body can be something else, is when she gives it to her husband, at which point she must suddenly flip the switch in her brain that she is now allowed to be a Sexual Being and she must perform Sexual Duties despite living in outright fear of her own body and sexuality for years (decades?) up until this point. Jesus take the wheel.

Purity culture isn’t a thing you can just decide to walk away from if you’ve grown up in it. Because its ideology is insidious and internalized. So first you need to submit to the fact that you’re going to be fucked up about sex. It sounds like you’re there. Second, you need to interrogate what you believe. If you’re leaving religion behind entirely, you’ll approach removing yourself from purity culture differently than if you still identify as a Christian. It sounds like you might be the latter, which meant, for me, separating what’s actually biblical and what’s shitty, contrived, doctrine that I was told is biblical but is actually more political than spiritual. This helps you address the shame issue.

You need to throw away I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Lady in Waiting and all those ridiculous books you read and reread in the hopes of somehow obtaining impossible marriage perfection and look into actual scripture interpreted within its historical context. I could write a book on this, but the TL;DR is that the text of the Bible was written, translated, curated, and changed multiple times over thousands of years by human beings with human biases and, often, personal and/or political agendas. It contradicts itself! Reading it as it is—a flawed historical document—rather than some sort of God-breathed perfect document—is incredibly freeing. When you do, you’ll probably realize that purity culture is bullshit on a spiritual level. Which is a good start, if that matters to you. Because any time you start to feel shame or guilt you can ask yourself: does God actually care if I wear a bikini or touch a dick I’m not married to? Probably not. Wear the bikini. Touch the dick.

The most important therapy session for me was when my therapist asked what I would do if I got to heaven and God was actually the God I’d been raised to fear. What would I do if he condemned me for being bisexual and having premarital sex and becoming educated, for arguing with men, and failing to isolate while menstruating, and wearing mixed fabrics? If Montero had come out at the point, I probably would have said I’d pole dance down to hell. Instead, I said I would spit on heaven’s gates. If a god that cruel and that pointlessly demeaning really exists—a god who would create in me condemned desire—I won't worship him. The good news is, I’m 99% sure he doesn’t exist. At the very least, he isn’t supported by scripture.

Okay. The final thing you need to do is figure out what you actually want, sexually speaking. This bit is probably the hardest. I’m still in the early stages of this myself. You say: “I dont even think I particularly like sex, i might be on the ace spectrum, but how do I remove it from all the anxiety that's tied to it so I can even give myself the chance to find out???” Bro, I wish I had an easy answer for you. For me, whenever I’m feeling anxious about Sex Things, I tell myself: 1. My God does not equate my worth to my sexual habits. 2. My partner does not equate my worth to my sexual habits. 3. I do not equate my worth to my sexual habits. It seems silly, but reminding myself of those three things is massively helpful. If, after I’ve sorted through those, I’m still anxious or uncomfortable, I stop doing the thing. I evaluate. Am I overwhelmed and I need to try again some other time? Do I just not like the thing? Sometimes it’s hard to tell. Sometimes you change your mind. Sometimes you just don’t know. That’s why having a partner who you trust and who’s willing to patiently explore your interests (and respect your disinterests) is so important. Half the battle, for me, was having a partner who told me they’d be ok with no sex at all. Because that took the pressure off me. If the bare minimum they need is nothing, then anything more than that is a bonus! Hooray! This is maybe TMI, but let me tell you. I thought I was asexual* right up until I was able to have moderately non-anxious sex. Never in my life did I think I would initiate a sexual situation but… I do now. It’s a fun thing to do with a person I love and, holy shit. I am furious that I nearly missed out on it.

Finally, re birth control: I don’t know how you can approach that fear in a way that works for you. If you don’t want to ever have penetrative sex, that’s fine! If that’s a point of anxiety you can’t get rid of, then don't push yourself to do it. If you find out you like other sex things, do the other sex things! If you don't like doing any sex things, don't do any sex things! Also, have you considered sleeping with people who can’t get you pregnant? Always an option if it’s an option you want to consider. ;)

Okay. I hope this was even a little bit helpful. Sorry if it’s a little convoluted, I typed it up in bursts during my work breaks.

*This is not at all to say that asexuality can be “fixed." Rather, it’s to say that things like purity culture can drastically confuse your sexuality in general. If you’re asexual, then this process is still important to discover what you like/dislike. Then you can be explicit about those necesities and find a partner who’s a good fit (if you want a partner at all, that is).

[swolesome]

Expanding on this great post by Aranock. I have talked about this before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuRpNDgp5Ck&t I will be talking about it again, because for whatever reason, the message is not sinking in with a great many people. This "The left doesn't try to reach men" narrative is one of absolving responsibility and placing blame; not only is this not helpful to boys and men, it is actively harmful to all of us. Quite frankly, the right treats men like absolute shit, reinforcing the idea that all men are in a constant battle for dominance (and thus, that there are "superior" and "inferior" men), or that they must perform to a certain contrived patriarchal standard to be adequate in their manhood or worthy of acceptance. Whether it is Andrew Tate peddling vicious misogyny, or Jordan Peterson cramming bioessentialism down our throats and acting like crying while he does so makes it a balanced and compassionate take, the mechanism is the same: Boys and men are drawn in by the reinforcement of what patriarchy has taught them about manhood. That it is domineering, aggressive, violent, and positively correlated with power. It is validation of patriarchy, that is the appeal, it is not because "the left doesn't try to reach men." Are there problems in leftist and progressive spaces in how we talk about boys and men? Yes. Absolutely. Unfortunately, this is an inevitable byproduct of the trauma so many people have experienced at the hands of men. It's also an inevitable byproduct of a space where diversity and self-determination are core values for most people. There is no specific, strict behavioural doctrine we're all beholden to--that's kind of the point, and it means we have to engage with problems as they arise rather than downplay or deny them. Social cohesion and change is work, and that's that. But we all need to stop acting like someone on social media posting "Men are trash" is the driving force behind this problem. Andrew Tate literally uses his fans as foot stools and calls them pathetic wastes of space, yet he raked in millions and rose to unimaginable influence specifically because of this unapologetic contempt toward his target audience. If you take twenty seconds to look beneath the surface, it becomes painfully obvious that the issue isn't what's being said, it's who's saying it. Boys and men who have taken the patriarchy pill do not listen to women, and they do not listen to anyone challenging their worldview because the very idea of being challenged is a threat to their identity. Men do not compromise. Men dominate. Men do not listen. Men already know what's real and true. Leaving space for correction is admitting weakness. Pushing this idea that leftists aren't trying not only erases the hard work so many of us are doing, it absolves the men suffering under patriarchy from doing the internal work that would free them from that suffering. Like I said, it is not. Helping. And relying on the input of a literal sex pest to elaborate on this problem not only keeps this creep relevant by giving him a foot in the rhetoric door, it just ain't a good look. We should be having this conversation, being able to talk about this stuff is part of the solution, but you can find better sources of insight flipping logs in a swamp. My guess is that the reason Vaush even takes this stance is because it protects him from having to face his own inability to admit wrongdoing and concede space to people who know better. It's the same male dominance concept masquerading as "progressive" because the guy pushing it publicly says "trans rights" while privately salivating in the DMs of every trans woman content creator this side of Saturn. Let's clean it the fuck up, boys. We're better than this.

Seeing people fall for the "left doesnt speak enough to young men, and I the most sexist creep whos platform is devoted to harassing women and who thinks you need tactical n words am definitely a good source on this" stuff again and I just am so sick of it. There are actually a lot of leftist people, particularly leftist men, who are speaking and reaching out and trying to help young men grow.

Please go watch; F.D. Signifier or Swolesome or Colormind or Babila or Noah Samsen or 50 other of my colleagues who do good work online.

Trying to find a progressive way of doing sexism is not a solution and seeing multiple people sharing a fucking v**sh tweet on here is disheartening. Like no actually the racist sexist creep does not have a point, catering to sexism is not going to help young men. Yes of course the right appeals more to young white men, because power is appealing, being told that "you deserve everything and you are better than everyone else and actually women not having sex with you, which obviously you are entitled to, is because traditional gender roles(ones which benefit you) are being taken away" is more appealing then "actually you do need to work on yourself, you are not entitled to sex or power" then idk what to say. But theres no world in which you should want to cater more to the first thing and still genuinely call yourself feminist.

[umbralstars]

Sothis, the Church of Seiros and Byleth: A Pagan Reading

Due to L!Byleth and the minor hyperfixation he caused I decided to make a whole discussion on how I personally view Sothis, the Church of Seiros as a whole, and examine Byleth's role in the story.

So just some ground rules before I begin:

This is just how I personally viewed the story as I played it, and my own perspective on the plot and meaning behind certain things. I am open to discussion in the comments and reblogs, and if you disagree with my opinion that's perfectly fine. Also so much of this is going to read like headcanons/assumptions loosely supported by canon's thin red strings and I am ok with that.

If any in-game quotes are used they will mostly come from the Church Library since it's easy to check but I'll paraphrase important scenes that I can remember.

Also after compiling a timeline of events best I can understand it I have made a few assumptions: worship of Sothis existed before the Church of Seiros (perhaps even going as far back as pre-Calamity times) and thus Church doctrine and beliefs is largely based upon previously established beliefs about the Goddess. This doesn't have too much to do with the analysis itself, but I just wanted to say it as I quote The Book of Seiros parts a few times and the writings in those books I hold to have a basis in that pre-Church faith.

With those in place, allow me to begin.

The Sothis/Church of Seiros Meta:

While there have been many metas comparing Sothis and the Church to medieval Christianity, I have always looked at them both through a distinctly non-Christian, Pagan lense. 

I myself am a syncretic polytheist who has a complicated history with Southern Baptists. These two core aspects of my spiritual life does color my perceptions of the religion presented in this game and I am fully aware of that. Three Houses came at a time in my life where I was finally seperating myself from my latent Christianity, and exercising my Pagan goggles on this was a major step I took towards that. My intention here isn't to say that Christian coding doesn't exist, but to simply give my ideas and perspective on the religion presented in this game.

First, allow me to give the define the Gods through the lense of a Pagan as it's important to the framing of my ideas:

"The Gods are real, sentient, disembodied minds with awesome greatness and powers beyond what we humans can currently explain with science."

This is the simplest, shortest definition of the Gods I can give and Sothis, beyond a shadow of a doubt, hits all of the criteria as she is presented in the game. The Pagan conception of the Gods does not require any pretense of tri-omnism, and I believe it's best to look at Sothis, and many other FE Gods, through this lense. Sothis, when she was alive and even when she is "dead," is capable of amazing feats such as creating life, turning back time in a limited capacity, and restoring entire continents to life after calamity. While she is not tri-omni, she does not need to be so to be a Goddess and one worthy of worship and reverence.  

Church doctrine itself also exhibits other fundamental aspects of Pagan practice and belief that are important to me and many others: animism and the reciprocity cycle. As stated by The Book of Seiros, Part 1,

"The Revelation.The Goddess is all things. She is heaven above and the land below. She is eternity incarnate. She is the present, the past, and the future. Her eyes see all. Her ears hear all. Her hands receive all."

Obvious allusions to omnipresence aside, another reading of this passage is a far more esoteric, and hard to put into words, aspect of Pagan belief about the Gods. In a sense , the Gods are not limited by the physical constraints of the world and their bodies are inherently an aspect of the very universe itself. They are not omnipresent at all times, but they can be wherever they wish to be especially wherever their presence and power is strongest. That is actually the purpose of idols, alters, and temples. The Gods are not idols or are bound by them, those things are simply repositories to allow us humans to connect with and worship them. 

The natural world as well can be the "body" of a God. Places where their spirits decide to dwell. Natural phenomenon one can feel their presence in. They are not limited to these places, but upkeep of them is necessary to maintain their power and spirit. In this way that passage can be read as Fodlan and the Blue Sea Star being the places where Sothis' spirit chooses to reside along with her actual remains needing to be maintained to keep her spirit maintained. Her sacred body likely extends across all of Fodlan and her spirit resides most strongly as the Blue Sea Star.

Gods in FE also, more often than not, have a physical body that is important for their connection to the physical world. FE Gods are not incapable of interacting with or watching over the physical world from the spiritual, but have much more free reign when their physical body is alive. The places where their bodies are buried are where their power is most heavily felt, and their spirits the strongest, as evidenced by the Mila Tree and the Good Ending of Future Past in Awakening. This what I believe the true purpose of the Sealed Forest to be. Given how protective Rhea is of the place, the strange alter and Crest of Flames that is just there, and that being where Byleth awakens and Sothis remembers, either parts or the entire rest of Sothis' physical body must be buried there and not actually in the Holy Tomb.

As an aside, the remains of the Nabateans can also be seen through this lense but to a lesser degree. It's obvious that parts of their souls and power remain with their bodies, and thus, maintaining the Relics, Crestsones, and the other Nabatean remains not fashioned into weapons would be of utmost importance to Rhea. Because, if they were to be lost or damaged her kin's spirits may forever be lost to the physical world. 

Fodlan being the sacred body of Sothis is also why I believe the Church of Seiros to be an ethnic religion and a henotheistic one to the people of Fodlan. The Goddess is only ever credited in the creation story and a lot of other Church doctrines as having created and choosing Fodlan as her sacred ground. The people of Fodlan likewise are seen as her sacred people. Nothing in Church doctrine says that Sothis is the only God to exist and I truly cannot remember a single instance where anyone says other religions outside the Church are false ones. Hence why I say Fodlanders are henotheistic, where they do not deny the existence of other Gods, but Sothis is the most important and only one worshipped by them. To the people of Fodlan as long as foreigners do not deny her existence and those of Fodlandic descent worship her as they should there is no cause for an uproar.

This is not to say other religions can be practiced freely on Sothis' sacred ground, as evidenced by the women in Abyss who says she worships there "because Abyss is where it is allowed." Along with Atheism among Fodlanders to be a taboo in their societies. Whilst I don't see the Church to be a beacon of religious tolerance (or that Fodlanders don't believe their religion to be the best), I also do not believe them to be proselytizers to places outside of Fodlan. 

The reciprocity cycle also has a place within Church doctrine. The Book of Seiros, Part V describes the various commandments Sothis gave to her people and how if they abide by them the Goddess pays the people back with blessings and gifts. Textbook reciprocity is doing something for the Gods, such as sacrifice or ritual, and gaining something back in return or the Gods do something for you and you give back to them in turn. Reciprocity can be as simple as giving thanks for the blessings the Gods give or complex as full ritual, sacrifice, and or prayer to gain a blessing/aid or give thanks for one. The best case of reciprocity I see in game is the restoration quest for the Saint Statues. Whilst the Saints are complicated in how I believe their divinity is handled there is no doubt the player receives blessings from them for restoring their icons. 

(While I would like to devote an entire section to them and the Nabateans in general like 80 - 90% of my ideas are headcanon that I'm still not sure of. I don't think the Nabateans are Gods like Sothis is however immortal or long-lived they may be. I also still don't know whether the Saints would be worshiped or venerated in the Church, as I still don't understand the distinction of those two things myself, so I don't want to make a judgement call).

What about Byleth?

Byleth...is tricky. Now, I must preface, that all of this is my opinion. Some of it may not be supported by the game, but this is how I personally write him and his status regarding everything we see in game.

Byleth is, for all intents and purposes, the 13th potential vessel for Sothis to return to the world as they were given Sothis' Creststone on the request of Sitri. Here's the thing. I personally do not believe that Sothis is truly dead or that Byleth manifested her consciousness on happenstance.  It has been my personal belief ever since playing the game for the first time that Sothis' spirit does indeed reside in the heavens and that the piece of Sothis that resides in Byleth until his awakening is only a fragment. Along with that I believe that Sothis' consciousness and power manifested in Byleth specifically because Sothis wished for it to be so.

My ideas are centered around a few aspects of the game that have always stood out to me as rather strange if kept in line with the larger context.

Why after all this time and Rhea's many attempts did Sothis manifest in a stillborn child?

How was Sothis able to speak to Byleth and wake him after his 5 year coma?

Why does Byleth loose the Goddess' power at the end of Crimson Flower?

How was Sothis able to speak to Byleth if you choose to S-Support her?

How exactly was Byleth able to dream about something that happened long after Sothis' death even if he can access her memories?

These sticking points have always struck as odd given everything that Sothis says before Byleth's awakening. Sothis should not be able to speak to Byleth at all, but still does so only a few chapters later and comments on the war that Byleth was only privy to the very beginning of.

Hence my belief that Sothis' spirit as the Goddess of Fodlan does reside in the heavens, watching over the continent, and only able to interact with it and its people in subtle ways. Some of her spirit and power laid within her Creststone as it passed from vessel to vessel. One way or another, she was able to foresee the coming war that would change Fodlan fundamentally forever and chose to manifest that piece of her consciousness when the opportunity presented itself. It's why Byleth can dream of a battle that happened long after Sothis' death because he's remembering something experienced by the Creststone and knowledge given by the Goddess soul who resides in heaven.

I also believe that Byleth and Sothis as we saw them during the game was a mistake in some way. Byleth as his own entity was likely not supposed to be and the piece of Sothis' soul that was supposed to manifest wasn't supposed to be amnesiatic or at the very least not separate from Byleth. There were a few times pre-time skip where Sothis would be talking and Byleth's model would be moving and his facial expression changing. Almost like their thoughts were so intertwined that they were practically the same even before the awakening. It's very likely to me that Byleth's memory issues, lack of ability to properly express emotions, and other aspects of their character to be directly connected to the fact that Sothis' soul manifested incorrectly.

The Sothis he hears before waking from his coma and the one he speaks to during his S support is likely the full spirit of the Goddess communicating with him through great effort and only able to because he's her avatar. She knows of the pain Fodlan is experiencing because she can see it and feel it even as Byleth slumbers. Same thing for why Byleth would lose her power and soul piece on Crimson Flower, as Sothis may have interpreted siding with Edelgard as a rejection of being her avatar and simply deciding to be human instead (I don't wish to speak too long on a route I don't particularly like, but I felt that strange ending should be addressed).

My experience as someone who follows a Kemetic path leads me to not see Sothis' soul being split in this way as strange. In this particular religion, as I understand it, the soul is encompassed as multiple different parts all combining to make a singular being. Both Gods and humans have multiple parts to their souls, so one residing in the Creststone, later manifesting in Byleth, and another part residing in the heavens is plausible to me. Also if I wanted to compare Byleth to another FE character, his situation reminds me most of Nagi from FE 11 & 12 who is an amnesiac and likely an incarnation of Naga to aid Marth on his quest. Nagi doesn't get much characterization in those games, but it does show that incarnations/avatar of Gods, who aren't the confusing mess of Robin and Grima for instance, isn't a new concept in series for Byleth.

In terms of what happens after Byleth awakens I do believe that Byleth himself becomes a God or at the very least a demi-god in his own right. As it was Byleth absorbing the piece of Sothis' soul into his own, the Goddess' power was inherited by him alone. The inner turmoil caused by two souls sharing one body finally ceased and Byleth was fundamentally changed becoming, well, an Enlightened One. As the game doesn't really explore Sothis and Byleth much post-Time Skip, due to the war taking precedence and Byleth's unfortunate existence as a silent protag, how exactly he changes is up to personal interpretation. I personally believe he gained not only Sothis' power but some of Sothis' memories and insight that the Creststone soul piece had. He also gained greater control and range of emotional expression and probably took on some of the characteristics Sothis had. 

Byleth is both an avatar of the Goddess and his own person at the same time. He is and is not Sothis.

[thetruearchmagos]

hi !! from the OC ask game, 5, 25, and 46 for the two characters most on your mind :v

Heyyyy, thank you for the Ask! I'll go with Vice Admiral Oxley, and Lieutenant Commander Evren Bayrak, as they were during the events of Swift Seas And Whirlwinds.

5: Do they have any nicknames or pet names or other aliases?

The Admiral: For both of 'em, I'll go with their "Callsigns" from their careers. Oxley's callsign, "Spearsfish", is said to derive from an incident during her time as a cadet at the "Fleet Air Aviation Academy", where she, while out on a sail yacht on off duty with her fellow cadets, attempted to use a mounted trophy spear on the small boat to catch a fish "for the heck of it". Apparently unaware that it was a purely ornamental, highly expensive prop, she threw it into the water, watched as it missed miserably, was reminded of its value, and proceeded to dive into the freezing sea to retrieve it.

(Fun fact, just came up with that for this Prompt, thank you!)

The Aviator: I actually just covered this one in a little excerpt I made out, which you can find here. Hint, it's "Quickshot", and its not for a good reason!

25: What are somethings they find difficult to do? Or say?

The Admiral: Well, despite years of work within the navy, her "actual" experience in Fleet "at sea" command is relatively limited. Her duties , especially before SSAW, dealt with the modernising the Fleet in terms of developing new technologies and doctrinal concepts, a pedigree that leaves her well equipped to fight the theoretical war, but less so in the practical world. However, the real issue comes with her own fears of sending her sailors into harms way, the risks and dangers she knows, and knows most don't, and has to deal with to achieve the duty she's been given. So, taking the final step of really getting into the thick of battle is something that'll be weighing heavily on her mind. The Aviator: Similarly to their boss, Evren, despite their excellent training and apparent talent, is still, in a real sense, quite unexperienced. Already gunning to be one of the youngest Squadron leaders in Fleet Air Arm history, the fact of the matter is that they're rather new to the way the whole fleet works, leaving them, under their bluster and drama, insecure in their position. Their chase for promotion and service mean they just can't say no, fooling themselves into being run into the ground by the weight of duty they work for. They're also, with their youth, already a leader in their field, and the weight of responsibility bears down heavily on them.

46: Does your character believe in anything? Religion? Superstition?

I haven't thought much about this side of their character, so I'm sorry I can't say much about this! I suppose the closest thing I can do is their general sense of idealism. The both of them are fairly firm believers in the values and principles of the United Commonwealth, with things like the value of personal liberty and rights at the core of what they stand for. They're both also fairly steeped in the traditions and institutional culture and legacy of the Navy, and those ideals and traditions that it carries with it, the tales of past glories and battles fought for a higher purpose, which they, in a sense, aspire towards.

And, that's a wrap! I do hope I was able to do this properly, and I'm sorry for any shortcomings in this Answer!

[cruelfeline]

The Hordak Bleatings Masterpost

The new and improved Masterpost! All of my ridiculous bleating in one place! Now with categories to allow you, dear friends and neighbors, to better marvel at the utter nonsense I get up to in my spare time. It shall be updated every so often/when I remember. 

some of these categories may overlap or perhaps not be perfect; I tried; there was... a lot

Enjoy!

Biological/Medical Musings

A Fairly Comprehensive List of Hordak’s Clinical Signs

I Wrote Too Much About Hordak’s Arms

And Then Someone Asked About His Elbows So Voila

Someone Else Asked About His Eyes

Yes; I Did Measure Hordak’s Ears via Fuzzy Math; You’re Welcome

A Brief Word About Dentition

Some Sad Thoughts About Clone Lifespan

I Like to Headcanon that Clones Have Naturally Different Eye Colors

Counting Hordak’s Ports

Thinking About Terrible Ways Prime Could Institute Biological Control

Doing Very Fuzzy Math And Wondering Just How Young Hordak Could Be

Spending Way Too Much Time Figuring Out Whether Hordak is Left or Right Handed

Why Tiny Food is Probably Ideal for Hordak (a joke ask I essentially took Seriously)

Discussing Hordak’s Temper

Considering Whether Hordak Needs Oxygen

Discussing Whether Prime and his Clones are Genetically Identical

Hordak in Relation to Other Characters

Entrapdak

Hordak Can Get Close to Entrapta Because He Needn’t Fear Her

Discussing Entrapdak Age Discourse

Bit More Regarding Hordak’s Maturity vs. Entrapta’s

Hordak Didn’t Manipulate Entrapta… But Catra Did

Assessing that Unfortunate Moment When Hordak Snapped at Entrapta

Further Assessing Hordak Snapping at Entrapta by Noting When He Doesn’t

On Hordak’s Wardrobe Change

Entrapta Shushing Hordak is One of My Favorite Interactions

The Entrapdak Scene Was Also One of Self-Love

I Really Like How Entrapta Talks to Hordak About Failure

Hordak Tells an Actual Lie and Succeeds

Entrapta’s and Hordak’s Social Differences Help Them Connect to One Another

I Would Have Appreciated A Scene Where Entrapta Learns About What Happened To Hordak

Hordak Takes Strength From Realizing That Entrapta Came For Him

Hordak and Entrapta Just Like One Another, and I Enjoy That

There is a Huge Difference in How The Alliance and Hordak React to Entrapta Being on Beast Island, and it’s Jarring

This is Mostly About Catradora But Kind of in the Sense of Why Entrapdak is Better, so Here it Goes

Entrapta Didn’t Teach Hordak How to Love; She Taught Him How to Be Loved

The Soup Scene is a Condensed View of Why Entrapdak Works in Light of the Rest of Hordak’s Arc

Hordak and Entrapta Search for One Another Alone, and it Makes Me Sad

I Love How Hordak Scooches Over for Entrapta to Join Him on his Throne

Catra

The How-Catra-Manipulated-Hordak Masterpost

Watching Catra and Hordak Switch Roles in Season Three is Fascinating

Hordak and Catra’s Low Points Indicate Their Core Problems

Did Hordak Abuse Catra? Did She Abuse Him? The World May Never Know

Comparing Hordak and Catra in Terms of Consequences and Agency

Hordak and Catra’s Apparent Ages Likely Affect How People Judge Them

Why Doesn’t Hordak Subdue Catra?

Losing and Regaining the Will to Fight is Another Hordak/Catra Parallel

Sometimes I Wish The Show Would Focus Less on Catra and More on Hordak

Why Catra Besting Hordak Isn’t As Satisfying As Catra Besting Shadow Weaver

Hordak Exhibits Some Level of Trust in Catra Even in Season 2... and She Betrays It

The Difference in How Hordak and Catra Handle Relationships followed by Why They Are Like This 

Some Brief Words on the Differences Between How Hordak and Catra End Up Driven to Destruction in Season Four

Musing About What I Actually Would Accept as “Hordak Abusing Catra”

I Think It’s Kind of Funny that Some Expect Catra to be Suspicious of Hordak Post-Canon

Two Scenes That Look Distressing Side-by-Side

Discussing How Catra and Hordak Start Off as Parallels but Later Deviate Due to Character Differences

Adora

How Adora and Hordak End Season Four Differently

Hordak and Adora Parallels

I Wonder if Adora Recognizes Some of Herself in Hordak

Other

This is Actually About Shadow Weaver, but Compared to Hordak, So…

Hordak Doesn’t Seem to have a “Rule the World!” Moment (compared to Shadow Weaver)

On Hordak’s Weird Interactions with DT

Watching DT Circle Hordak is Interesting

Let’s Compare the Circling Scenes, Shall We?

What Wrong Hordak’s Arc Teaches Us About Clones and Hordak

Wondering if Hordak Actually has Control Over the Etherian Horde (could he have stopped the war?)

Prime

There Is A Huge Difference In The Standards Prime And Hordak Hold Others Two Versus Themselves

Hordak and Horde Prime Handle Their Own Vulnerabilities Quite Differently

The Difference Between How Prime and Hordak Use Anger

The Moment Prime Touched Hordak’s Face is the Moment I Truly Knew That Something About Hordak’s Backstory was Very Wrong

Clone/Origin/Prime-Related Sadness

The Clone Thing

More Distressed Bleating about The Clone Thing

Hordak’s DMV Photo Disturbs Me

Hordak Isn’t Actually an Idiot About Disease Transmission

On Hordak’s Bodily Autonomy, or Lack Thereof

How Much of Hordak is “Hordak?”

I’m 99% Certain That Hordak Sucks at Lying Because he Literally Couldn’t

You’d Think Hordak would Think Things Through, But…

Hordak isn’t Really Proud of “Hordak” (with a bonus Adora mention)

Hordak Provides Excellent Fridge Horror

Hordak’s Behavioral Pathology Isn’t Actually Pathology

So! That Purification Ritual was Really Something

Despite Erasure, Hordak Remains Himself

The Clones Are Essentially Trapped By Prime And It Upsets Me

I Get Annoyed That The Clones Aren’t Discussed More By Our Heroes

Again, I Wish The Show Acknowledged The Clones A Bit More, Wrongie Edition

Wouldn’t It Be Swell If Prime Really Did Manage The Clones Like Livestock? 

It’s More Emotionally Poignant That The Clones Are Individuals Rather Than Drones

Prime’s Doctrine Ensures Hordak Blames Himself, and it’s an Awful Control Measure

Hordak Probably Isn’t Dumb for Using Uninsulated Cables; Rather, Clone Sadness is in Play

Why I Can’t See Hordak and the Other Clones As Colonizers (unlike Prime) (also a whole convo thread)

Thinking About Clones and Self-Care

Each Clone Will Have to Realize That They Were Victimized

Wondering if Horde Clones Might Feel Anxious Sleeping Alone

Why Prime Might Encourage Some Autonomy in His Clones (spoilers: for cruelty)

Completely Arbitrary Classification of Clones Post-Prime!

Prime is an Actual God to the Clones and it is Terrifying

Canon Plausibility of Blanket Burritoing Horde Clones!

I Appreciate That, Despite Their Devotion, the Clones are Portrayed as Legitimately Suffering due to Prime

Catra and Adora have Happy Memories; do the Clones?; does Hordak?

Morality/Punishment/Redemption Related

Morality is (sadly) not a Universal Thing

Don’t Talk to me About the Reset as “Proper Punishment”

Why Hordak Doesn’t Just Become a Good Citizen

I Think About Hordak’s Choices a Lot

Hordak as an Abuse Mimic Rather Than Pure Evil

Looking at the Horde Child Soldier Thing From a Certain POV

Emotional Support is a Necessary Part of Healing

Hordak Was Forgiven Without Redemption, And I’m OK With That

Hordak’s Arc Speaks Directly to People who were “Raised Wrong”

I Wonder if Hordak Would See anti-Princess Propaganda as Propaganda

Semi-Intelligent Plot/Story Observations

Hordak’s Portrayal is a Function of Character Lens

Hordak Gets Very Legit Development in Season Four

She-Ra Isn’t a War Drama and Here’s Why

Hordak Suffers From a Distressing Lack of Agency

Hordak is a Weirdly Unenthusiastic Lord

The Season 4 Finale Reframes Hordak’s Vulnerability 

Untangling Hordak’s Backstory in Light of What We Now Know

Why Hordak Getting Possessed is Narratively Good

Hordak’s Rebellion and Subsequent Possession Essentially Summarize His Story

There Are Big Differences Between Hordak and Prime’s Etherian Wars

It Is Pretty Unlikely That Hordak Would Have Pulled The Portal Lever

It Occurred To Me That Hordak May Initially Ignore FO’s Tech Because It’s Just Really Old

An Assessment Of The Villain Intro Cards, Focusing On Hordak

I Think It’s Silly To Blame Hordak For Everything - Especially When Considering Prime

Literally Just a Thread Explaining Why Hordak is Sympathetic

Some Words On Exactly How Terrible DT’s Reveal Was For Hordak

The Escalation of Hordak’s Situation is Really Something

An Anon Asks a Normal Question and I go on a Tangent About Hordak Compensating for his Inability to Innovate via Entrapta and Catra

There are Monumental Differences Between the Galactic and Etherian Hordes in Terms of Brainwashing and Agency

Thinking About Why Chipped Etherians May Not be That Sympathetic To Clones After All

Random Bit of Logicking About Why Hordak Calls the Princesses a Rebellion

Figuring Out Why I Find Hordak So Much More Sympathetic Than The Princesses

Brief Musing on How Hordak Might Face Antagonism From Both Sides Post-Canon

Hordak’s Story Touches on the Concept of the Imperfection of Authority

Someone Asked Me if I Found Hordak’s S5 Arc Satisfying

Discussing Whether Or Not Hordak Planned on Leading Anything After Conquering Etheria

Taking Apart an Abysmal Twitter Take Because It’s Fun

Talking About Prime’s Clone Troops v. Robot Troops

Talking About Hordak’s Emotional Age

Hordak’s S3 Backtory Being Part-Delusion Helps Emphasize the Inequality in Attachment Between the Clones and Prime

A Few Not-So-Nice Acts Hordak Commits That I Find Justifiable

Random Headcanons of All Sorts

Stupidly Cute, Pointless Headcanon #3825 (ears covered)

Stupid Pointlessly Cute Headcanon #4853 (yawning, with appropriate artwork)

Stupid Pointlessly Cute Headcanon #2938 (snoring)

Stupid Pointlessly Cute Headcanon #1423 (REM sleep)

Stupidly Cute, Pointless Headcanon #7845 (blushing)

Random Hordak-Related Thought #2935 (forearms)

I Like to Think That Hordak Does Cute Things in his Sleep

I Like to Think That Hordak’s Eyes Dim While He Sleeps

Literally Me Just Having Emotions

Thinking About the Stress of Maintaining His Image in the Horde

Why Hordak’s Trauma is Particularly Disturbing To Me (compared to Catra/Adora)

Catra Overcomes her Fear of her Abuser; Hordak Does Not

All of my Emotions over the S4 Finale

Hordak’s Goddamned Smirk Lied to Me

I Have Feelings about Hordak’s Enforced Self-Care

I Need Hordak to Know that He is Loved

Hordak Goes Pew Pew and It’s Cute

Watching Hordak Lift Things Makes Me Smile

Hordak’s Unreasonable Expectations Make Me Sad

Please Just Let Hordak Rest

A Sassy Post About People Complaining the Hordak and Catra are Forgiven

All My Words About That Hordak/Adora Scene

Hordak Taps the Asphyxiation Lever With Two Fingers And It Makes Me Happy

I Wonder If Individuality Felt Blasphemous To Hordak

Please Don’t Stab Clones In Their Ports, Thank You

Hordak Clasps His Hands And It Makes Me Anxious

Hordak Shaming Catra Mimics the Purification Room And It’s Disturbing

Watching Hordak Give Up Is Heartbreaking

I Worry About Hordak Handling Anxiety

People Being Considerate of Hordak Makes My Heart Smile

I Wonder If Magic Was Frightening to Hordak at First

Thinking About Hordak Progressing in Terms of Self-Care

Prime Never Calls Hordak by Name, not Even Once

Just Being Sad While Realizing the Sort of Life Hordak had to Look Forward To

Strange Fic-Like Things No One Should Read

Please Consider: A Concept Masterpost

Hordak Practices Eyerolling

Imp Hacks Up The Worst Color of Hairball

[lavendermilkandhoney]

6/22 The Hierophant – Goro Takemura

In Game

The Hierophant symbolizes a respect for tradition. It represents one who tries to maintain the established order, even though their very character is shaped by it. The Hierophant places his faith in institutions – for the alternative is pure chaos. Only by placing his faith in order can he draw strength.

Location

The Hierophant is right next to the white gate, located close to where V and Takemura meet Oda in Japantown.

Zodiac Sign : Taurus

The Hierophant is assigned to the zodiac sign Taurus because The Hierophant conveys a carefulness, and certain deliberateness, those same qualities can be found in the sign of Taurus.

Misty’s Reading (After the Heist 2/2) - Reversed

“But watch out. A reversed Hierophant lurks in the darkness. He brings crisis both in life and authority, rebellion and fanaticism… he is a grave threat.”

In Tarot

UPRIGHT: Spiritual wisdom, religious beliefs, conformity, tradition, institutions

REVERSED: Personal beliefs, freedom, challenging the status quo

The Hierophant is the masculine counterpart to the High Priestess. He is also known as the Pope or the Teacher in other Tarot decks and is ruled by Taurus.

The Hierophant is a religious figure sitting between two pillars of a sacred temple – though this temple differs from the one in which the High Priestess sits. He wears three robes – red, blue and white – and a three-tiered crown, both representing the three worlds over which he rules (the conscious, sub-conscious and super-conscious). In his left hand, he holds the Papal Cross, a triple sceptre that signifies his religious status. He raises his right hand in a religious blessing, with two fingers pointing towards Heaven and two towards Earth.

Before him kneel two followers. The Hierophant’s task is to pass down his spiritual wisdom and initiate the two into the church so they can take up their appointed roles. This imagery speaks to a shared group identity and a rite of passage to enter the next level. The crossed keys at the Hierophant’s feet represent the balance between the conscious and subconscious minds and the unlocking of mysteries, which only he can teach.

Upright

The Hierophant card represents an established set of spiritual values and beliefs and is often correlated with religion and other formal doctrines. Before you can discover your own belief systems and make your own choices (as associated with the next card, the Lovers), the Hierophant encourages you to learn the fundamental principles from a trusted source.

Work with a teacher, mentor, or guide to teach you about spiritual values and beliefs in a structured way. He may be an authority or a kind and generous mentor who nurtures your spiritual awareness and helps you access the Divine by understanding the traditions and core principles. You may also undertake a period of formal study as you delve into a subject that has been widely explored and documented.

If you have already mastered a particular field of study, you may be taking on the role of teacher and mentor to others. In this position, you honour and acknowledge your responsibility to share your knowledge in a structured way, one that respects the age-old traditions.

The Hierophant‘s arrival suggests you are following convention and staying within the bounds of a ‘tried and tested’ model. You are not yet willing to go out on a limb or offer any new and innovative ideas. Instead, you adhere to the key principles and rules that you know will lead to a successful result.

The Hierophant may call you to honour family traditions or sacred rituals that sit neglected. You are being asked to commit to spiritual practice in its most wholesome form – no customisation, no adaptation, no bending the rules. If you have been lacking ritual and tradition, create a regular practice such as daily prayer or saying grace before a meal. Consider exploring your spiritual or religious heritage.

The Hierophant Tarot card often speaks to group membership or being part of an institution. You may enjoy a deep sense of comfort being surrounded by people who have well-established belief systems and explicit values. Finding them may be as significant as exploring a new church or religious group, or as simple as joining a gym or online Tarot community. This card is about identifying with others and a way of thinking that will prompt further learning.

Reversed

In its most positive form, the reversed Hierophant reminds you that you are your own teacher. All the wisdom you seek comes from within – not from some external source or power. You are being guided to follow your own path and adopt your own spiritual belief systems rather than blindly following others’. It may feel unsettling at first as you make your own way, but over time, you will learn to trust yourself and tap into your inner knowledge. Others may question your motivations to go against tradition, but you know deep within that now is the time.

With the reversed Hierophant, you no longer need external approval to succeed. You are ready to go it alone and do it your way, even if that means going against convention. Give yourself permission to trust your inner guidance system as you create your own path forward.

The Hierophant reversed is also about challenging the status quo. You see alternative ways of viewing the world and are ready to test the very ideas and concepts you were taught were the ‘truth’. You no longer accept the rigid structures, tradition and dogma surrounding you; instead, you seek out opportunities to rebel and reclaim your personal power. If you feel restricted or constrained and have lost your sense of freedom and flexibility, now is the time to make your own rules.

The reversed Hierophant encourages you to examine ‘the way we do things around here’ and ask yourself whether it aligns with your values. You may have been running on autopilot so far and following the crowd, but now you see that changes need to be made. Taken further, the Hierophant reversed is like a rebellious teenager who begins to question society and take part in anti-institutional activities. There may be a run-in with authorities or conflict with a parent or authoritative figure.

---

Thank you so much @cybervesna​ for the polish traduction from the official guide book and its associations with the characters!

[eli-kittim]

A Critique of Contextual Theology: Are the Meanings of the Biblical Texts Changeless or Adaptable?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

What is Contextual Theology?

Is all theology contextual? Do different contexts have the role of attributing theological meanings to Christian texts? Or is there a subtext that does not change? And, if so, what are some of the criteria that assign meaning to theology, particularly to Christian theology?

First of all, what is “contextual theology” anyway? It’s basically a way of doing theology that takes into account both past and present contexts, be they anthropological, biological, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise. That is to say, it reconsiders the cultural milieu or the Sitz im Leben (i.e. the “setting in life") in which a text has been produced, as well as its particular purpose and function at that time. Contextual theology, then, considers both the traditions of the past, which received the revelations, as well as those of the present, and reassesses them within the framework of today’s socioeconomic and political context. In other words, the term contextual theology is a reference to the way in which Christianity has adapted its teachings to fit the successive cultural periods.

Some Examples of Contextual

Theology

For example, the early church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek thought, so their interpretation of scripture was largely derived from Platonism (e.g. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.). That was their particular form of contextualizing theology. Every book of the Bible was composed and edited within a specific context, be it the Exodus, the Law given to Moses at Sinai, the Babylonian Exile, or the occasional letters of the New Testament that were prompted by some crisis. And we could go on and on. Aquinas’ philosophical conceptions were heavily influenced by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works. Not too long ago, existentialism provided the impetus for a new type of theology, and so on and so forth.

It seems as if Christian theology has hitherto been articulated in the context of the life and times in which the texts were interpreted and read. Hence the shifting theological paradigms, down through the ages, appear to be byproducts of this cultural phenomenon. As time passes, people’s ideas about theology seem to change as well. Questions associated with the quest for the historical Jesus, the nature of the triune God, and the like, arose out of much debate and discussion that often included diametrically opposed contexts. As the church councils began in the early part of the 4th century, one contextual paradigm triumphed over another. Similarly, various paradigms and approaches to scripture began to shift during the reformation and counterreformation. At the end of the day, who is to say which was the true one?

A Brief Introduction to Contextual

Theologies

Contextual theology, therefore, is a response to the dynamics of a specific cultural context. People from a different cultural worldview, such as Latin or Asian or Arabic culture, have distinct economic and social issues. That’s why there are so many contextual theologies, employing various interdisciplinary approaches, to try to explore these different sociopolitical issues, such as African theology, Minjung theology, Liberation theology, and so on.

Let’s briefly define some of these theologies to get a taste of their doctrines. Minjung theology (lit. the people's theology) is based on the South-Korean Christian fight for social justice. This theology has developed a political-gospel hermeneutic to address the Korean reality. From this point of view, Jesus is seen more as an activist for social reform than as a spiritual teacher.

Another branch of Christian theology from the Indian subcontinent is called Dalit theology. It places heavy emphasis on Jesus’ mission statement, which some theologians call the Nazareth Manifesto (Lk 4.16-20), namely, the proclamation of “good news to the poor,” the release of prisoners, the “recovery of sight to the blind,” as well as letting “the oppressed go free.” From this perspective, Jesus is identified as a marginalized Dalit (i.e. a servant) whose mission is seen as liberating individuals not only from their sociopolitical and economic oppression but also from racial segregation and persecution. But does this theology really capture the core message of Jesus’ mission? Is Jesus really a political “liberator” who is solely interested in an economic and political system that guarantees equality of the rights of citizens? Or are the impoverished those who are not materially but rather spiritually poor? Although the physical dimension of these Biblical passages cannot be denied——after all, many were physically healed of all diseases, according to the narratives——nevertheless, given that the sermons of Jesus emphasize sin and the issues of the heart, one might reasonably argue that he’s referring to the prisoners of sin, and that the recovery of sight might be a metaphor for the truth that “will make you free” (Jn 8.32).

Similarly, many contextual theologies misinterpret the Beatitudes as political manifestos. Notice that Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” not the materially poor (Mt. 5.3). Moreover, he doesn’t say blessed are those who are physically hungry and thirst. Rather, he says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (v. 6). So, we have the poor in spirit who will inherit “the kingdom of heaven” (v. 3), and those who hunger for spiritual righteousness who “will be filled” (v. 6). It beggars belief that any theologian can misinterpret this pericope from the Sermon on the Mount as nothing more than a social concern for the materially poor, while promising some sort of Marxist political and economic liberation for oppressed peoples.

This is precisely how Liberation theology interprets such passages. Liberation theology was developed in Latin America and was employed politically as a “preferential option for the poor.” It is true that the Bible is concerned about the welfare of the poor and needy. But it is not a political manifesto designed to liberate them through some new political system. To see Jesus as a prototype of Adam Smith or Karl Marx is to miss the point entirely. Although the Bible certainly addresses these issues and urges us to be equitable and compassionate, its primary message is soteriological, urging us to be born again: “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2); be “born from above” (Jn 3.3)! Clearly, this is a *spiritual* message that has few political implications. It’s also important to note that Jesus did not want the crowds to politicize his message (Jn 6.15 NRSV):

When Jesus realized that they were about

to come and take him by force to make him

king, he withdrew again to the mountain by

himself.

The Excesses of Feminist Theology

A subset of this view is Feminist theology, which is primarily concerned with the oppression of women. The aim of feminist theology is to liberate women from a hitherto patriarchal society by giving them equal rights among the religious authorities and clergy. This theology attempts to reinterpret patriarchal language and imagery about God, while reevaluating the status of women in sacred texts. Feminist reinterpretations of scripture will often reject the male gender of God and will omit using male pronouns to refer to this figure. Feminist theology will often call into question authoritarian, pontific, or disciplinarian images of God and replace them with “nurturing” and “maternal” attributes.

This theology has inevitably led to the excesses of various sects who even describe Jesus as a woman. For instance, the “Dongfang Shandian” (aka Eastern Lightning) is a Christian cult from central China which teaches that Christ has been reincarnated as a woman, and that the saints are engaged in an apocalyptic battle against China's Communist Party. However, these are gross exegetical errors which take liberties in manipulating the language of the original text to suit their theological needs.

Case in point. In his recent book “What Jesus Learned from Women,” author James F. McGrath took a simple verse (mentioned only once in the entire Bible; Rom. 16.7) and turned it into a novel where both Paul and even the great Jesus himself have come under Junia’s spell. The implication is that both Paul and Jesus may have gained valuable knowledge from a woman named Junia. It’s all based on a single, isolated verse which doesn’t even hold a single shred of historical, textual, or literary evidence to substantiate the claim. Not only does it contradict Paul’s explicit statement in Galatians 1.11-12—-in which he says that his gospel is not of human origin and that he “did not receive it from a human source”——but it also subordinates the status of the miracle-working Son of God to that of an unknown female follower, who supposedly taught him everything he knows. Unfortunately, this one-verse doctrine is equivalent to speculative fiction. It simply doesn’t meet scholarly and academic parameters.

Problems of Contextual Theology

The Contextualization process is employed in the study of Biblical translations as regards their cultural settings. Hermeneutically speaking, contextualization seeks to comprehend the origins of words that were used by the Hebrew and Greek texts, and Latin translations. However, it has also allowed secular and political groups to read their own message into the text by expanding the cultural contexts so as to accommodate such meanings. Given that modern liberal contexts are intrinsically alien and sometimes even contradictory to the authorial intent of the scriptures, the contextualization process of attributing cultural or political “meaning” to a text can have dire consequences.

The omission and replacement of the words of scripture with more “context appropriate” terminology with regard to race, gender, inclusive language, sexual orientation, and sociopolitical considerations, coupled with large-scale contextual *reinterpretations,* not only violates its integrity but it also represents a desecration of the text, which actually expresses a fundamental equality of all people whose identity is derived exclusively from Christ: “There is no longer Jew or Greek [race], there is no longer slave or free [power structure], there is no longer male and female [gender]; for all of you are one [equal] in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28 NRSV).

Even though the Biblical texts were created within a cultural context and not in a vacuum, nevertheless the verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation, if indeed it is a revelation. In that case, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4.2; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, It is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text. One thing is certain. The New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text, but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!

——-