#unjust hierarchies

[somerandomg33k]

Question

Is it a good thing to make money? Cause I think Liberals general think it is a good thing to make money. But of course, freaking Liberals and their love of unjust hierarchies.

[edwardseymour]

on the topic of stanne's being incapable of viewing feminism through any other lens than 'not like the other girls'... would anne even be regarded as so exceptional if she wasn't as privileged as she was? would the idea of her innate exceptionalism, her standing out at court as more fashionable/passionate/moral/intellectual/exotic still persist? i just have to wonder how many women could have been remembered by history as exceptional, if only given the ability to — if they had the resources from birth that anne had etc.

[the-avaricious-meddler]

Resisting the urge to scream when people miss that the Judgements are only at the top of the chain because they put themselves there and in fact the chain only exists because they created it and instead read FL as a generic "some beings are just naturally above others Because" story

[bisexual-magneto]

I mean, I feel like it is a natural outcome considering that both the jury and the public seemed to completely forget that Depp v Heard was about defamation, not abuse, but it terrifies me that a lot of people don't realise me what a giant blow to women's freedom of speech this was. She didn't name Depp as an abuser in that article, she said she was a figure representing abuse. The article was co-written with the ACLU and one of the contested lines was written by the editors but she got sued for it. Not the Washington Post, not the ACLU. Which definitely is at least partially because she had the worst lawyers and partially to get back at the ex, but Depp sued the Sun in the UK. He does sue newspapers.

And this is another facet of the larger phenomenon where all those big Western values of liberty and individualism, the personal pursuit of happiness, civil liberties for everyone etc etc etc - is and always have been directed at (white) men, with anyone else being granted some of that as a concession. So many of the lauded works in our literature are about how any person has the right to take charge of their own fate and needs civil liberties to be able to take responsibility for their lives - but at any of those points of time, it was always clear that this does not apply to women.

That since men have decided that women are happier as housewives, they have to be housewives, it had to be made law and there had to be social pressure. Since men have decided that women are better wives if they're uneducated, they barred them from education. That since men had decided that women cannot handle stress, they have to be banned from all sorts of things. And so on. The ideal of self-determination has always been a gendered one. It is about the man as the special crown jewel of creation, the being of infinite value, intelligence and depth, alleviated to personal power by the Enlightenment - and the woman as the NPC beside him. The rib. Remember, the same phase in history when male philosophers and scholars started to push for the idea that every (white) man is created equal, has the same abilities barred by circumstances - that was the same time that othering was more and more transferred from a religious rationale to a scientific one.

And much in the same way, if a man - any man but especially a white man - had lost a defamation trial on such shaky, shaky grounds, men would be taking his side, sharing 1984 quotes or whatever and consider it a dark day for human rights. In fact, think of all the male pundits who will spin outright lies about some celebrity being part of a cannibal paedo cult - and when they're found out to be lying, their fans defend them and say that "well it's their freedom of speech!"

For the public, there is no urgency to defend women's right to freedom of speech, especially when they're talking about gendered issues, because quite classically, they think a woman has nothing meaningful to say and "should be seen, not Heard".

[yuriartillery]

it must be extremely tiring to be a real anarchist on tumblr. imagine having coherent beliefs but being forced to share a space and labels with idiots who say vote blue no matter who. id be looking for the nearest bridge

[geoffrey]

just read the first snowpiercer comic. that was literally one of the worst things ive ever read

[flango87]

Everyday I think of the time I was watching the hunger games and my dad came in and I was explaining where I was in the movie and what snow was doing and such and he went “oh yeah bc snow is doing that communism thing like Trudeau is” and I just. No Sir. You Must be Confused.

[the-avaricious-meddler]

Also speaking of the great chain I'm drawn to Hell specifically. And the bit in Heart's Desire where Beechwood is put on trial for going *down* the chain, because to Hell only going *up* is allowed.

And it makes me think: Hell, in all its stated rejection of Law, still wants to use The Chain for its own benefit rather than get rid of it. They claim to be subverting it, when in reality they just want to do Unjust Hierarchies but in a different flavor.

No wonder there are groups of Devils who want to rebel against Hell.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

There is no magic "abolish the state" button, which is why I'm an anarchist, as "when the state has socialismed enough it will just magically poof away in a cloud of smoke" is the leninist position.

That is not the Leninist position, the Leninist position is and always has been that the state cannot disappear until the material conditions for its disappearance are achieved. The withering away of the state, first outlined by Engels, is not a magic process but one that proceeds from the abolition of class and the dissolution of the bourgeoisie.

How are you going to get rid of the bourgeoisie without a state? Are you going to simply ask them nicely to leave you alone? If you are organized and if your organization is suppressing the bourgeoisie as a class, then you have created a state, you have created an authoritarian imposition on the free organization of some section of the people. If you are not doing any of this, then the bourgeoisie who you have left unmolested will invariably come to dominate you once more.

Anarchists have always played word games to get around these simple facts. There are the practical anarchists who will admit to some amount of authority, but always with the caveat that theirs is *just* authority, *necessary* authority, and that is is the *unjust* authority that they condemn. Just authority is not the State, because the State is unjust, and so if they see an authority as just then it cannot be the State. Fair enough, you can call things by whatever names you like, but if you put these ideas in practice you basically end up with Leninism. You want to create dual power? You want to abolish the bourgeois state and replace it with a democratic organ of the working class? Well so did Lenin, and now you know why the Mensheviks accused him of anarchism.

Then there are the quite impractical capital-A Anarchists, who are adamant that anarchy means anarchy and that even voluntary hierarchy and submission to democratic authority is impermissible. Whether pacifistic or militaristic, they are generally unremarkable and ineffective at their goals because they eschew most effective forms of organization as ideologically impure. Even the most advanced anarchists, the CNT in Spain and the Maknovists in Russia, were plagued by economic confusion and disorganization. Their lack of discipline led to their downfall.

If you want to read more, here are some pertinent links:

[psychotrenny]

I do have some small respect for how Anarchists are willing to critique things that most people take for granted; it's part of what drew me to the ideology in the first place. However they always do so on terms that are every bit as idealist and dogmatic as the mainstream society that upholds them, which is why I no longer associate with it. Like for example, it's very true that "time" as we understand it is a social construct that was shaped by a particular set of conditions and is technically something humans can live without (indeed as many have throughout history). However it's also to be a very useful social construct that exists and continues to exist for very good reasons. Like it's one thing if you think there are better ways to treat it, but it's incredibly foolish how so many Anarchists reject things like that purely on the basis of "uhhh it's an unjust hierarchy that makes you have less freedom".

Like Anarchists can understand social context on an idealist level, but the constraints of material reality are simply not a concern. Their critiques are potentially interesting but always limited, and their solutions are completely useless whenever they even exist. It's simply not a good framework of analysis

[madlabgames]

Oath of Liberation: A Paladin Subclass for the Revolutionary Vanguard

In the sprawling cities and toil-worn countrysides of the realm, a new fire is kindled. Not of divine light in distant heavens, but in the hearths of the common folk and the sparks of defiance in the eyes of the oppressed. Here, a new kind of paladin arises—a warrior of the people, bound by an oath not to a celestial being or an ancient tradition, but to the promise of a world remade. This is the Oath of Liberation, a sacred vow to stand with the working class, to dismantle the thrones of tyrants, and to forge a new dawn of freedom and solidarity.

Paladins of the Oath of Liberation are the vanguard of revolution, combining the martial prowess and unwavering conviction of their order with the strategic acumen and fervent spirit of a revolutionary leader. They are found on the front lines of picket lines, at the heart of peasant uprisings, and in the clandestine meetings where the seeds of change are sown. Their armor is often practical, adorned with the symbols of their movement—a broken chain, a hammer, or the simple colors of the common people. To the downtrodden, they are beacons of hope; to the oppressors, they are the specter of righteous retribution.

Tenets of Liberation

The tenets of the Oath of Liberation are a radical call to action, a commitment to overthrowing unjust hierarchies and empowering the masses.

* Break the Chains. You are sworn to fight against all forms of bondage, be it the physical chains of slavery, the economic chains of serfdom, or the ideological chains of tyranny.

* Power to the People. True authority comes from the will of the collective, not the decree of a monarch. You must work to dismantle systems of oppression and place power in the hands of the working people.

* Solidarity Forever. Your strength lies in unity. You must stand in solidarity with all who labor and all who are oppressed, for their struggle is your struggle. An injury to one is an injury to all.

* Vanguard's Duty. You are the tip of the spear, the first to charge into the fray and the last to retreat. You must inspire courage, lead with conviction, and be an unwavering example of revolutionary zeal.

Oath Spells

You gain oath spells at the paladin levels listed.

* 3rd Level: Command, Heroism

* 5th Level: Pass without Trace, Shatter

* 9th Level: Beacon of Hope, Haste

* 13th Level: Freedom of Movement, Stoneskin

* 17th Level: Animate Objects, Destructive Wave

Channel Divinity

When you take this oath at 3rd level, you gain the following two Channel Divinity options.

Incite the Masses. As an action, you can use your Channel Divinity to unleash a powerful call to revolution. Each hostile creature within 30 feet of you that can see or hear you must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is frightened of you and up to a number of your allies equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one) for 1 minute. An affected creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Unflinching Resolve. As a bonus action, you can use your Channel Divinity to bolster your allies. For 1 minute, you and any friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have advantage on saving throws against being charmed or frightened.

Aura of Solidarity

Starting at 7th level, you emanate an aura of unwavering unity. When you or a friendly creature within 10 feet of you is subjected to an effect that would cause them to be charmed, frightened, or stunned, they can use their reaction to immediately make a saving throw against the effect.

At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet.

Vanguard's Advance

At 15th level, you have become a master of leading the charge and breaking enemy lines. When you use your Divine Smite feature, you can choose to forgo two of the radiant damage dice to grant yourself and a number of allies equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one) within 30 feet of you the benefits of the Dash action as a bonus action on your next turn.

The People's Champion

At 20th level, you can assume the form of a living embodiment of revolution. As an action, you can undergo a transformation that lasts for 1 minute. You gain the following benefits:

* You have resistance to all damage.

* When you or an ally within 30 feet of you is reduced to 0 hit points but not killed outright, you can use your reaction to cause them to drop to 1 hit point instead. You can use this reaction a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of once).

* Your weapon attacks deal an additional 1d8 force damage. This damage is doubled against constructs and objects.

* As a bonus action on each of your turns, you can issue a rallying cry. Choose one friendly creature within 30 feet of you that can hear you. That creature gains temporary hit points equal to your Paladin level.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

[maybeelse]

"... this is an abuse of power."

"Is it?" She tilts her head, genuine curiosity flitting across her face. By now you know that she's a perfect actor. On the table behind her, far out of reach, a bowl of soup—your dinner—congeals.

"Yes. There are rules for prisoners of war."

"Hmm. No, I don't think so."

"It doesn't matter what you—!"

She shushes you. When you're able to breathe again she continues, "the purpose of power is in its exercise. It doesn't care how it's used. There's no platonic ideal that I'm twisting out of shape, no laws written that matter more than how they are enforced. All hierarchy is unjust. That's what this is about, dear."

"T-then let me out of these fucking chains!"

"No," she laughs, "you don't understand yet! Not really. You'd just try to run back to your silly little empire, brew up a fresh load of hate and do something irredeemable. No."

"... fuck you."

"Mmm. Well. Are you ready to work for your dinner, or should I come back tomorrow with ... hmm, fried bacon? That's what you empire types like, isn't it?"

Your stomach clenches. It's been ... you don't know how long, really. There's no sense of time, here; it's blatantly obvious that the light shining in through your cell's barred windows doesn't come from anything as predictable as a sun. It's been getting hard to think, anyway; harder to remember what you're supposed to stand for.

Your eyes flick down, just for a moment. She notices. Parts her legs just far enough for you to see.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to give in.

[sleepytrancysub]

if you're an anarchist, it's your duty to find a girl with a royalty kink and absolutely ruin her. I mean, really, here she is walking around reproducing the imagery and hierarchies of unjust authority within the community, and you're not going to put her in her place?? Like, using her until she can't remember why she ever thought she was above you is basic praxis, and your refusal to do so is honestly bordering on liberalism 🙄

[hrizantemy]

Cassian’s obsession with Nesta being a lady or a woman of high status and her virginity, as well as his fixation on his own status as a bastard, is problematic for several reasons. This dynamic perpetuates outdated and harmful stereotypes about gender and social class, while also undermining Nesta’s autonomy and self-worth.

Cassian’s fixation on Nesta’s virginity is rooted in the outdated notion that a woman’s value is tied to her sexual purity. This is inherently misogynistic as it reduces a woman’s worth to her sexual history, ignoring her other qualities and achievements. Such a mindset can contribute to the harmful idea that women must remain “pure” to be respected or valued.

Cassian’s constant references his own status as a “bastard” reinforce rigid class distinctions that are both archaic and discriminatory. This focus on social hierarchy suggests that one’s birth or lineage defines their worth and potential, which is a deeply flawed and unjust perspective. It also places undue pressure on Nesta.

By repeatedly stating that he is undeserving of her, Cassian not only belittles himself but also undermines Nesta’s agency. It implies that her worth is diminished by associating with him, which can be seen as a manipulative tactic to control or influence her feelings and decisions. This kind of dynamic is unhealthy and can be emotionally damaging.

Cassian’s behavior can be interpreted as an attempt to exert control over Nesta under the guise of protecting or caring for her. This is a manifestation of toxic masculinity, where men feel the need to dominate and control women’s lives. It denies Nesta her autonomy and right to make her own choices, free from judgment or manipulation.

Cassian’s behavior reflects deep-seated societal issues regarding gender, class, and individual worth. It doesn’t foster healthier, more equitable relationships where individuals are valued for their intrinsic qualities rather than superficial markers of worth.

[yannig]

Ramil & Lucifer

In my post about the Garden of Eden metaphor, I left a throw-away line about Ramil as Lucifer, and @visualtaehyun was kind enough to take the bait and ask for my thoughts, so here we go.

The Next Prince has given a lot to work with.

We've got very clear biblical imagery.

We've got an oppressive Father-God figure in the person of King Thipokbowon and more globally the Emalian Monarchy as a system.

So where does Ramil fit into this?

To answer that question, we're gonna take just a step to the left from the Garden of Eden and widen the scope a bit:

Let's talk about Lucifer

In a word, Lucifer is a fallen angel - and often one of the names of the Devil. He was God's favorite until he rebelled against Him and was banished from Paradise.

In modern media, and since the 18th century, he is often portrayed as a romantic figure of rebellion against unjust power and cruel social order.

We've more than got the cruel power and unjust social order in the show, and we've got the association of said power with biblical imagery and God-like figures, so we could certainly have a Lucifer.

However, one might argue that up to this point, the rebellious figure of the story has clearly been Khanin, and one would be right.

But Khanin cannot be Lucifer, because he didn't grow up in Emaly.

Lucifer is supposed to be God's favorite angel, the one who sits at His right and commands His armies. Lucifer rebelling against God is the story of a being betraying everything he was created for, turning on his maker.

And Emaly didn't make Khanin - it stole him. The entire reason Khanin is rebellious is that he's an outsider who doesn't want to be there and doesn't like Emaly's rules and hierarchy of power.

Emaly did, however, make Ramil.

Where's the rebellion then? In the works, I believe. Here's the catch:

Ramil is Lucifer right before the Fall.

He hasn't rebelled yet.

But if the story does anything right with his character, he'll get his chance.

How is Ramil Lucifer then?

As stated above, Lucifer is supposed to be God's second-in-command, the one in charge of the angelic armies.

We could consider the position of the Next Prince similar to that of Lucifer at God's side: he is second to only the King in Emaly's hierarchy, and he is the one who had the responsibility to fight in said King's name in the Competition.

And that position was supposed to be Ramil's. He was raised and groomed for it since birth, and was promised it would be his without question probably since Khanin's death was announced. He was molded painfully in the shape of the perfect heir, the image of the perfect prince. Everything he is, everything his father in particular and Emaly's monarchy in general have made him into, is for this role he was promised, this position that has and will be always be his.

He's just as certain of his future role as the Next Prince as Lucifer is certain of his position as God's favorite.

Then Khanin is brought back to Emaly.

And everything about him makes Ramil choke on jealousy so hard he tries to loose Khanin in the forest the first occasion he gets.

In myths, Lucifer rebels against God because he's angry and jealous that God granted Humanity free will. Humanity gets the opportunity to disobey God's word, to not even believe in Him, and Lucifer's reaction is a mix of "that's not how things are done, why are you letting them get away with this?" anger and "why do they get such freedom and i don't?" jealousy.

Khanin gets brought back to Emaly, younger and newer and entirely ignorant of the rules that have presided over Ramil's life since birth, just like Humanity is created and put into the Garden of Eden with almost no rules.

And then Khanin proceeds to walk all over Emaly's protocols and rules and gets out of it basically scot-free. He breaks etiquette at his own coronation, talks back to the King, parades around with his lover, and meets next to no consequences for it.

In a word, Khanin is granted the free will Ramil never got.

And Ramil is incandescent at the disrespect but mostly he's dying of jealousy, of the unfairness of it all. Why the hell is the new kid granted so much leeway when he's had to suffer and obey all his life? Where is the fairness exactly? Where's the justice*?

Exactly like Lucifer is angry and jealous that Humanity was granted free will. To the point of taking free will for himself and rebelling against God.

So yes. Ramil is Lucifer. And I'll be waiting for him to turn on his maker just like Lucifer did.

(God, in Ramil's case, is Prince Rachata and King Thipokbowon and Emaly's Monarchy all at once)

*brownie points for whoever gets that reference, it's a bit obscure

Bonus:

noticed a parallel while looking for gifs

cw for nudity, but nothing more than the show

i'm sure it's entirely incidental

(yes i'm a sucker for Cabanel's Fallen Angel why do you ask)

[dailyadventureprompts]

Therapy Vs. Power Fantasy

Like a sage delving through cursed tomes to discover lost truths I recently I stumbled into some of the danker corners of the internet and abzorbed some absolutely vile takes. One of the recurring themes that popped up was people with rancid personal beleifs taking aim at the newer generations of TTRPG players (d&d and otherwise) for finding personal meaning or catharsis in their games, and how these new gamers were spoiled children who were getting overinvested.

Of course, they contrasted this "bitch" behavior there's a lot of other mysoginistic, homophobic, and ableist slurs they like to throw in when youtube TOS isn't looking with the badass way they play the game, like they've been doing ever since they were kids, like they still do in their playrooms mancaves away from all those pissbabies and girl feelings.

This got me thinking, specifically about power fantasies, how vunrability relates to art, and how repressed men are terrified of seeming weak, and how the early d&d lore is laregely based around childhood or adolesent fears.

The tie between media illiteracy and conservatism is nothing new. To enjoy art, you have to open yourself to it, to the chance of elation or disapointment or challenge, to let it resonate with you in ways you can't nessisarily predict or control. The fascist conservative only likes art that reinforces who they perceive themselves to be, strokes their ego, and confirms their biases about how the world should be.

It's very telling then that when you see chuds talking shit about younger d&d players, they often throw "therapy" around as an insult, because much in the same way that art can touch something inside you, therapy is about challenging your ingranned self image, toxic ego, and beleifs... all things that chuds consider vital to their sense of self.

This is not to say that a power fantasy can't be theraputic: a good portion of my own writing is about vicariously smashing broken systems and ousting the corruption of the world.. but there's a fundimental difference in the power fantasy of raising your fist against unjust power and the fantasy of being the boot inflicting that power downwards on those you dislike.

What the chuds are trying to do here is use d&d (or whatever OSR itteration they've decided to parasite this week) as a balm for their insecurity, not ask questions about WHY they're scared of being weak, or what strength really is, but to have a space where they can larp as being the ubermench real MEN they've always fallen short of IRL.

They're people who were bullied and ostrasized, and like good little bootlickers they've decided that the only thing wrong with their abuse was that they were the ones on the reciving end. Part of the reason they're so upset that this new generation of players is so "woke" is because the "woke" players refuse to put up with them being assholes, dening them the chance to establish themselves as the new top-rung in the abuser hierarchy.

Also, before I sign off, mad love to my friends in the OSR community, I know you have to put up with an above average number of these dipshits and while you prefer a different style of game to mine I know we're all fighting the good fight for a better, more welcoming TTRPG hobby.