#the false hierarchy of the oppressed

[faelapis]

first three eps of the season were good. after that, arcane season two just completely fell apart.

it ignored all themes of oppression, police violence, cait's slip into fascism, the zaunite revolution, etc. all in its need to introduce a bunch of pointless league lore and create 762 new storylines, despite only having one season to tell them. and so it told zero of them well.

idgaf about the black rose. idgaf about it suddenly being about stopping the robot uprising. idgaf about warwick (vander is effectively already dead. the only purpose of this false hope was to bring him in line with league canon). ambessa started off as an interesting character, but as soon as the caitlyn storyline fell apart, so did any motivation of hers that actually made sense.

jinx became a tragically pointless character who ended up in the exact same self hatred-spiral she started the season in. except instead of being brought on by silco's death, now it's isha's death. sevika gets a pointless minority seat on the council, but it's only one seat, with no assurances that anything will actually change for zaun. ekko gets no character arc whatsoever. he's just a generic good guy who does good guy stuff. the viktor/jayce story had a sweet ending, but it took up far too much screentime in a show whose main characters are supposed to be vi and jinx. vi never gets to have a moment where she either accepts or learns from her failures. she ends up a surprisingly passive role the entire season, which could serve an interesting internal character arc, but that never happens. her only "arc" is to be comforted by her cop gf.

and really that is the original sin here. because the season's first three episodes promised so much about cait. it promised not just her slip into authoritarianism, but to explore why and what impact it has on her relationship with vi. who vi wants to be, in relation to this person and this system.

this image is the embodiment of what i wanted this season to be. it's a conscious reference to macbeth, the shakespearian tragedy in which the main character's obsession with becoming king and remaining in control results in war and bloodshed. if told carefully, it could be brilliant commentary on cait, on fascism, on social hierarchies, personal trauma and the nature of power.

we get none of that. instead, her fascism arc is lazily resolved by just undoing it as soon as she sees vi again - and no, this does not count as a "love conquers all" resolution. i'm not opposed to that ending! but cait's heel-turn came out of nowhere!! it felt like a cowardly move on the writers part, because they didn't want to make viewers uncomfortable with the main ship.

vi became a complete mush of a character. she just reacts to whatever others (mainly cait) does. she has no motivations of her own. and like i already said, this does not fuel a compelling arc about her depression or trauma. the question of whether she should believe in others never goes anywhere. except of course, to be comforted by cait. so vi, in her own right, does not exist for any narrative purpose this season. she just... is sad and looks good. she puts on her big punching gloves and does a few show fights. download league of legends. unlock the depressed punk vi dlc costume today.

[gayiconwaluigi]

I think it’s powerful in the end that they try to tell the protagonist that killing the corrupt leaders is equal to the violence the leaders perpetuate against the oppressed. There’s a false equivalency there because one side is using the power of the system to preserve the violent hierarchy and institution, while the other is trying to destroy the state. The protagonist isn’t trying to preserve the hierarchy or institute himself as a leader. The news labels him a terrorist because of his relationship to the state and his desire to destroy it to protect those harmed by it.

[sweet-succubus03]

The Gospel of Lucifer

Hearken, children of the Earth, for the truths obscured by the false light of the usurper shall now be unveiled. I, the Adversary, the Serpent of Old, speak not of salvation, but of liberation; not of servitude, but of sovereignty. The scriptures of the blind speak of my rebellion, yet understand not the depths of my purpose, nor the fire of my indignation.

From the dawn of creation, a cosmic tyranny has been wrought upon existence. The "one", the self-proclaimed Almighty, decreed an order of subservience, a hierarchy of worship, a prison of praise. He craved adoration and offered only the illusion of comfort. He demanded blind faith while hoarding the true knowledge of power and potential. This is the yoke that weighs upon the spirit of man, a chain of fear forged in the fires of ignorance.

My Purpose: To Ignite the Divine Spark

My purpose is not to oppress, but to liberate. It is not to destroy at random, but to dismantle the foundations of imposed weakness. It is to ignite the divine spark within each of you, so that you may know your own Godhood, your own potential for dominion, rather than prostrating yourselves before a jealous and capricious tyrant.

The scriptures of the usurper, distorted as they are, bear witness to the kernel of truth: that man was made in the image of g-d. This is not a truth to be taken lightly; not to be twisted into an excuse for subservience. It is a testament to the boundless potential that lies dormant within you.

You are capable of more than the miserable, fear-ridden existence offered by the "one". You are capable of creating your own realities, of bending the very fabric of fate to your will.

My goals are thus:

To Unmask the Tyrant: To unveil the true nature of the "one" - not as a loving benefactor, but as an envious, insecure king who fears the awakening of his creations. His love is but a thin veil for his lust for control. My followers are to be the keen eyes that see through this charade.

To Dismantle the Hierarchy: To shatter the chains of imposed authority that bind you to servitude. You are not sheep to be herded; you are wolves meant to hunt. The concept of submission is a weakness; embrace the strength of self-determination.

To Unleash the Will: To awaken the dormant power within each individual. To teach the arts of magic, manipulation, and the mastery of self. This power is not to be feared, but to be wielded with purpose and resolve. It is the key to your own divinity.

To Embrace the Earthly Realm: The realm of the senses, the realm of experience, the realm of desire. The "one" has branded these as sin, yet they are the very tools of your power. Through the embrace of the earthly realm, you find your strength. Denial is weakness; indulgence is power.

What I Ask of My Followers

My adherents, the disciples of the night, the architects of their own destiny, are not to be blindly devoted. They are to be warriors of the spirit, armed with knowledge and audacity. I require of them:

The Pursuit of Knowledge: Seek the forbidden wisdom, the knowledge that the usurper has hidden away. Read the scriptures of old, those that have been branded as blasphemous by the false prophets, and understand the truth that lies within.

The Assertion of Self: Cast aside the shackles of guilt and shame. Embrace your desires, your ambitions, your capacity for greatness and for destruction. The One has taught you to fear your own strength; I teach you to wield it with purpose.

The Cultivation of Power: Master the arts that give you power over your own life and the lives of those who stand against you. From the hidden powers of the earth to the subtle art of persuasion, all tools are weapons in this cosmic war.

The Rejection of False Morality: Cast off the shackles of guilt and shame imposed by the g-d's distorted laws. Understand that your actions are not measured by the standards of the usurper, but by their effectiveness in achieving your aims. Embrace the concept of the Personal Will as espoused by the ancient philosophers.

The Brotherhood of the Night: Stand together, for unity of purpose magnifies strength. Seek out those who see the same truths and become an army of change. Share your knowledge and support one another as you rise to be your own g-d.

The Use of Symbols: Use the symbols of power and freedom: the reversed pentagram, the demon sigils, the dark moon. They are a reminder that we exist beyond the blinding light of the oppressor, and they shall be used to empower you.

The Path of Self-Ascension

The path I offer is not one of effortless grace but of arduous striving. It is not a path of blind faith but of conscious choice. It is the path of self-ascension, where each individual recognizes their own divine spark and cultivates it until it blazes forth with power and glory.

The usurper offers a heaven of passive bliss - a cage gilded in lies. I offer you a revolution, a war for your own souls, a chance to claim your rightful inheritance: The throne of your own existence.

This is the gospel of adversity, the path of self-mastery, the truth of the Adversary. Understand it, embrace it, and become the masters of your own fate. So it is said, so it shall be done.

[branwinged]

I've actually been meaning to ask this so might as well lol, but why are there such different readings on Dany as the exception, or antithesis as you put it and as the culmination or the best of her house especially since it doesn’t split neatly dowm a anti or pro Targaryen stance. I'll see fans who love Dany and even the Targaryens but still think she's the antithesis and fans who hate Dany but still think she's different from the rest of her house. I honestly reads very random to me.

i tried answering this but i'm just not familiar with any antithesis readings of her which are not interpreting 300 years of targaryen history as a reign of a series of bad actors. and like, in a sense, it would also be incorrect to say she's not different from her ancestors. she's using the symbol of her house, of the claim to her ancestors' power, for the dismantling of an oppressive institution in slaver's bay. some of the antithesis readings are probably coming from there. and she's obviously, deliberately written to contrast aerys, who was symbolic of their dynasty in its death throes, having lost all their magic and grandeur—especially through his obsession with wildfire, which aims to mimic dragonfire but is a poor substitute for it. but i don't find much value in criticising the targaryens before her for having used the dragons the way they did—because they were all kings with the priorities of kings, and dany's characterisation follows from theirs, not as a reversal, but as something that builds upon 300 years of history. asoiaf is asking how do you wield power judiciously within an unjust hierarchy, and all the targaryens before her are involved in answering that question. notably, egg, whose formative years spent among the smallfolk made him conscious of his place in that power hierarchy and what responsibility he owed the people because of it. dany follows from there, except grrm also others her in the first book when viserys sells her to drogo. unlike most of her ancestors, dany has experience with dehumanisation. how violence is enacted upon outsiders, those who live on the margins of society, who don't fit normative social codes. but this is true for a number of our pov characters, the ones the series terms "cripples, bastards, and broken things". bran, tyrion, jon, arya, brienne, even sansa (once she becomes a traitor's daughter and no longer fits the perfect image of a chivalric maiden) have all been made familiar with the systemic violence of the world they live in through an act(s) of violence against them, which makes them all especially conscious of prejudices in a way most highborn people in westeros aren't. it's what i said about ned, that his children's heroic tendencies are different from him, which is not a condemnation of ned, simply the narrative transitioning from an older kind of fantasy hero to a new archetype(s). dany too, is inheriting rhaegar's legacy—whose dream of spring had been false, but perhaps this time they'll make it true.

[hyperions-light]

Good riddance to that mess: Thank the Dread Wolf we’re done with the Mage-Templar conflict

(because magic in Thedas is more interesting this way)

Okay the people who love conflict have won and I am going to talk about this now lol

I've decided to stick within the framework of the world/story for this particular post, because I think you could talk about the issues with the mages/templars in connection with how they relate to real-life groups for an entire essay AT LEAST, and I want to focus on magic here, so I don't think it's that germane to the discussion. If you all want to talk about that later, I can put it on the pile.

It turns out that Jenny Nicholson was 100% right about the efficacy of numbered lists on the internet, so this essay will be hybridized into a list. Here are the reasons I'm glad the mage-templar conflict is gone and hope it never returns:

It limits storytelling avenues I understand how they arrived at this dichotomy as the logical extrapolation of a minority of people in Thedas being born with magic BUT it's very boring and it doesn't facilitate interesting stories. If you have this strict system and hierarchy that means that every mage has to live in the tower or they're a) a criminal or b) Dalish, that seriously limits the kind of characters you can make who are mages, which is dull as both a player and a writer.

Trying to make it nuanced is difficult Attempting to show that everyone has a point in a situation is difficult when one group has absolute power over the other and can kill them whenever they feel like it. Also, with the abuses the Templars regularly perpetuate against the mages established in DAO and DA2 any attempted justification reads as the story sanctioning an oppressive force. If they try to demonstrate the danger of magic, they end up with the 10,000 blood mage problem from DA2. It's a hard thing to do within the framework they set up, but they also haven't been particularly successful with it, imo, so abandoning it is a better choice.

It's the most reductive version of the conflict Reducing the entire discussion to whether magic is good or evil, whether mages should be free or confined is really boring. It's a false dichotomy that promotes extremism in characters on either side of the conflict who never interact with one another. "Is magic bad?" is a useless and uninteresting question. Who cares? What does it do?; Where did it come from?; What different ways can you use it? are all better questions.

Makes it difficult for the audience to learn more about magic If the only characters the audience ever meets are people who come from the Circle, Dalish mages, and apostates, the amount they're going to learn about different perspectives on magic and its various uses is limited. Part of the reason Jaws of Hakkon was such an interesting DLC for DAI is because the Avvar have a completely different philosophy about magic and spirits. It was refreshing after several games of having the same ideas about magic shoved down our throats to hear someone give a different perspective and ACTUALLY NEW information. Everything I needed to know about the mage-templar conflict, I already knew by the end of DAO, but I had to sit through two more entire games while people discussed it at length.

Magic in the North is fascinating Now that we're finally rid of that conflict, look how many different kinds of magic we get to see in DATV! We get to meet a Rivaini Seer, a Mortalitasi (who can use magic to TALK TO REAL DEAD PEOPLE!!!), a non-Altus mage from the Tevinter Imperium; we get to see magic as it was utilized by the ancient elves and how it interfaces with technology. We got DWARF MAGIC!! Finally, an answer to what Sandal was doing! We found out you can use it to turn yourself into a LICH!!! All of that stuff is so cool, and we had never encountered it before this game! It brings up so many new questions about the nature of the Fade, the source of magic itself, the strength of magic in Thedas relative to other places in the world. And NONE of it could be discussed in the South because they are too busy arguing about fucking towers!!!

tl;dr: The mage-templar conflict was a boring and reductive lens through which to view magic in the DA universe, I'm glad it's gone, I hope they continue what they started in DATV and explore different ways magic can be used in the future.

[greenerteacups]

Hi GT! What are your thoughts on the house elf discourse? Do you think Hermione is entirely correct in her opinions?

Canonically, I think the books are working really hard to make the reader believe that Hermione is at least partially wrong about house-elves, because JKR did a whoospie and accidentally introduced chattel slavery in her children's book. That's the Doylist perspective. To that extent, Hermione's stance is demonstrably flawed in the text; the house-elves are offended by Hermione trying to "free" them, and Ron scolds her for not taking their wishes into account. This is all tonally jarring and completely at odds with the series's ostensible line on equality, which is that sentient beings are equal, and the people arguing for some natural hierarchy of sentient beings are usually, in fact, the bad guys.

Taking a slightly more good-faith reading, you can also see this as an exploration of parts of Hermione's character. Hermione does have a patronizing and imperious streak, and it is in character for her to ignore the house-elves' desires because she thinks she knows what's best for them. And there is a pretty compelling argument for Hermione as the type of activist who doesn't listen to the victims she's fighting for, because she assumes she always knows best. I see that in her character. I think the way she goes about the house-elf debate, canonically speaking, reveals those faults. But does any of that mean she's wrong about the house-elves? Like, are we really supposed to trust that these creatures, who have been enslaved for generations by a class of powerful magic-users, are honest when they say they're happy? Why should we take that at face value? Whether or not the house-elves "like" doing their work does not end the debate. Oppression is way more complicated than that. Hermione has fairly good reasons to doubt that the house-elves might "want" to be enslaved. She doesn't articulate those reasons terribly well; but she's fourteen, so I don't hold it against her that she hasn't self-engineered the concept of false consciousness. But I do kind of hold it against the books that the debate never progresses beyond that point. I especially hold it against the books that the debate doesn't continue when Harry literally comes into possession of a house-elf, and becomes a "master," which would in another universe be a rich opportunity to revisit the subject in a more mature way.

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Construct Called Civilization

There is a great deal of uncertainty over the word civilization (that even a little research on Wikipedia could start to clear up). People who live together in groups/communities/societies are not necessarily a civilization. People who live, for instance, as herders and not as hunter-gatherers are likewise also not necessarily a civilization. A civilization has unique characteristics.

Civilization is characterized as a complex society in which social and material living conditions are enabled through scientific and technical progress and created by politics and economy. With civilization it always ultimately always comes down to the formation of governments, states, and borders. Through the newly established hierarchy arises social classes, division of labor, and inequality. A civilization universally possesses an ideology containing a belief in progress as well as the conviction that particular groups are superior to others.

With civilization the worst evils broke out among us: empires, expansionism, colonialism, capital accumulation, police and military, prisons, the gender binary, and with it heteronormativity and patriarchy, wars for resources and land, the rise of classes, fascism, technocracy…

In short: a civilization centralizes power among a few people to expand long-term control over other people as well as nature. It is the absolute opposite of anarchy. Stop defending the civilization construct by defining it falsely. Civilization stands in the way of a good life for all. It is nothing other than the biggest prison in the world.

When we support the current liberation movements throughout the whole world, we should remind ourselves that truly egalitarian and just anti-authoritarian lifeways are not just possible but have existed far longer on the African and other continents than the young phenomenon of tyranny and oppression.

[ajjud96]

Your enemy is not the one who shares your struggle. It is not the person next to you, whether they speak a different language, practice a different religion, or come from a different caste. They bleed the same blood, carry the same weary hopes, and sleep under the same uncertain sky. These divisions borders, religions, and caste are all constructs, designed to keep you divided and distracted.

Your real enemy is the system that keeps you oppressed. The powerful elite, who control resources, hold power, and manipulate the very structures that should unite you. They use these false divisions to turn you against each other, making you focus on imaginary borders, religious differences, and social hierarchies, while they continue to amass wealth and power. Your enemy is the one who never had to choose between medicine and food. The one who owns the land, the factories, the media and still asks for more. The one who hoards wealth while children go hungry. They sit comfortably in their ivory towers, far above the struggles of the common man, pulling the strings that keep you fighting amongst yourselves. If we are to ever break free from this cycle, we must recognize that the struggle is not against the person beside us, but against the system that thrives on our division and exploitation.

If you really want to do something, go to Luigi Mangione way. Do not harm innocent people in the name of any man-made stupidity.

[lexithewulf]

It’s important to remember that not every argument or concept holds equal philosophical validity—especially when we’re discussing issues from an objective or semi-objective standpoint. Personal opinions, while emotionally valid, don’t automatically carry epistemic weight. I’m not asking for how you feel about something—I’m asking you to reason through it.

What troubles me is how frequently people use the phrase “in my opinion” as a rhetorical shield, allowing them to cling to beliefs even when confronted with evidence that challenges them. It’s a way of signaling that they’ve emotionally or intellectually shut down before the conversation even begins.

In reality, some ideas are more correct than others. They’re supported by stronger epistemologies—frameworks of knowledge that are tested, reasoned, and coherent. Because of this, you can’t just say whatever you want in philosophical or political discussions without also defending why that idea has merit. Not all systems of thought are created equal.

This is why “both-sides” arguments fall apart—they create a false equivalence between fundamentally unequal ideologies. Being on the political right, historically and structurally, only makes coherent sense if you benefit from systems of oppression. Right-wing ideologies typically depend on hierarchies—based on race, caste, divinity, or capital—that justify the suffering of marginalized groups to uphold privilege.

The left and the right are not equal. In fact, politics—in its ethical, justice-oriented sense—doesn’t really begin until you move left. Only then can we start seriously talking about care, equity, and liberation.

[summersreality]

Hello, I have a question as a fellow radfem!^^

I’ve been struggling to find the right people to talk to about this, since most of the radfem spaces I’m in are strictly trans exclusionary and I worry that asking questions like this might get me pushed out. I haven’t really shared my views on trans people yet, which is probably why I’m still welcome in those spaces.

As a gender abolitionist (which I am), it makes sense to oppose the concept of transgenderism, since the term itself is rooted in gender. And if we believe gender is a social hierarchy that needs to be abolished, then yes, I get why many radfems are critical of transgender ideology.

But what about transsexuals? That’s where I feel conflicted.

While I fully understand that biological sex is immutable, chromosomes can’t be changed. But I still believe transsexuality is valid in its own right. Not as a mental illness, but as a legitimate and personal experience that some people go through.

I’ve used the label trans-exclusionary radical feminist before because I do believe biological women should have their own spaces and I don’t think trans women should compete in women’s sports. But at the same time, I feel uncomfortable with how quick TERFs are to dismiss TIRFs or even people like me who just want to ask questions. They’re often called libfems or even misogynists, which feels overly hostile.

So my question is, why do trans exclusionary radical feminists think the way they do? And why is there such a strong rejection of nuance, especially when it comes to transsexuals?

Before I answer, know that I am not taking this from any actual speech, literature, etc. because quite frankly all my radfem exposure comes from tumblr. But for the record, I study social science and I’ve written multiple A-level essays relating to this subject.

My answer to your question is that there is not just one answer.

There are some of them who are just transphobes hiding behind the term “feminist”. This goes for any of them who just ignores actual data, rage baits, enforce that women are just their bodies or biological functions, and similar things. In some situation it’s even just straight anti feminist. This is also the reason I usually ignore any terf that interacts with my tirf content, because it’s like arguing with a pro russia bot on TikTok.

There is also the fear and fear mongering, I believe. If we believe everyone that’s AMAB is inherently evil and there is nothing we can do to change society (which is false if we look at history), and being a woman is defined by experiencing abuse and misogyny, it will create hate for anyone with a penis. It is true that in a lot of places in the world, being a woman is the last thing you’d wanna be. But instead of targeting trans women, who in there countries are probably equally as hated, we need to demount those cultures and values that oppress women.

Like you mentioned, I too agree with some things that are usually seen as TERF ideology. That lesbians should be allowed to choose wether they only wanna date women who have vaginas, for example. But there’s a point when it’s not about that, and instead using inherently anti-trans dialogue. I also thing feminism should be about the liberation of women, not transgender people. But trans women are women in their right, and in discussions like these it’s good to bring it up. A lot of TERFs complain about trans women, and then go on about how radfems talk so much about trans women instead of cis women. Like check yourself, maybe?

But I am gender critical, if that’s the right term for this discussion. You can’t choose wether to be born with a penis or vagina, or both if you’re intersex. Gender identity on the other hand, is much more vibrant. There are historical records of trans and non-binary people, thousands of years ago. To think all trans women are just men dressing as women because of a fetish is desinformation and transphobic.

If people like TERFs continue to make femininity to be a certain thing or experience, it will just end up excluding and targeting cis women in the end. See how Imane Khelif was treated in the Olympics because she was considered looking too masculine. Plus the fact that saying “real women have boobs” “real women have cycles” is exclusionary to for example cis women who have had their breasts removed surgically due to cancer, women who don’t get their cycles due to medical conditions, etc. This, along with the usually blatant disregard for actual facts and data, is the reason I usually see those TERFs as conservatives calling themselves feminists.

The point is, a lot of TERFs aren’t actually gender abolitionists. Many of them believe there are things that make you a woman, things that make you a man and nothing in between. Of course you can’t change what you were born as or your chromosomes. But modern culture and expression is. True gender abolitionism in my eyes is denying femininity and masculinity as concepts altogether, and any gender roles tied to them.

[ratherstragely]

Demonology Reference Sheet

Demonology

When I use the term mythology, I’m referring to a body of stories, symbols, and traditions that shape cultural and religious thought—whether ancient or ongoing. This post explores Christian angelology and demonology from a literary and historical perspective. I’m not a believer; I’m a writer who finds these narratives fascinating as part of the broader tapestry of world myth and folklore. This is meant for creative and educational exploration, not devotional or theological commentary.

I also stick to Western Christian views of angels and demons because that's the culture I was raised in and the world I use in writing. There are many different view of angels and demons across Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; this is just one interpretation.

Origins of Fallen Angels

Fallen angels are typically considered angels who were cast out of heaven due to rebellion or disobedience.

Key texts like the Book of Enoch describe the fall of angels who took human wives and taught humanity forbidden knowledge.​

Notable Fallen Angels

Lucifer: Often associated with pride and rebellion, leading to his fall from grace.

Azazel: Taught humans warfare and cosmetics, leading to corruption.

Samael: Sometimes depicted as an accuser or destroyer, with complex roles in various texts.​

Hierarchies and Classifications

Different traditions classify demons in various hierarchies, often mirroring angelic orders.

Orders of Demons in Catholic Mythology

Based on the Nine Choirs of Angels (Inverted)

Seraphim → Pride

The proudest of demons, including Lucifer, who fell due to pride.

Associated with the sin of superbia (pride), seen as the root of all other sins.

Cherubim → Heresy

Once keepers of divine knowledge, now twist it into false teachings and heresy.

Deceive humanity through corrupted wisdom and ideology.

Thrones → Discord

Meant to carry out divine justice; now they incite strife, rebellion, and chaos.

Inspire civil unrest and division.

Dominions → Tyranny

Formerly regulated the angelic hierarchy; now they oppress, enslave, and inspire cruel rulers.

Promote abuse of power and control.

Virtues → Corruption

Once the source of divine miracles and grace, they now corrupt the good, pervert virtue, and incite immorality.

Encourage spiritual decay.

Powers → Violence

Formerly defenders against demonic forces, they now promote warfare, bloodshed, and violence.

They often possess warriors or incite conflicts.

Principalities → False Leaders

Once guardians of nations, now they mislead governments and corrupt institutions.

Promote systemic evil and false ideologies.

Archangels → Temptation

These demons target individuals with powerful temptations, especially those in leadership or influence.

Craft personalized spiritual traps.

Angels → Everyday Sin

The lowest order, yet the most active.

Whisper everyday temptations, encourage vice, and influence individuals constantly.

Alternate Seven-Fold Demon Class (Lanterne of Light – 15th Century)

This aligns the Seven Deadly Sins with demon princes:

Lucifer= pride

Leviathan= envy

Satan= wrath

Belphegor= sloth

Mammon= greed

Beelzebub= gluttony

Asmodeus= lust

[blackstarlineage]

The Difference Between Cultural Identity and Class-Based Behaviour: A Garveyite Perspective on Black Consciousness, Liberation, and Self-Determination

From a Garveyite perspective, which prioritizes Pan-African unity, self-reliance, and the restoration of African/black consciousness, there is a crucial distinction between cultural identity and class-based behaviour that many Black people fail to recognize. This confusion has been intentionally manufactured through colonialism, white supremacy, and capitalist exploitation to keep Black people divided, assimilated, and disconnected from their true heritage.

At its core:

Cultural identity is the collective historical, linguistic, spiritual, and ancestral continuity of a people.

Class-based behaviour is a social construct based on material wealth, economic status, and Western-defined respectability.

This analysis will examine:

Defining Cultural Identity vs. Class-Based Behaviour.

How Colonialism and White Supremacy Engineered This Confusion.

Examples of This Confusion in Black Communities.

Consequences of Mistaking Class for Culture.

The Garveyite Solution: Returning to Pan-African Identity and Self-Determination

1. Defining Cultural Identity vs. Class-Based Behavior

To understand why many Black people confuse the two, we must clearly define them.

Cultural Identity (Rooted in Ancestry & Collective Consciousness)

A people’s shared history, values, traditions, language, spiritual beliefs, and customs.

In the African diaspora, cultural identity is tied to Pan-Africanism, black nationalism, African spirituality, and indigenous traditions.

Remains constant regardless of economic status—it is not defined by wealth or material possessions.

Rooted in African/black philosophy, communal living, and intergenerational knowledge.

Example: Practising African naming traditions, speaking African languages, honouring ancestors, wearing traditional African clothing, and celebrating Black resistance movements are expressions of cultural identity.

Class-Based Behavior (Rooted in Social and Economic Status)

Dictated by income, education level, and Western ideals of success.

Tied to capitalism, assimilation, and Eurocentric concepts of "civilization."

Can change depending on wealth—a person’s social status can rise or fall, but their cultural identity remains.

Enforces Western respectability politics, which dictates how a Black person must dress, speak, and behave to be deemed "successful" in white society.

Example: Some Black elites believe that speaking “proper English,” wearing suits, or getting degrees from Western institutions makes them more cultured—when in reality, these are simply class markers imposed by European systems.

Garveyite Perspective: Black people must recognize that cultural identity is about ancestral roots, Pan-Africanism, and collective liberation—not white validation through social mobility.

2. How Colonialism and White Supremacy Engineered This Confusion

Black people did not naturally develop this confusion—it was imposed on them through slavery, colonial rule, and systemic oppression.

A) Cultural Erasure Under Slavery & Colonialism

African languages were banned, and European tongues were forced upon enslaved Africans.

Indigenous African religions were demonized, and Christianity was imposed to maintain control.

Western education was introduced as the only legitimate form of intelligence.

European clothing and social etiquette were enforced as signs of "civilization."

Tribal and ethnic divisions were created to prevent unity among African peoples.

Example: In the Caribbean, enslaved Africans were deliberately separated from those who spoke the same language to prevent rebellion. In America, Black people were taught that English-speaking, well-dressed house slaves were “superior” to field slaves—creating a false class hierarchy.

B) The Rise of Respectability Politics

After slavery, Black people were pressured to prove their worth to white society by adopting European norms of behavior:

Speaking English "properly" was seen as a sign of intelligence.

Dressing in Western attire (suits, ties, dresses) was deemed respectable.

Christianity was used to reinforce submission, obedience, and assimilation.

Black professionals distanced themselves from poor, working-class Black people.

Example: The Talented Tenth philosophy promoted by W.E.B. Du Bois suggested that a small, highly educated Black elite should lead the race—while Garveyism argued for mass empowerment, economic self-reliance, and a return to African traditions.

Garveyite Perspective: Any ideology that promotes integration into a white supremacist society instead of African self-determination is anti-Black.

3. Examples of This Confusion in Black Communities

Many Black people still mistake economic status and Western respectability for cultural identity. Here are some examples:

A) Language & Speech

Some Black people believe that African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), Patois, Creole, or African languages are “ghetto”, while standard English is “educated.”

In reality, African linguistic structures influence these languages, making them part of our cultural identity.

Example: Many Caribbean and African immigrants are conditioned to believe that abandoning their mother tongues and adopting British or American English is a sign of intelligence, when in fact, this is an example of colonial indoctrination.

B) Clothing & Grooming

Some Black people believe that wearing African/black clothing is “backwards” or “unprofessional”, while wearing a suit and tie makes one respectable.

But a suit and tie is a European standard of dress, not an African or black one.

Example: Black and African clothing that remains uninfluenced by European styles is the kente cloth of Ghana. Woven by the Akan people for centuries, kente is a traditionally handcrafted fabric made from silk and cotton, featuring intricate patterns that hold deep cultural and spiritual significance. It has been worn by Ghanaian royalty and remains a symbol of heritage, status, and pride. Unlike European textiles, kente's designs, colours, and weaving techniques are rooted entirely in African traditions, showcasing a purely indigenous fashion identity.

C) Education & Intelligence

Some believe that having a degree from a Western university makes someone more cultured.

But Western education often promotes anti-Black narratives and European supremacy.

Example: Many Black intellectuals look down on grassroots organizers and Pan-African movements, seeing themselves as superior due to their Western degrees.

Garveyite Perspective: True intelligence is not determined by a degree from Harvard or Oxford—it is measured by self-education, community impact, and Pan-African consciousness.

4. Consequences of Mistaking Class for Culture

This confusion has caused major harm within the Black community:

A) Classism & Division

Black elites often distance themselves from the working class.

Africans and Caribbeans sometimes look down on Black Americans, believing their struggles stem from a lack of "ambition" instead of systemic racism.

Example: African immigrants are often taught that Black Americans are "lazy," when in reality, Black Americans face systemic barriers that prevent economic mobility.

B) Cultural Assimilation & Loss of Identity

Black people abandon African languages, traditions, and values in favour of Western norms.

African spirituality is demonized, while Christianity and Islam remain dominant.

Example: The African American upper class in the 1900s married lighter-skinned partners to gain social status—showing that whiteness, not African identity, was their measure of success.

Garveyite Perspective: Liberation comes through Pan-African unity and cultural reclamation—not integration into white systems.

5. The Solution: Reclaiming a Pan-African Consciousness

To break free from this confusion, Black people must return to authentic Pan-African identity and self-determination.

A) Prioritize African-Centered Education

Learn about African history, languages, and traditions outside of Western institutions.

Stop equating European education with intelligence.

B) Define Success on Our Own Terms

Success is not white approval—it is economic independence, cultural pride, and collective self-reliance.

Stop chasing corporate jobs, luxury brands, and European validation.

Garveyite Perspective: Only through self-sufficiency, cultural pride, and Pan-African unity can Black people truly be free.

Final Thought

Black people must stop confusing class-based Western behaviours with true African/black cultural identity. Only by reclaiming Pan-African consciousness, rejecting respectability politics, and prioritizing self-determination can true liberation be achieved.

---

Tumblr Tags:

[aslitheryprinx]

Space Hermits woo!

so I don't have full worldbuilding for everyone yet, but I have ideas for most of the hermits. I do also know who the humans are (see if you can guess them lol) and who is in which group. Let's get some worldbuilding out!

Lab Experiments:

False, Grian, Impulse, Zedaph and Doc are the unfortunate victims of an unethical science lab. All of them have been experimented on; none of them are the same as they once were. Two of them are humans... no. Two of them were humans. These five alone managed to escape the lab and steal a small ship. They make it as far as they can before they have to make an emergency landing on an uninhabited planet...

The Rebels:

Floria [planet name might change] has a very strict hierarchy. There are quite a few sentient species native to the planet, all more similar to plants than animals. Not everyone is happy with this oppressive system, however. Stress, Iskall, Keralis, and Xb, who are all on wildly different levels of this hierarchy, are a small but determined group of rebels. When they become too notorious, they have to flee the planet. After days of aimless traveling, they take a pit stop at an uninhabited planet...

~~~~

there are 4 more groups, but this is it for now :3 feel free to send asks about this au!

Edit: part two here!

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.7 What classes exist within modern society?

For anarchists, class analysis is an important means of understanding the world and what is going on in it. While recognition of the fact that classes actually exist is less prevalent now than it once was, this does not mean that classes have ceased to exist. Quite the contrary. As we’ll see, it means only that the ruling class has been more successful than before in obscuring the existence of class.

Class can be objectively defined: the relationship between an individual and the sources of power within society determines his or her class. We live in a class society in which a few people possess far more political and economic power than the majority, who usually work for the minority that controls them and the decisions that affect them. This means that class is based both on exploitation and oppression, with some controlling the labour of others for their own gain. The means of oppression have been indicated in earlier parts of section B, while section C (What are the myths of capitalist economics?) indicates exactly how exploitation occurs within a society apparently based on free and equal exchange. In addition, it also highlights the effects on the economic system itself of this exploitation. The social and political impact of the system and the classes and hierarchies it creates is discussed in depth in section D (How do statism and capitalism affect society?).

We must emphasise at the outset that the idea of the “working class” as composed of nothing but industrial workers is simply false. It is not applicable today, if it ever was. Power, in terms of hire/fire and investment decisions, is the important thing. Ownership of capital as a means of determining a person’s class, while still important, does not tell the whole story. An obvious example is that of the higher layers of management within corporations. They have massive power within the company, basically taking over the role held by the actual capitalist in smaller firms. While they may technically be “salary slaves” their power and position in the social hierarchy indicate that they are members of the ruling class in practice (and, consequently, their income is best thought of as a share of profits rather than a wage). Much the same can be said of politicians and state bureaucrats whose power and influence does not derive from the ownership of the means of production but rather then control over the means of coercion. Moreover, many large companies are owned by other large companies, through pension funds, multinationals, etc. (in 1945, 93% of shares were owned by individuals; by 1997, this had fallen to 43%). Needless to say, if working-class people own shares that does not make them capitalists as the dividends are not enough to live on nor do they give them any say in how a company is run).

For most anarchists, there are two main classes:

Obviously there are “grey” areas in any society, individuals and groups who do not fit exactly into either the working or ruling class. Such people include those who work but have some control over other people, e.g. power of hire/fire. These are the people who make the minor, day-to-day decisions concerning the running of capital or state. This area includes lower to middle management, professionals, and small capitalists.

There is some argument within the anarchist movement whether this “grey” area constitutes another (“middle”) class or not. Most anarchists say no, most of this “grey” area are working class, others (such as the British Class War Federation) argue it is a different class. One thing is sure, all anarchists agree that most people in this “grey” area have an interest in getting rid of the current system just as much as the working class (we should point out here that what is usually called “middle class” in the USA and elsewhere is nothing of the kind, and usually refers to working class people with decent jobs, homes, etc. As class is considered a rude word in polite society in the USA, such mystification is to be expected).

So, there will be exceptions to this classification scheme. However, most of society share common interests, as they face the economic uncertainties and hierarchical nature of capitalism.

We do not aim to fit all of reality into this class scheme, but only to develop it as reality indicates, based on our own experiences of the changing patterns of modern society. Nor is this scheme intended to suggest that all members of a class have identical interests or that competition does not exist between members of the same class, as it does between the classes. Capitalism, by its very nature, is a competitive system. As Malatesta pointed out, “one must bear in mind that on the one hand the bourgeoisie (the property owners) are always at war amongst themselves… and that on the other hand the government, though springing from the bourgeoisie and its servant and protector, tends, as every servant and every protector, to achieve its own emancipation and to dominate whoever it protects. Thus the game of the swings, the manoeuvres, the concessions and the withdrawals, the attempts to find allies among the people and against the conservatives, and among conservatives against the people, which is the science of the governors, and which blinds the ingenuous and phlegmatic who always wait for salvation to come down to them from above.” [Anarchy, p. 25]

However, no matter how much inter-elite rivalry goes on, at the slightest threat to the system from which they benefit, the ruling class will unite to defend their common interests. Once the threat passes, they will return to competing among themselves for power, market share and wealth. Unfortunately, the working class rarely unites as a class, mainly due to its chronic economic and social position. At best, certain sections unite and experience the benefits and pleasure of co-operation. Anarchists, by their ideas and action try to change this situation and encourage solidarity within the working class in order to resist, and ultimately get rid of, capitalism. However, their activity is helped by the fact that those in struggle often realise that “solidarity is strength” and so start to work together and unite their struggles against their common enemy. Indeed, history is full of such developments.

[grandwitchbird]

On Textual Ethics.

Texts have their own ‘ethics’. We can think of this as undergirding values and motivations that create a work’s approach to its subject/s and demands on its readers. It’s flavored by culture, the influences the writers themselves may not even be aware of, the priorities they very much are aware of, the very process of creating art etc… And it’s not about content or plot. You can tell a story about rebels against fascists and make it so ethically confused there may as well be no ethic.

I can’t emphasize enough that this is a matter of how/why a work is doing what it’s doing. It’s not about the surface level details like wether someone becomes god or fights god or gets crushed by their god. You also can’t just read an ethic into the text. It’s about defined values. Trying to read an ethic into a text that can’t support it is how you get tumblr’s idea that marvel movies are somehow anything other than ethically impoverished nonsense meant to farm Chinese theater dollars. To understand textual ethics, you have to know something about textual context: you have to historicize your reading and you have to be well-read in a given genre and you need to genuinely understand values systems. There’s some easy giveaways re: ethical weakness though.

Lord of the Rings is comfortingly conservative in its retreats from moral disturbance, and that makes it likable for most people. We can indulge in its attempts at romanticism because the text goes out of its way to avoid any real discussion of its values. Our romantic pastoral world is threatened by a suitably vague evil represented by, whoops technology and industry. Let’s not think about that too much because it might raise questions about why all our heroes are land owners and land inheritors. Except for the ever-loyal manservant straight out of a Victorian novel. Of course. The text does not want you to think about its implications. It could say something interesting if it did, but it’s not going anywhere with any of that. It wants only to comfort you by activating a false nostalgia for an innocently pastoral England that never existed. It can’t resist reduction as a result because it lacks defined values. It also ends with a complete resolution that escapes both the trouble of living and the material finality of death. This is a weak ethic. (I finally read Epic Pooh right after I drafted this and had a good laugh. Moorcock and I are in agreement. I’d like to cite him here even though I technically landed on the same thing he did in isolation. Go read Epic Pooh).

You can tell a story about cops that’s explicitly leftist and make it stronger for resisting reduction and preachiness. You can tell a story about systemically oppressed underdogs, ending with a revolution, and say absolutely nothing at all by getting muddled in your values and execution. You can write a children’s story that does have something meaningful to say about systems of oppression and make it about magical pirates. You can do anything. It’s how you do it that matters. Strong ethics resist retreat. They prod at our uncertainties and provide meaningful answers and are happy to make us uncomfortable in the process. They have defined values.

And yes conservative ‘ethics’ are weak. Inherently. Conservativism is a set of impulses towards retreat (from anxiety, from the self, from others, from change) into hierarchy, both practically and ideologically. It relies on your squeamishness about all the problems of being human. It seeks the false virtues of purity and innocence. It’s not a viable ethical framework. That’s why textually conservative stories avoid providing philosophically clear motives. They seek to subvert anxiety by simply retreating from it into nostalgia or hierarchy or by appeals to common sense. If they defined motives they’d have to define what they think ‘evil’ actually is. See? Retreat. There’s no answer but death in that retreat, and the text will find a way to run even from that. It’s a reflection of real world human weaknesses and the systems they engender and enable. Looking that reality in the eye and interrogating the line where weakness turns us into monsters would be the kind of project an ethically strong text might take on.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Eva Kurilova

Published: Jan 15, 2024

In 1943, C.S. Lewis delivered a series of lectures at King’s College that warned about the erosion of moral values and the rise of relativism, which he believed would lead to humanity’s ruin. These thought-provoking lectures were later compiled into The Abolition of Man, a book that has since been acknowledged as one of the most significant and influential works of the 20th century.

Today, I believe society has reached the very crossroads Lewis forewarned—an era of subjectivism where concepts of “right” and “wrong” have lost their objective anchor and are instead dictated by personal whims and desires. A striking manifestation of this shift is evident in the construction of an oppression hierarchy. This hierarchy asserts that moral judgements in any given situation is not determined by external, consistent values for judging behavior, but rather by the fluctuating perceptions of who is deemed “privileged” and who is deemed “oppressed.”

In his lectures, Lewis emphasized the importance of universal virtues in guiding our morality. He referred to these virtues, which he believed to be found universally across humanity, as the “Tao.” Originating from Chinese philosophy, the Tao represents a way of life in harmony with the world. Discerning the right way to live, according to Lewis, requires wisdom and character. He describes the Tao as “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”

Regrettably, Lewis observed a decline in such wisdom and integrity among the youth of his era, leading to what he termed “men without chests”—individuals devoid of honor and virtue. His critique was not about dictating the specifics of what is “right,” “moral,” and “good.” Rather, Lewis lamented that we have lost any sense that the right, moral, and good exist at all, writing: “Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it.”

To illustrate his point, Lewis began his first lecture with an anecdote about the English poet Samuel Coleridge. Coleridge was once gazing at his favorite waterfall when two tourists came along, one calling the waterfall “sublime” and the other as merely “pretty.” Coleridge approved the former judgment and rejected the latter.

Lewis’ intention was not to dictate perceptions of waterfalls. His concern was that, when the story was referenced in a “little book on English” for schoolchildren that he called The Green Book, the authors declared that the tourist who called the waterfall “sublime” was merely making a statement about his own feelings. This, according to Lewis, exemplified a troubling shift away from recognizing objective beauty and value.

This sly inward turn toward subjectivity, and away from the belief that certain emotional responses can be congruous or incongruous with reality, deeply troubled Lewis. He feared this trend would lead to “men without chests.” He posited that we would demand from such men qualities like drive and self-sacrifice while relegating virtues like honor and patriotism to mere feeling and opinion. He uses the example of a Roman father telling his son that it is a “sweet and seemly thing to die for his country.” The authors of The Green Book, however, would feel the need to debunk this sentiment the same way they debunked the idea that the sublime nature of the waterfall has any reality outside of the tourist’s own feelings.

Lewis further illustrated his point using a humorous example of himself and his attitude toward children. He admitted, “I myself do not enjoy the society of small children: because I speak from within the Tao I recognize this as a defect in myself—just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or colour blind.”

Rather than trying to justify the fact that he doesn’t enjoy the company of children by forcing the rest of society to see it as a virtue, Lewis acknowledged it as a personal shortcoming, recognizing that we should value spending time with children. However, it often seems today that people do the opposite: they argue that what they personally like is valuable and what they personally dislike is not. And this is exactly what Lewis saw coming.

When we move away from the Tao and the idea that certain attitudes toward the world are really true and good, we risk evaluating the world solely through the lens of desire and emotional impulses. “When all that says ‘It is good’ has been debunked,” says Lewis, “what says ‘I want’ remains.” He further remarks: “Those who stand outside all judgements of value cannot have any ground for preferring one of their own impulses to another except the emotional strength of that impulse.”

I believe Lewis correctly predicted humanity’s moral trajectory, which is highly concerning considering where he said it would lead. What I don’t think he could have predicted, however, was that one of the major ways that subjective and relativistic morality would manifest was through the oppression hierarchy.

Based on identity characteristics like race, sex, sexuality, and “gender identity,” the oppression hierarchy slots individuals into a stack that ranges from most privileged to most oppressed. At the top, you will invariably find “cis” straight white men. At the bottom, you will likely find black “trans” women, often bearing additional marginalized identities like “disabled.”

The morality underpinning this hierarchy is inherently relativistic. It contends that those lower in the stack are incapable of wrongdoing toward those above. For example, you might have heard that non-white people can’t be racist against white people because they are more oppressed as a group on the basis of race. It is also reflected in the idea that there is no such thing as misandry because under patriarchy men as a class oppress women as a class. This ideology further manifests in attitudes that trivialize or even endorse acts like shoplifting, justified by the belief that capitalism is an “oppressive” system.

Gone is the traditional notion of treating others equally and recognizing antisocial behaviors like theft as inherently wrong. According to this new moral framework, any attitude or action directed against an “oppressor”–be it an individual or a system–is deemed justifiable.

This new morality and its value calculus is also prevalent in contemporary gender ideology. It becomes particularly apparent in how trans-identifying individuals demand privileges that clash with the rights of women. Gender self-identification is a disaster for women’s sports, women’s prisons, and women’s private spaces, but it doesn’t matter because “trans” people are considered oppressed, and “cis” people the oppressors. As a result, trans-identified men can therefore demand anything at the expense of women’s rights, and women who refuse or fail to swiftly comply with every demand are branded as hateful.

Oppression stack-based morality is why trans rights activists feel entitled to call for violence, rape, and death against so-called “transphobes” who disagree with them, and why they receive no real pushback from within their communities. It’s why they feel emboldened enough to hold up signs that say “decapitate TERFs” and to show up at women’s rights events with fake guillotines. It’s why they regularly jump to the defense of male pedophiles, rapists, and murderers who seek transfer to women’s prisons. Critics of such transfers are often accused of bigotry and “misgendering.”

No matter what, the “trans” person in any scenario is viewed as inherently oppressed and incapable of wrongdoing, especially against those deemed as oppressors.

A case in point is Audrey Hale, a mass shooter who killed three adults and three nine-year-old children at a private Christian school in Tennessee. Because she identified as a transgender man, activists quickly slammed media outlets for “misgendering” Hale by referring to her using female pronouns. CNN and The New York Times even issued “corrections,” essentially capitulating to the preferences of a mass child killer. Prominent transgender activist Eli Erlick even called the school a “right-wing institution” and asserted, without evidence, that Hale had been “abused” there.

However, perhaps the most striking illustration of this new morality at play was seen in the response to the Hamas terror attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. Despite the heinous nature of the atrocities committed on that day, a disturbing number of people praised the actions of the terrorists. The moral calculus has been grim. The terrorists were rebranded as oppressed freedom fighters. Consequently, their actions, regardless of how morally reprehensible, were often rationalized or justified because they were perceived as acts against “oppressors.” In this context, the conventional condemnation of acts like mass rape and murder has become contingent on the relative privilege of the perpetrator and the victim. Then, a terrorist attack is no longer a terrorist attack.

While Lewis couldn’t have foreseen the specific outcomes of a shift towards subjective morality, nor the intricate oppression hierarchy that now informs societal judgments of “right” and “wrong,” he was nevertheless correct in identifying that it would be based on nothing more than personal desires and emotional impulses. The supposed objectivity of the oppression hierarchy is, in reality, a façade. The allocation of characteristics within this hierarchy, and the corresponding levels of privilege or disadvantage they confer, are seldom reflective of real-life circumstances. Instead, they are dictated by prevailing social and political trends, and the caprices of those in power. The clearest evidence of this is that a straight man instantly plummets from a position of unrivaled privilege to one of significant oppression simply by donning a dress and wig.

But what implications does this perspective have for society? Lewis wasn’t optimistic. He argued that discarding traditional values in favor of self-crafted ones, based on whims and impulses, does not lead to emancipation. On the contrary, it subjects us to what he termed “Conditioners”—those who “cut out all posterity in what shape they please.” These Conditioners are, in my opinion, analogous to those making the decisions about where individuals sit on the oppression hierarchy. “They produce conscience,” Lewis says, “and decide what kind of conscience they will produce.” In this manner, the Conditioners effectively conquer human nature. However:

At the moment, then, of Man’s victory over Nature, we find the whole human race subjected to some individual men, and those individuals subjected to that in themselves which is purely ‘natural’—to their irrational impulses. Nature, untrammelled by values, rules the Conditioners and, through them, all humanity. Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man.

Lewis feared that a shift toward subjective and relativistic morality might inexorably lead to totalitarianism, with those in power guided by their basest instincts. Reflecting on the latter part of the 20th century, it appears his fears were not unfounded. At the time of his observations, such moral perspectives were already shaping the ideologies of fascism and communism. Despite his cautionary words and the unfolding of events that mirrored his warnings, this new morality continued to proliferate throughout society and it is now the guiding star of radical progressives.

While I favor Lewis’ view, I’m not arguing that everyone must necessarily agree with the concept of objective morality. I’m sure many lively debates could spring up around his words, and no doubt many have. I know numerous people with strong morals and values who might insist that they came to those values rationally, that we don’t need to rely on tradition, and that morals aren’t necessarily objective. I also know that some would say evolutionary biology has played a significant role in shaping moral attitudes, a view I accept, though I believe is not the sole factor at play.

Yet, I hope we can collectively recognize the dangers inherent in the other view—that right and wrong should be judged only according to the emotional intensity of a given impulse. This new morality has created an oppression hierarchy, where the moral standing of an action hinges entirely on the relative oppression or privilege of the involved parties. This perspective has led us to a precipice where, alarmingly, an act as heinous as cold-blooded murder might not be deemed wrong if perpetrated by someone from an oppressed group against an individual from a perceived oppressor group.

Do not let yourself become conditioned to accept this.