#when i say 'not to be anti-religious' i quite literally mean

[vidavalor]

Joy

Today, as we know, the word joy usually means happiness in either a non-sexual way ("the cute, baby pumpkin I bought for fall is bringing me so much joy!") and/or in a way pertaining to religiosity ("the Lord brings me joy!"). Neither of these things were original meaning of the word.

The original meaning of joy was sexual ecstasy. It was descriptive of sensual pleasure and/or of having an orgasm. It was a very common way to refer to sex and, prior to an estimated sometime in the 15th century, if you told someone you wanted to "joy with" them, you were saying you wanted to make love with them.

How joy came to be so desexualized as a word is unknown but some etymologists theorize that it is a bit of linguistic revenge for people blasphemously evolving the word passion into being the foremost word used to describe erotic love when it was first developed by Christian theologians, intentionally and specifically, from the Latin pati ("to suffer") as a word to describe the crucification of Christ.

Yes, the current best theory for why joy's primary meanings have evolved away from the erotic is vengeful priests being big mad about people not taking their Jesus word seriously enough and using the church writings and masses to reboot the popular sexy word into a religious one... which then later was also secularized by people to mean just happy, upbeat things. So, if ever there's been a perfectly Good Omens-y word... 🤭

There is actually a song that is, more or less, about this. If you've ever heard Three Dog Night's 1970 song "Joy to the World"-- not the Christmas carol; the one that starts with "Jeremiah was a bullfrog"--what you might not realize is that the song is a trolling of the desexualizing of the word joy by poking fun at religious fundamentalists at the same time as it is using joy in its original meaning. It's both about sex positivity and an anti-war song and was a massive hit. (If Crowley didn't write it in the Good Omens universe, he definitely loved it.) What it wound up showing, though, was just how desexualized the word had become by that point, as many did not realize that the song was using the word's etymology and, instead, credited Three Dog Night with coining joy as an euphemism for sex when, really, they were just explaining its full history and using it in its original meaning.

So, anyway, if, say, a word nerdy demon who has been on Earth since its start were to say to, say, his equally etymology-loving, secret, romantic partner that he thinks it's time for a delivery of some "black market joy", he is absolutely saying he would like to joy with his partner, in the original sense of the word, later that night.

Especially because the literal thing the two of them are delivering in the moment that Crowley brings up joy is whiskey, which is alcohol, and alcohol (all-co-hol = fucking one other) is something we know they enjoy in quite extraordinary amounts (amounts 😂).

[radfemsiren]

Where/how did you find that sexist islam hadith? i keep getting pressured that if i "just researched" i would revert and i want to show exactly why i won't

I was told this Hadith by word of mouth as a child. Here is the original and translated, it’s a sahih Hadith, which means it’s authentic: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم:

‏"‏ أُرِيتُ النَّارَ فَإِذَا أَكْثَرُ أَهْلِهَا النِّسَاءُ يَكْفُرْنَ ‏"‏‏.‏ قِيلَ أَيَكْفُرْنَ بِاللَّهِ قَالَ ‏"‏ يَكْفُرْنَ الْعَشِيرَ، وَيَكْفُرْنَ الإِحْسَانَ، لَوْ أَحْسَنْتَ إِلَى إِحْدَاهُنَّ الدَّهْرَ ثُمَّ رَأَتْ مِنْكَ شَيْئًا قَالَتْ مَا رَأَيْتُ مِنْكَ خَيْرًا قَطُّ ‏"‏‏.‏

Sahih al-Bukhari 29

Honestly when it comes to debating Muslims, it’s impossible to win. I’ve seen Muslims defend this Hadith saying it’s about the women of jahiliyah, or pagan times before Islam … which still doesn’t make sense because the men of jahiliyah were committing infanticide against their daughters regularly. They were much worse than their women. They also excuse this Hadith saying that it’s just because women have a slightly higher population than men. I’ve heard that one many times. The prophet literally says the reason why in this Hadith, they don’t listen to reason!

If you must debate, this is a good Hadith to bring up, but there’s quite a few mentioning the hell full of women issue, so it might get muddy. Try to stick to the topic of Aisha. It is the core, root problem of why Islam is a threat to women. And simply replying, “That’s still pedophilia.” Works for every argument they bring up.

I’m actually working on a short series explaining the basics of Islams misogyny and it will cover a few topics, like the awrah/hijab law, sex slavery, Aisha, unequal inheritance, unequal eye witness testimony, marital rape, etc! So that’s coming within the week, keep an eye out for that! It will be in my anti-Islam tag :) It’s good to call out misogyny from other cultures too, but we have to be educated and know the difference between oppressive cultural practices (FGM) and oppressive religious practices (hijab laws)

[alpaca-clouds]

Let's talk about the whole "natural order" thing

Something I have realized is that a ton of people are not quite aware of the context of the one idea that the bad guys within Castlevania: Nocturne keep bringing up again and again: The natural order.

If you watch the show you will find that no episode goes by without a bad guy bringing up that idea every other scene, so let this history nerd quickly explain that concept.

So, this entire idea came from two sources: Enlightenment, and the pre-capitalist, colonialist system.

You need to understand that from the 4th century till the 16th century usually most stuff got explained to people with "because it is God's will". Why is that person poor, and that person rich? Because it is God's will. Why is that guy the king? Because God had made him. Why do we have this war? Because God wants us to.

That does not mean that the people in power actually believed that, but they could get away with everything by having some arch bishop or even the pope agree with them. (I mean, just look at the crusades.)

But then things happened. Gutenberg invented the printing press. Folks read the bible for themselves. People started to get more literate in general. Information about science got wider spread. There was splintering within the church. And people were just not as willing to accept "because God" anymore.

At the same time we had just as bad (if not at times worse) differences in quality of life between rich and poor than in the middle ages. And of course we had the entire colonialism happening, that also included genocide and slavery. And this needed justification. Que: The natural order.

This was just the umbrella under which so much pseudo-science would pressed underneath at the time. A pseudo-scientific explanation for everything that was happening.

Why are some people richer than other? Because they are just naturally more suited to be rich. That is the natural order.

Why do we have a king? Because it is a human need to have one central leader. And that family were always kings. It simply is the natural order of things.

Why do we subjugate the people in America? Because it is just natural for advanced civilizations to subjugate other civilizations. It is actually good for them. It is the natural order.

Why do we enslave Black people? Because they were actually born to be servants. That is their natural state. It is the natural order.

The entire stuff with phrenology and eugenics and all of that came from this specific idea. Of a natural order. Like, racism and all that came from that. Manifest destiny. All of that was connected to this idea of a natural order.

Ironically, while this sprang from the need to take the religion out of the stuff, they then just fitted religion right back in. Making the "church being excempt from everything" also as part of "natural order".

And yes, this is still very much the idea that a lot of conservatism is build around. That there is this pseudo-scientific idea of "this has proofen to work this way before, so it should work like that forever, that is only natural".

Funnily enough those new atheist scientist dudes also LOVE to appeal to the natural order. At times literally. Because they are also really big at conservatism when it comes to women, and keeping cultures apart, and anti-queerness and all of that. And yes, they are gonna appeal to the natural order and it being natural. Somethin that has only been brought up and seen critically recently.

But of course religious conservatives also love to use that, too. Because not all of them have the guts to just keep saying "but God" to defend their position (and sometimes they even know that their stuff directly contradicts the bible). And then they will also go: "But it is natural!"

It is a shitty idea. That is where it came from. It was what a lot of people used to argue against a lot of change that was happening in the 18th and 19th century.

[mostly-mundane-atla]

Real talk: i have been pretty absent from this blog (i wouldn't say slacking necessarily because it is first and foremost a hobby, a means of communication second, and i do not consider it a job to any degree). Do not worry, nothing bad has happened, and a big part of it is rediscovering my love of literature. Got my hands on a copy of Thomas Kinsella's The Táin, read The Handmaid's Tale, and recently finished Ivanhoe through audiobook.

I've already been singing the praises of the Táin Bó Cúailnge so i'll spare you having to read through that gushing. Ivanhoe is incredible and shockingly sensitive on the topic of antisemitism for something written by an early 19th century Christian author intended for a majority Christian audience. The scenes with Robin Hood also filled me with a childish glee and i think it was suppose to be a surprise that this guy is Robin Hood but he introduces himself as Locksley and wins an archery contest and leads a gang of outlaws in the woods, including a hermit who refers to Alan-a-Dale quite a bit so it's very obvious to a modern reader. Handmaid's Tale was also as good as i've heard it was, but there's a specific detail i want to discuss that feels relevant to how i think of this blog and how others use it.

I've read the reviews and the plot synopses amd analyses, i knew about the epilogue that frames the story as a historical document a century or so in the future. This did not surprise me. What did catch me by surprise, and something i feel is entirely overlooked, is that this story of an oppressive theocratic regime that uses Biblical precedence to excuse extreme atrocities of human rights violations and turned out to not even last very long, is contextualized as the topic of a discussion hosted by First Nations academics who study white people cultures. You can be pedantic and say "oh but technically they're only First Nations coded because it's presented as a transcript with no physical descriptions" and to a degree you would be right; but when you see names like Maryann Crescent Moon and Johnny Running Dog used for professors of a University of Denay (an anglo-phonetic spelling of Diné/Dene) in Nunavit, there isn't much room for speculating what ethnicity they're supposed to be.

There are so many little details in the book referencing Indigenous genocide. Details suggesting forms of genocide Atwood would be familiar with as a Canadian citizen. To only bring up religious fanaticism and patriarchal regressive politics in Middle Eastern nations like Iran and Afghanistan as well as the United States as inspirations for a surface level five minute summary is one thing, but to ignore all the anti-Indigenous policies that are also obvious inspirations (literally just read the passages about how the Narrator/Offred's daughter was taken from her, renamed, and given to a "proper home" to get what i mean, it's that blatant) when the iconic epilogue makes it as explicit as it can be without writing "THESE ARE NATIVE ISSUES" in big red letters? I won't lie to you, it feels like a slap to the face. Especially when the take away message of such a conclusion seems to be that Native peoples will outlive these regimes.

[yarpharp]

So because I am strange and always fascinated by posing cultural questions when it comes to creating crossover fanfiction, I had this wild thought worm recently for no reason: If you dumped Link (Legend of Zelda) into Thedas (Dragon Age), how the fuck would everyone in Thedas react to him?

I mean, depending on how you interpret Link's character, he doesn't talk. At all. I've always been of the opinion he speaks via some form of generalized Sign Language, but Why Would Thedas Share Any Common Signs? And who's to say there IS a formalized sign language in Thedas? Maybe there is, but it's technically a dead language now. The Elvhenan were fucked up but extremely modernized, so maybe they did have a Sign Language. Maybe the Dalish still have a lot of it, because Sign is a great way to silently communicate and Not Alert The Asshole Shemlen.

Either way, Link doesn't talk. And even if he can communicate via Sign Language, I highly doubt Hylian sign is gonna be understood. So there's one issue.

Secondly: Hylians don't look exactly like Theodosian elves. Modern elves of Thedas are scrawny and small but not too small; eyes bigger than a human and with cat-like night vision. Link? Link is canonically 5'2" and quite fit. Not skinny built and quite healthy, generally soft nonbinary features, bright eyes (at least in recent games; Link's got big fucking blues that almost glow for a nice contrast in TotK/BotW), pointy but not super pointy ears. Compared to Theodosian elves which are designed to look "distinctly fantastically different" in comparison to humans, Link just looks like a very short human with elf ears. So people might get a bit baffled at his looks; he's elfy but to the left.

Third: Hyrule isn't anti-magic. Magic is so inherently tied into everything in all the Legend of Zelda games, we the players just accept it. Link can wield magic rods and staves with no issue. Gerudo can use fire magic or summon lightning storms. Link can use magical items to summon winds, or devices that can magically transport him far distances. Rito can summon gales instinctually. Zora have water/ice magic and healing powers. If Link dodges correctly, he can seemingly slow time for a moment to deal a flurry attack. He uses Rauru's arm's magical abilities without blinking. The Master Sword is literally the ultimate magical item with a spirit inside of it.

Can you imagine Link losing his weapon in battle and just picking up a staff without thinking, but WHOOPS Thedas is kinda religiously anti-magic and someone is watching him just SUDDENLY THROWING ICE SPELLS (thinking about those magic staffs in BotW/TotK with the default AoE ice spell) without any hesitation? That is Not Normal for them like it is for Link. And Link himself like... Serves a powerful princess with the bloodline of a goddess. She literally tosses around light magic and time magic and shit. He probably can't begin to fathom a society that shuns something that so integral to Hyrule/Hyrule's safety in the face of Ganondorf's machinations.

Idk this was a bizarre thought worm I had. Maybe I will write a fanfic. Maybe I won't. It's interesting to think about in an extremely nerdy way, lol.

(also Link would HATE Solas but LOVE The Iron Bull and The Chargers. Prove me wrong, I dare you.)

[super-hero-confessions]

Love when Loki stans act like religious nuts giving a pass to Catholic pedo priests because "well not all of them are pedos!!1!1".

Great. Nobody said they were, just like nobody said that all Loki stans are nut jobs giving him a free pass because he's a pretty white boi. Claiming that's what's being said is not helpful to the conversation that people are actually trying to open.

That being that Loki can and does often get a free pass for the sole reason of being pretty and white from many many of his stans.

Not you? Then why are you acting like you've been personally called out and making strawmans to justify liking him? Nobody cares about why you personally feel the need to defend Loki on behalf of the bad actors in fandom who are being called out.

Just acknowledge the fact and move on morons. It's not hard to admit or understand that Loki has both tragic history and does awful things with a slap on the wrist from white supremacists and people who want to fuck him.

Two things can be true at the same time and not be mutually exclusive. Loki is a bigot that called the human race fucking ants and saw them as beneath him, planning to step on them. He's also a genocidal maniac with daddy issues.

He's also a grown ass man responsible for his own fucking choices. Nobody, and I mean nobody tried to get him to destroy Jotunheim. Everybody, and I mean everybody, tried to stop him.

He's also suffered a great deal due to personal hang ups and not quite fitting in from not being made aware of his adoptee status. I get it, that's relatable?? Still not an excuse to be genocidal space Hitler for blue people and a bit of an overreaction from a literal prince for space gods but oh well.

Loki can be both a villain and a victim and canonically is both. That's the point. He also has plenty of stans and antis that will only acknowledge one or the other. That's the point. And he definitely has stans that only care about how hot or white he is and will say anything to justify his unjustifiable actions. That's the point.

Not you? Then why the fuck are you offended when you know those people exist? Your denial of them only proves the point and lumps you in with those bad stans.

Because you're going out of your way to defend those bad stans, not Loki, instead of calling them out to make the Loki fandom better and less toxic.

The Loki fandom has been successfully converted into a perfect hiding place for real racists, bigots, white supremacists, fascists, victim blamers and the like who wanna skirt on by being genuinely hostile towards valid criticism and nuance, just like the Catholic church.

Congratulations. You played yourselves. Enjoy the literal Nazis that may be standing right next to you.

[artist-issues]

Ok, I've been thinking about your wish posts for quite some time, and I’m very confused, can't seem to follow them. Magnifico's main philosophy is to forget without regret (he, like Faciler, is taking the easy route of life).

Even if a goal doesn't come true or you give up, you should still reconcile with those scars, grow, and let them heal naturally. You say the star thing is sacrificial, but it's not saying Asha is a literal star; she's connected to stardust; it more evokes how God says we are made in the image of him (we are obviously not god, but we are all connected to him and his children).  

Putting aside that, I don't think this movie is religious at all, and I find the implication insane. I think Star is more god, and Magnifico is a false idol and a corrupt leader. Asha sings the lyrics, so I look up at the stars to guide them, much like how the shepherds followed the stars to Bethelheman.

Taking the lyrics of at all costs into account, I'll promise, as one does, I'll protect you at all costs. He's locking them up and stealing their souls, and he wants to seal his people's desire to live so he can achieve ultimate power.

When Asha says I'm a star, she's saying anyone should spread peace and reflect on their scars, and the wishes that are dangerous can be stopped, so if society (Magnifco) decides you are useless or not needed in society, do you listen?

Well, God would never say people's autonomy is useless, like Magnifico, nor do you have to grant everyone's wish, but you can't determine people's way of living or their souls. With no offense, I find your analysis posts to be rather anti-human and I’m curious if you have any answers to these points

First:

Every story is presenting a worldview. If you present a worldview, that worldview WILL come into conflict with other worldviews that say the opposite thing.

Wish may not be saying a word about any one religion—but by presenting the philosophy that human beings have the power of the stars in them, from the star matter inside of them—it is in conflict with several religious worldviews.

"Powerful Stardust Inside Humans" an actual "religion/"worldview out here in the real world. It's founded in the "big bang theory," which as far as I know, guesses that the ancient stars of the universe were made up of helium, lithium, and hydrogen. Then the other elements (the ones that make up us) allegedly gradually formed inside of those, then allegedly blasted all throughout the galaxy during the Big Bang. Therefore, allegedly, life on planet earth is made from star debris, or "stardust."

Then New Age believers take that a step further and decide that this means that a spiritual connection is between us and the stars, which are powerful, because of their religious astrological beliefs.

Which is exactly what Wish is also presenting, as a worldview, in "I'm a Star!" and in every moment where Asha claims she can understand what Star is trying to tell her, and in every moment where the effects artists specifically caused characters' chests to glow with a Star sparkle. Real people in real life believe that real stardust in humans gives them real power.

And that belief is either based on truth, or it's not. People who believe it are either wrong, or they're right.

Because other worldviews believe the opposite of both the New Age idea that stardust has supernatural power, and the opposite of the Big Bang.

Christians, as you know, believe that the world was created (and Earth, which mankind was formed out of, was created before the stars) by the word of Yahweh. They believe the Big Bang Theory is false. They believe that worshipping creations like stars through astrology, or attributing any supernatural power to humans, is false and also wrong.

Other worldviews besides Christianity also don't believe in the Big Bang, or astrology, or New Age spiritualism. But Wish framed Star and the whole "I'm a Star!" song as if these things are the truth...meaning, everything else is not true.

So you can say it had nothing to say about religion, but just by presenting a worldview that is contrary to many religions...it is saying something about religion. It is saying religion is incorrect. Passive-aggressively. But still saying it.

Second:

Star does not represent the God of the Bible in any way.

As I've said before, Star is presented as a higher power, because he is blatantly connected to the wishing stars of other Disney movies—which have been higher powers—but then he's able to be defeated. He's trapped easily by Magnifico. He is unable to rescue himself and has to be rescued by everyone else.

Nothing about that is like the God of the Bible.

Additionally, he's just one star. I feel like everybody is acting like there aren't other stars in the sky—the movie never presents Star the character as the only powerful godlike being in the heavens—in fact, the movie has a line from Asha's father about how "the stars (plural) are there to guide us." There's only one God, the God of the Bible specifically claims to be the only higher power.

Plus, even if Wish were saying that Star is the only wishing star, as a parallel to God's exclusive existence...he does nothing to "guide" Asha.

He doesn't suggest a path for her to take. She just decides she wants to go get Sabino's Wish back, and Star does cute little antics like any super-powered sidekick might to help out, and then she gets Sabino's wish back. Then later, he gives her magical tools that wind up being no help at all—she gets captured by Magnifico anyway. In the climax, he just sort of...pushes on the wishes, then gets sucked into a staff. He very simply does nothing super-helpful. He's just the regular amount of ordinary-helpful to Asha.

Besides, when we say a higher power "guides a character," we usually mean that they offer the hero a choice, and that choice challenges the character to choose what they need instead of just what they want. Like the Blue Fairy (the original wishing star) or Mama Odie. They aren't with the heroes every step of the way, jumping in to do part of the work of the adventure. Jumping in and doing part of the work is what Ray the firefly or Jiminy Cricket do. Star jumps in and does part of the work, like a sidekick; he does not give guidance or direction or a challenge that deepens the hero like the Blue Fairy, or Mama Odie, or The Enchantress. And like I said, he's nothing like God—

—except that he's presented like a higher power who gives guidance, only to actually do the opposite of that, which is a commentary on how the creators of Wish see "higher powers." I can't explain it any more clearly than that.

Also, just for point of reference, the phrase "made in God's image" does not line up at all with Asha's "connection" to Star. Because like I just said, Star's set up like he's supposed to be a higher power but then fails, so he's not that high of a power. Asha's "connection" to Star is a direct link to real New Age Evolutionary spirituality—they say, word-for-word, what New Age Evolutionary Spiritualists say in real life in the song "I'm a Star!"

Which is it: is the movie not religious at all, or is Star God while Magnifico's a false idol?

See, you can't even talk about Wish without acknowledging that it says something about higher powers, I.e. God.

I've already explained why Star isn't an accurate representation of the God of the Bible: he's more an accurate representation of what humanists believe about higher powers: they believe we're all "higher powers." (Which is to say, everyone is powerful and nobody, not stars or gods or nature, is higher than humans.)

But listen—they borrowed the idea of "look up at the stars to guide me" from several different places. One, yes, the Bible. Two, all of navigational history, which uses stars like maps. Three, astrology, which believes that stars give literal spiritual guidance and have an effect on everything that happens on earth. So no. It wasn't a direct one-to-one comparison to the wise men who followed the star to Bethlehem.

Your Claims About What the Movie is Saying:

"He wants to steal people's desires to live" - No, he doesn't, that's not in the movie. All the adults in Rosa's no longer have their wishes; none of them act depressed or suicidal. Not even Asha's mother, after her wish is literally crushed in front of her.

"When Asha says I'm a star, she's saying anyone should spread peace and reflect on their scars" - That's just a theory of yours; it's not supported by the movie. Nobody in the movie wrestled with "their scars." Not even Magnifico. The movie just hints that he lost something in his past—it never fully fleshes out that he's still upset by that, or afraid of losing anything he cares about except power. Asha's father is dead, but other than one line about how nobody should have to live with that pain (which is the opposite of "reflecting" on scars) the loss of her father is never treated like a deep emotional wound she needs to acknowledge or overcome. It's never mentioned again in the movie.

The thing is, none of your points are supportable from what's in the movie. You're reading more meaning into it than the movie actually has—and some of that meaning, the movie itself contradicts.

About how my posts are anti-human:

They're not anti-human. They're anti-humanist, maybe. I don't believe humans are the center of everything. I don't believe they are just as powerful as "higher powers." The point of "higher" powers is that they're HIGHER than what? Higher than humans.

God absolutely does determine what's right and wrong; He invented "right." And He does judge people's lifestyle, and their souls. Sure, Magnifico had no right to do that—but you know what, it's not because "nobody should decide how an individual lives except the individual themselves!" —it's because Magnifico is human. So he doesn't get to judge. God however? God gets to judge. God gets to decide. And He always makes the right decision.

[thecandyclusteragain]

Contains Barbie Movie spoilers

The Barbie Movie is honestly so weak as a "feminist" text (I won't try to rehash what other people have said about it, if you want to learn more about it I recommend the videos essays The Plastic Feminism of Barbie by VerilyBitchie and The White Feminism of Barbie by Jessie Gender on YouTube) but it is honestly perfect for people with weird gender kinks.

Like- Feminisation, masculinization, bimbofication, objectification, patriarchy/misogyny, femdom- that's all basically textual, but with that foundation there's even more you can play with! Different varieties of gender and queer sexuality kinks that explore the taboo of those things in a world that has a rigid society and binary- like ours -but with much lower stakes. Could easily see tf, forced tf, or sissification in this setting as well. I completely forgot for a second that cucking could be seen as textual as well? (If any of my connections seem unclear to you as a reader, please do ask about them because I'm high and I have AuDHD and my connections aren't always obvious to others)

What a beautiful plastic play place to explore gender and sexuality and social rules in!

Outside of my fantasies, I can get really anxious and paranoid about playing with other people when it comes to some of these kinks because they are quite reactionary. A particular part of my upbringing had a specific religious tone that has been really difficult to shake and I unfortunately internalized a lot of those messages that were really anti-kink- kind of your typical "kink-critical" "how do you know the person who says they're pretending to want to rape you doesn't actually want to rape people? How do you know they're not an actual rapist? What's the difference between the person you're doing impact play with and a domestic abuser?" I'm sure my experience is unfortunately not that uncommon and a lot of kinky people have had to deal and are still dealing with this. So when I have fantasies about non-consensual encounters, particularly of misogynistic and queerphobic varieties, I can get really panicked about whether the people that are also in this space are just pretending like I am. It also doesn't help that I have been in some virtual spaces where people do have on their profiles "this is not pretend, this is not a fantasy, these are my actual beliefs"

But in Barbieland...it's all just pretend, it's playing with toys. Everything is fake! The food is fake, the fire is fake, the ocean is fake- it is literally a world designed for play and make believe!

When the Kens take over Barbieland, it is a shallow pastiche of masculinity. Ken has seen these visual signifiers of what it means to be a man in the real world and it made him feel good. When he came back to Barbieland, he didn't attack anyone or force anyone to do anything- the ideas just kind of osmosed out of him into everybody else. He doesn't actually know what it means to "be a man" (and honestly, who does?), but he has these cultural signifiers of masculinity and manhood. He has insecurities and desires.

And that's no different from anyone who takes part in kink. People who have what I've been calling so far "weird gender kinks" (because that's how I describe it in myself) have insecurities and desires and we often soothe those in the scene of kinks that either reinforce or subvert societal norms.

When I watched the Barbie Movie, I honestly wasn't as blown away as all my friends seemed to be (but there were mitigating factors that could have affected that), but I did genuinely enjoy looking at it from the perspective of Weird Gender Kinks. What a fun environment to play in, what a safe environment to play in, I thought. The shallowness of the movie added to this. The Kens takeover of Barbieland didn't recall to me actual governments and social movements to restrict the rights of women or cultural misogyny- it felt to me like a bumbling attempt to soothe a base, animal and emotional need (part of the reason it failed as a commentary imo).

In conclusion, if I had the spoons, I would start a Barbieland group that would be all about Weird Gender Kinks and give everyone a chance to make a Barbie or Ken sona (or get to play with the Barbieland concept of gender divergence and being non-binary- what if you're not a Ken OR a Barbie?)

[ladyimaginarium]

%100 understandable if you don't have the energy or desire to answer this genuinely no pressure here

But I was wondering if you had anything you wanted to talk about in terms of anti native racism in the plural community, if there's anything you could get non-natives to internalize what would that be etc that kinda thing

hellooooo sweetling, thank you for asking !! :3 I& hope you don't mind me& answering, we've& been quite switchy lately !! Now… sit down and listen up, nonnatives, especially you, white settlers, class is in session !!

I. Don't name yourselves after our spirits and/or our nations !! I& cannot express enough how infuriating this is !! There was a time when we& had to deliberately tell a white bodied system to change their alter's name from W**dig* to something else, not just for their safety, but ours& as a Native bodied system !! W **dig*ag are NOT spirits to mess with, let alone to use as a name if you're nonnative, especially if you are a white settler !! These are Algonquian and Anishinaabe sacred spirits, and, no, sacred does not always mean good, and quite frankly, to use our sacred religious figures or any of our nations as your name is cultural appropriation !! And, no, your "w*ndig*" headmate is likely not a w*ndig* at all, it's not a deer creature !! It's very insensitive, our cultures, practices and religions have already been stretched far and thin over the years to the point where we have been imprisoned or murdered for practicing them in the past until only a few decades ago, so be respectful !! Don't be a loser !! 🖤🖤🖤🖤 II. Native bodied systems don't care about your white guilt !! Listen... we& know most people's intentions are well, but at this point, we& don't care, we've& often been forced to listen to white people whine and bitch about how sorry they are, how bad they feel about the way their ancestors treated ours, and will often overstep their boundaries and their place when speaking with us& !! Yes, we& want you to acknowledge who's land you're on, yes, we& want nonnative, especially white settler allies, to be there with us and uplift our voices, but don't speak over us, you're not solving anything by venting to us&, a Native bodied system, about your ancestors' guilt, if you are white. We're& not here to hold your hand, we& won't coddle your feelings, we& won't give you a cookie for expressing and doing the bare minimum and be your palatable native system !! III. Having an exoethnic Native headmate doesn't make your body Native !! I& don't know how else to say this ... simply because you have an exoethnic Native headmate doesn't make your body Native and as such that doesn't give you the right to speak our languages, practice our medicines or call yourself Two Spirit if you are nonnative, especially if you're white bodied !! If you're a system of color and you want to learn our languages, depending on what the language is because some languages are exclusive only to members of that nation, even to other natives, we'd& be more flattered, but if you're a white bodied system who has an exoethnic Native headmate and think that automatically gives you the right to come into our spaces and learn our languages and ceremonies?? Think again !! :3 There are teachings by our& elders and knowledge keepers from different nations that we& are literally forbidden from sharing with nonnatives !! I& understand how frustrating this can be, but respect is essential !! IV. White bodied and nonnative systems of color are not immune to antinative racism and Native erasure in plural spaces !! Native bodied systems, let alone Native singlets, aren't often included in the table on how to make things better in our spaces and are treated like an afterthought even on our own lands !! This happens so often that this led to the term called Native erasure which is extremely common in the media, even in POC spaces !! Don't demand we do your homework for you. Don't hesitate to check up on your Native friends !! V. Our cultures are not homogenous and there is no one "Native look"!! I& don't want to repeat ourselves& but our cultures and peoples are so unique, special and distinct from each other !! We can have any skintone, any hair type, any eye color, we can look like anything !! — 🖤 / Bellatrix& / Beretta&, she/her.

[leadendeath]

i don't want to reblog the post because my commentary is not relevant to the subject, so i didn't want to put this in said post's tags. also as i type it turned into a long...? something. vent maybe? i don't even know what to refer to it as. but i've seen a couple of posts recently that have really got me thinking.

as i'm writing this, they both just appeared on my dash. they are this one and this one. i'm definitely going to post this now (i have to) and not just save it in my drafts forever.

Having sex with friends sounds nice! I am pro-that! (pro meaning not anti) for me it would alleviate my fears of hooking up with those I just met or haven't known for years because friends are less likely to murder/kidnap you or give you a disease! (I do not want to die from sex lmao) the con: now they know what i look like and what bodily/physical problems i have that aren't visible to the general public. no. i can't have sex with my friends. my god. it all boils down to my body dysmorphia. literally the mortifying ordeal of it being known

So I think again, like I often do, about my place on the ace spectrum. I usually do not care for labels, don't find them necessary to apply to myself, but it's totally cool if other people have tons of different labels that they use. I am pro-that too! I myself am definitely grey-ace or demi-something. I landed on aegosexual- a disconnect between yourself and your sexual attraction- for a long time. I am never sexually or romantically attracted to somebody I don't know. Not even people on the screen. What if that hot (definition for this context: visually appealing) actor is a dick? Good looks garbage personality? At least you can do research on him. Not the case with "irl contacts" (definition: non-famous and real people who you might actually meet or know in person).

I know that I definitely experience sexual attraction, and want to have sex. Based on that I don't feel quite right calling myself asexual.

I don't LIKE that I feel too bad about experiencing sexual attraction to act on it. There's this weird feeling that's hard to place, but closest to "guilt", I'd say. Disgust with myself.

That time I was propositioned to go back to a con hotel (i turned him down and he listened and respected me and was nice, it's just i stopped myself), or that other time when making out and groping (different guy different occasion; we could've gone further but i stopped myself), or even just flirting and talking about our turn-ons and things we Like with my long-distance online sort-of bf that I had. I'm even hesitating to follow the "after dark" art accounts that I want to follow on bird site because of the guilt and almost embarassment I feel at myself (I'm fully aware that the only reason most people have locked accounts which you have to request to follow is to keep out minors and trolls btw, and i'm certainly neither of those!).

All of this is stuff I want and that's enjoyable to me, but this nagging "don't do that. you're gross. why would you say/do that? you're being weird. stop. stop. stop. you're not allowed to do these things." is always there in my mind. I don't want it to be there, and it's always there.

Now, this doesn't come from religious trauma, like "sex before marriage = wrong and bad"? "gay sex = ultimate evil"? Nah, I was never told those things. I didn't even have a very religious upbringing. These thoughts can't be explained away by any of that. Even my mom has always been like "you can have a girlfriend or a boyfriend! i don't mind as long as you're happy! :)" yknow having that nice accepting approach to that time when I was like 15 and settled on bi for "what i was" at the time. No judgement, no condemnation there either.

It's not real.

When I learned that I have ocd, suddenly I started to maybe have an explanation for these thoughts. Some people's obsessions focus on repetition or contamination. A good part of my obsessions focus on condemnation. I'm scared of it. I take "beating yourself up over something" to the next level. Just like any other person who's familiar with delusions, intrusive thoughts, etc will tell you: knowing it's not real doesn't make it any better. Doesn't make it stop. Doesn't make it go away.

When I could explain this detrimental thought process away by finding this horrible disorder to pin the blame on, I felt freer. I've thought many times throughout my mentally ill life about bringing up my (questioning)asexuality to a therapist one day, and I still will, even more so now. i felt before like I'd bring it up to them and not be able to back it up with any evidence, and just be brushed off? That's a stupid way to think, I know. And a therapist who would really do that is one you'd leave immediately. You don't need evidence to talk about how you feel, that's so silly... but that thought itself comes back around, in a vicious cycle, to my needing to justify myself because otherwise I am Wrong And Bad. jeez. what a way to think. i hate that. will be so glad when i get it under control after 25+ years.

edit: oh ya there's also this. my tags on one of the above posts i never reblogged, sat in my drafts.

my disability is inseparable from my sexuality, whatever it is.

[psychictwat]

Dude this entire time I've been questioning my sanity at every waking moment because every other hot take basically boils down to all Palestinians = Hamas and saying anything critical of the state of Israel = antisemitism apparently??? And I'm like.... MY DUDES. you are inflicting the same scapegoating and demonizing techniques on Arabs that N*zis did to your grandparents HOW IS NONE OF THIS CLICKING??? DIDN'T KNOW "NEVER AGAIN" CAME WITH *RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY

it's truly exhausting. especially since people love overlooking the fact that so many actual Holocaust survivors and children/grandchildren of survivors are openly protesting against the Occupation.

As a reform Jew from Boca Raton, I can say without a doubt that Zionism has been so strategically and delicately woven into the way that we as American Jews (mainly Ashkenazim - that's what I am and unfortunately I do not know any Sephardim or Mizrahim from my area) define ourselves.

The modern Jewish identity in our country practically was built upon the foundation of supporting Israel wholeheartedly, seeing it as a homeland and safe place post-Holocaust. And this happens no matter what denomination you belong to, religiously. It's a cultural and societal brainwashing that, somehow, I bypassed at a young enough age to form my own opinions on Israel and my own identity as a queer Jew.

I know so many people who vehemently support Israel, who believe Jews are "chosen" people, who have homes in Israel, use my queerness against me when I post pro-Palestinian news ("they'd kill you but we're so liberal in Israel! we have free speech!"). The amount of people I grew up around, that I thought I could trust (of all ages, at that) are publicly advocating for the genocide of the Palestinian people. It's horrifying and surreal...yet at the same time, unfortunately unsurprising.

The rhetoric has always been inflammatory when it comes to Israel, it's always felt cult-like. Of course, anti-Semites exist and take every opportunity to come out of the woodwork at a time like this. But that does NOT mean that critiquing or actively protesting Zionism is anti-Semitic.

What I love about being Jewish is that it's quite literally baked into our religion and culture to question everything, to be curious, and to learn from the world around us. To think that all of our problems, all of our persecution could be solved by simply establishing a "state" is, in my opinion, foolish and not rooted in true Jewish lines of thought.

but that's just me :)

[glypt0don]

So, this is quite a rant. You can skip to the bottom, if you want to know my opinion but don't want to read that much... But I worked hard on it and I think it's important, so it would make me very happy if you read through the whole text.

So this fits into something I wanted to post about anyway: a broader theme of why do we frame things as wars? Like, why is it culture war, specifically. First I liked the concept, I thought it described something quite complicated reasonably easily. But I pondered on it a bit more and I think there's more going on.

It's pretty trivial, that most societies went through a huge change over the last half century. It's not just feminism. I could make a whole list of things we as a people took on. Anti-racism and civil rights, religious acceptance, global trade, reinterpreting the meaning of peace, connecting the word through the world-wide web, etc. We ( or, as I am barely an adult and have no idea how to change things for the better, I should say you, or maybe chat) decided it was time for change, so change came. You brought it about.

And I agree. Change WAS and IS necessary. What that change should entail, well, we all have our ideas, right? And they have the ugly tendency to differ from each other. The question then is, how do we coincide our contradictory ideas on society? The answer is both worrying and very important.

To be fair, our race doesn't have a great track record on solving these kinds of issues. I dug into my historical knowledge, since, you know, those who don't learn from it, repeat it... The only thing I can compare to what's happening today would be the Reformation (which probably says a lot about my historical knowledge). That's the only time I know, where societal assumptions were altered so much in such a short time. That time it was specifically about the Catholic church (if you don't know, what I'm talking about, you really should, so Google it), and the result was a series of wars, that ultimately may have wiped out about a fifth of Europes population. The wars were of course led by powerful men, who capitalised on the divide to further their own goals.

As back then, now too, we can't rely on institutions to tame the public. Many media and political identities have a direct interest in polarising society. Because that's what happens. All these contentious issues about gender, class, or foreign policy become dividing lines between folks who are supposed to be parts of the same whole (call it community, state, nation or humanity, depending on how wide you can think). You know, how it works, probably saw it a few times, whatever your interests are. It's literally everywhere! We fight it out with the perceived enemy of the week sometimes, when there is an election, something notable happens, or it's simply Pride Month. Then everyone goes back to their respective corners, where they vehemently agree with themselves. We don't talk a lot, just throw words at each other, like Buggs Bunny, playing tennis with a dynamite.

I should say, this post is a notable and refreshing outlier. Thanks, @trans-androgyne , for starting a discussion for a change!

I know, it's a bit like nuclear armament. You can't just stop, because THEY won't, and then they win, and you can't allow that. It's life and death! And I don't have some magic pill to make it all go right, or believe me, I wouldn't sit here, typing this out at 3 in the morning Central European Time. But let me propose this: don't call it a war! Neither culture war, nor gender war, nor anything like that. Because this isn't a war. Just ask anyone in the middle east! They can tell you, what is war, and THIS IS NOT IT! And also, because it may not be guns and destruction yet, but nothing guarantees, that it stays that way. We already had multiple attempted takeovers of capital buildings since this cursed decade began, because our social reality became so fragmented, that you can't accept the results of a popular election anymore. That should raise alarm bells. I know it does, but it can be much worse! Learn from history, do not repeat it! Hit the Wiki page on the Huguenot war! On the siege of Magdeburg. Or, if that's not your cup of tea, watch Civil War! I genuinely think it's the best movie of the year.

Call it Social Discourse! That sounds much more manageable, doesn't it? Or you can come up with something else, as long as it isn't some warmongering bullshit. And maybe the next time you meet someone with sexist, homophobic, racist, or maybe radical left and anarchistic views (whatever you're opposing), don't attack them with your words! Those aren't weapons. Try to talk to them instead! Try talking about feelings! Listen to theirs, make them understand yours! I say feelings, because you both have those. Try finding a common ground, however small, and build up from there. Like Minecraft Skyblock. It can be hard in a challenging way, instead of making you want to shoot yourself in the head. Remember, you aren't fighting a war. You are having a discourse.

All of it is to say, the world and society are changing, wether you like it or not, and we have to change with it, to survive. That is the simple fact. If you call that change a war, that's just gonna make the whole thing unnecessarily painful for everyone involved.

This was sociopolitical advice from a giant armadillo.

Genuinely, what happened to “feminism is for everyone”?

That’s the feminism I grew up with: encouraging people to recognize that fighting sexism and restrictive gender roles helps folks of every gender. We’d push back on the idea that feminists hate men, pointing to inclusive feminist literature and how many men are feminists.

Now, there are so many people insisting that the solution to patriarchy is to openly hate and ostracize men no matter what. Why? What is the benefit? It’s certainly not effective in fighting oppressive structures to exclude half the population from your cause on the basis of immutable traits. It may feel cathartic to say horrible things about men and try to punish them for your frustrations with patriarchy. But the only actual effect I see is the increasing right-wing radicalization of young men, who are being told that the left hates them for the way they were born and presented with an abundance of proof that it’s true.

Why are we going back to treating men and women as different species? It doesn’t fix things to say “well women are the good gender and men are the bad one” this time. If you sincerely want to dismantle sexism, you’re going to have to unpack and let go of all sex and gender essentialism—even that which considers women inherently pure and men inherently immoral.

[thoughtscout]

how am I supposed to believe and subscribe to the narrative that 'transfeminism' is the ethically & superior alternative to radical feminism, the progressive 'next stage' of inclusivity + intersectionality, when self-proclaimed 'transfeminists' struggle to even display the bare minimum amount of investment in topics that any self-respecting feminist would consider to be important and vital to the movement?

speaking non-literally for the sake of analogy, when I talk to a female, it's, maybe... a 1/3 odds. 1/3 odds they're trans or nonbinary identified - which at least means they probably have some degree of investment in feminist topics, which is likely being suppressed by their political allignments. 1/3 odds they've been indoctrinated into some kind of religious or political dogma, that has stunted and rendered their feminist thinking dangerous to themselves or prohibited by others. I know those women need feminism, too.

but, at the very least, 1/3 odds they're an authentic and flourishing feminist - someone I can speak and relate to about the female experience and the many dangers, traumas and injustices female people face in our society. the women who make me feel seen, and sane.

when it comes to trans-identifying-males, I... can't say I've seen a single one reflect my experiences and feminist values so far. I'm sure they exist, but so far I haven't heard a single t-i-male's anti-sex industry stance. I haven't heard them condemn sex buyers or pimps. they hardly even seem all that critical of the hyper-sexualization and pornification of the female body, something that has affected me deeply as a female my entire life. in fact, many of their feelings seem fundamentally antithetical to criticizing these things.

I haven't heard them express concern and solidarity with women in South Korea, or Afghanistan, or South East Asia. I don't hear them talk about rape culture that much. they don't seem too bothered by the propaganda pushed by the makeup industry. abortion laws might come up occasionally, but quite often with some tagline about its supposed overlapping relevance to trans issues. or, (and especially recently), trans issues are expressly prioritized over abortion issues.

it makes me wonder what their 'feminism' is even based on, if anything other than themselves and their own ideas of what constitutes 'womahood', and hence a woman's 'problems' in this world. admittedly, I feel I have only recently begun understanding what feminism is truly about. but my evolved understanding has completely recontextualized almost every experience of my entire life. it has been completely world-changing for me, and it is almost entirely due to my experiences living in a female-sexed body.

many men, as a default, struggle to display even a fraction of the self-awareness, humility or critical thinking required to even begin embodying true feminist values. is there some kind of... rite of passage that t-i-males go through before transitioning their genders and identifying as women, that magically puts them through this process of evolved consciousness? how can that be true, when many t-i-males confess to having been right-leaning, alt-right or incels prior to transitioning?

why are these the people being allowed to define feminist goals and values? what on earth could they have to say about being a woman that a natal woman couldn't say a thousand times better, and with infinitely more clarity and purpose?

[skelltan]

ok google what is the meaning of life

I detest pondering on the meaning of life. When I was younger, I was interested in philosophy. Is till don’t think it’s a fruitless pursuit, but with more wisdom you start to see the divide between people who actually have intriguing concepts, and misled teenagers misquoting the same sources over and over again. Even then, some adults fall into the false genius archetype be it because they huff their own farts for a living or have done too much acid – whichever form of stunted growth they have.

That’s the crux, isn’t it? Intangibles. You have all these people who think life is a game to be won, with one singular vision of success, and blindly following Jordan Peterson or whatever other figurehead will lead you to enlightenment. Ironically, often the same creed to condemn religion. It’s all mindless gesturing. “I want to have a goal to make a lot of money and then I’ll be successful and happy!”, all under the lens of intellectualism. Congratulations, American Dream, you’ve conned more through the guise of trojan horse.

If you’re anti religion – not anti constitution, hating the self righteous Christians and such, but rather the type to wear atheism as a badge of honour – that’s a pretty good sign that I shouldn’t give a fuck as to what you have to say. I’m not religious either, but it’s like magic. I don’t believe in it, but that doesn’t mean I have to shit on people who do, nor does their belief instantly make them a rube – in fact, it can have benefits. If someone is practising religion in a non hateful way that gives their life meaning, that is quite literally the same thing as living your life following vague notions of hope spurred on by whatever science geek you follow.

Religion to me is a means to an end in the exact same way. Of course, there are superficial differences – holidays, bible tales – but what purpose does religion serve in good faith if not a list of guidelines to help people feel fulfilled in life? I was not brought up religious, and there are so many religions that I find no real reason to indulge myself in any – because if I develop my own guidelines, what difference does it really make? Obviously, zealots would say that it’s a self-centred viewpoint, but I don’t care about them and that’s sort of my whole deal. This is to say: I hate to describe my beliefs of what a fulfilling life is and how to lead it, what tenets I have. I used to be the type to think these were things that could be outlined in a book, and sure, they can, but that too often breeds sycophancy. Despite my hate, I write this so I never have to address these topics in the future lest I wish, and when someone asks my beliefs, I hand them this document and summarise: I use intuition and common sense to do what is right. I could probably write my tenets, but what point is there? I have a life to live and I’m aware how I wish to live it, and I think all people can do that if they just live their life rather than sticking their heads in books all the time.

[raposarealm]

Rapo Rambles About Juri and Herself

Maaaan, reading through Juri’s MSS, I’m seeing what I very well could’ve been.

I took on working on the JSON for Ai’s translation of Juri’s MSS, and while editing the file format to merge with the Japanese JSON, I’ve gotten to read through the translation (which is quite well done, thank you Ai!) 

For some context, Juri attends Ryuugasaki Academy, which is a relatively well-to-do all-girl’s school. She worked hard to get into its attendance, so her father (who’s both single and a teen father, so he has literally Juri and that’s it,) wouldn’t have to worry about her getting a poor education, or, more importantly, her getting kicked out. Except, she continued to get into tussles, and was on the verge of expulsion, presumably not for the first time, when she was approached by Kyubey, and made her wish: for a “perseverant heart”. That’s what granted her personal magic as such; she can endure much more than before, but the more she endures negative emotion, the more violently she’ll ‘explode’ when she reaches her inevitable limit. As of her MSS, the only outlet she’s found has been to physically fight other people (mostly Yuna). 

I remember when I was in elementary school, and was in private schools similar to Juri’s. I also had a serious anger issues, coupled with a number of neurodivergencies that made it all worse. From what I can see, I don’t know whether Juri was bullied or hazed when she was younger, but given the combination of her extremely short temper, rough behavior inherited from her father, and of course, said father’s young age and single status, I’d wager she definitely was. I wasn’t in Juri’s exact situation, but it was comparable in some ways -- for one, I had a mother in bad health, who was bedridden for part of my elementary years, and for two, I attended so-called ‘Christian’ private schools that were, for the singular exeption of one actually good Catholic school (yes, I’m serious!), were basically Evangelical nightmares. 

My father, as I’ve noted on here before, is a Doctor of molecular genetics, and from the combined influence of him and my mother’s profession of emergency nursing/paramedicine, I developed a strong interest in scientific fields very early on. When asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, I’d routinely answer ‘a chemist!’, with heavy enthusiasm -- I wanted to work in drug research specifically, because another hit to my mother’s health was her extreme allergy to NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), which are the primary treatment for most chronic pain. Needless to say, the minute any of my teachers found out of my father’s profession, and how his love of the sciences had rubbed off on me, they’d give me all hell. ‘Of course she’s bad, her father’s a biologist! Which means he believes in evolution,’ they’d unilaterally think. (Look, my ‘science’ textbook in fourth grade claimed the Moon was only a few thousand years old, which was the moment I realized how dumb the curriculum was.) So I was allowed to become the bullying target, with the teachers refusing to reprimand any student who harassed me, and instead turning the blame on me when I’d boil over from repeated abuse. Hell, I sat out in the hall as ‘punishment’ nearly every day in fifth grade, arguable the worst year of my life. 

The difference though, from Juri’s background, is that I had two parents, one of whom was a full-time mother, for the very reason of my severe neurodivergence. When I got to middle school, which hilariously was a public school run fifty times better than even the best private school I’d attended, these sources of abuse were removed, since the teachers a) didn’t give a shit about what my parents did for work, b) were required to keep their religious views out of the question, because while Virginia might be a Bible Belt state, this was Northern Virginia, where that sort of bull doesn’t fly, and c) were informed of my special needs before the year started, and were required to follow any accommodations on my IEP (thanks, ADA!). Juri doesn’t get these luxuries, I know, and I can only imagine that I’d have turned into her by high school if I hadn’t gotten the support I did. Juri’s old man is as supportive as he can be, but he was stated to be only 19 when Juri was born (so 35 now,) so he’s got his own set of issues to deal with, and likely didn’t get the time to mature properly himself, ‘cause he had to raise a kid at the same time. (Meanwhile, my folks were nearly forty each when I was born.) She’s been stuck with no support but her father her whole life, and she’s had to support him right back. It’s kinda surprising that they don’t fight all that much, actually. 

To go into some Arc 2 spoilers, Chapter 10 gives us another perspective, too, showing us what Juri would’ve been like as a parent... but also what she’d have been like if she’d been given a fairer shot. In the Kimochi bit in episode 4, we see Juri as a teen parent to Ao, yes, but she’s not alone like her father was -- she has Yuna, who’s been the closest to support Juri’s had this whole time. She’s also got Hikaru, to an extent, and while Hikaru won’t hold down a job to save her life (ironically,) she’s still good-natured and kind, and, more importantly, cares about Juri and Yuna’s wellbeing. Juri’s given a chance to ‘trial-run’ being an adult, since she knows this whole bit will end eventually (though, from their perspective, in 14 years!) She’s given a chance to work for something, to have a support structure she didn’t before. All that ends up giving her ways to manage her anger beyond just beating people up -- yeah, she still has to fight the kimochi every time Ao gets fearful, but she’s got Yuna in tow to help, as well as Hikaru. 

I’m in my 20s now, and I’ve only just started attending college. I’ve got a certification for pharmacy technicians, but no license, and I go back to school for my third-ever semester this winter. I’ve been convinced for years that by the time I’d get to college, my dreams of having a four-year degree in a science field or in translation would be violently shattered by my own inability to simply ‘do things I don’t like!’. Well, while I likely won’t be able to handle a full degree for quite a while, the idea that it’s my own damn fault I can’t do so has also been shot down. I’ve been struggling with a deep depression and a sometimes straight-up paralyzing anxiety for years now, to the point that my whole high school career was extended an extra year past when I should’ve graduated as a result. But, after almost a whole decade of being psychologically stuck, I’ve gotten some treatment for it. The chronic pain I’ve been fighting is starting to be managed, after we finally found a pain management doctor who’d actually take me seriously. I’ve found a therapist who’s actually able to cut through some of my own self-deprecation to get the point across that my behavior is normal for ADD folks. I’m inches away from getting a license finally, after being forbidden from getting one at sixteen, and I’ve been cleared to ride my bike into town along a certain route, so I’ve got ways to get outta the damn house. I know those aren’t the same ‘clean break’ Juri got in Chapter 10, but given that the Kimochi mindscape wasn’t reality anyways, she’s still gonna have work ahead of her to make that future a reality for herself, too. But, knowing that there’s a chance that things can turn out alright, and that you’ll be happier in the future, takes a lotta weight off the shoulders, y’know?

It’s late, and I’m tired from my medication increasing in dose today, so I dunno if I’ve made much sense, but basically I love Juri more now because I can see myself in her, and therefore I can see some hope for myself in there, too.

[edenfenixblogs]

Wow. Ok. So just to address your edit. You added a lot of things and tried to assert that they were all equally and totally free of antisemitism. They are not. If you are not actually antisemitic (which you are but let’s behave as if I’m willing to believe you’re willing to become a less hateful person), then you should care and listen when Jews say that you are causing them harm and that they don’t actually stand for the things you accuse them of standing for.

Here’s a breakdown of things that are antisemitic and are not antisemitic and things that are somewhere in between:

Not Antisemitic:

(You will find many of the Jews you hope die actually agree with you on these points, if you would just listen to us when we repeatedly tell you so…)

Opposing genocide

Opposing a specific form of Zionism for which you can name and explain the features, especially Revisionist Zionism which is the extremist form practiced by Netanyahu and the Likud.

Being against the policies of segregation and discrimination that the state of Israel has long imposed upon Palestine and its citizens.

Things That Are Antisemitic

Opposing all forms of Zionism when you can’t name the history of those wildly diverse movements to which many Jews adhere. (While it is possible to not to SUPPORT or IDENTIFY WITH ANY form of Zionism, it’s not really possible to completely OPPOSE the concept of Zionism without being antisemitic. Many types of Zionism directly contradict each other. So, opposing one form may very well mean you support another. Zionism is simply a set of political and social theories that aim to provide Jews a way of living together safely, something we have never been able to attain as a culture or religious group. The only thing that all forms of Zionism have in common is the belief that Jews deserve safety. It is for this reason that I am not a Zionist, but am not anti-Zionist. None of the current forms of Zionism quite work for me personally, but I am not opposed to the idea that one day there will be a specific method for attaining Jewish safety that makes perfect sense to me. An additional important note: the vast majority of Zionist philosophy has nothing to do with Palestine at all and the Zionism that does involve Palestine is mostly focused on how to live peacefully alongside Palestinians. The exception is Revisionist Zionism, which is what Netanyahu and the Likud practice.)

Assuming that wanting Jews to live safely means that I want Palestine to remain under siege and without rights. Literally any investigation into my political beliefs or actions would disprove this. Literally any effort. Whatsoever into viewing me as a complex person rather than a cartoon villain would prove to you that your assumption was incorrect. But not only did you assume this horrible thing of me, you also immediately jumped to wanting me to die painfully.

Assuming that any Jew who disagrees with you is a Zionist of any kind (for instance, I am not a Zionist of any variety).

Assuming that any Jew who disagrees with you is a Zionist who adheres to the specific form of Zionism that you oppose. (Zionism is a set of extraordinarily diverse philosophies that are byproducts of Jewish culture and suffering and hope. It is not for you, as a non-Jew, to define or apply to others. Especially as a pejorative.)

Not believing Jews who tell you they are not Zionists.

Hating the legitimate supporters of the broad philosophies of Zionism (aka Zionists). Zionism is a Jewish philosophy that belongs to Jews. Christian Zionists have co-opted the concept for their own antisemitic reasons. Opposing Zionists as a whole is simply saying you oppose Jews who wish to live in peace and safety. All actual Zionists are Jews. Saying that you hate all Zionists is exactly the same as saying that you hate all Jews who want to live in safety and with other members of their community. This is not a wild or radical interpretation. This is literally what hating Zionists is. There is no circumstance where you can group Jews together in large numbers and claim to hate them as human beings and not be antisemitic. Hating Jews or the vast majority of Jews is literally what antisemitism is. I personally don’t hate anyone. Yes even Hamas. I oppose them. I do not forgive them. But I do not hate the human beings. I have written extensively about this. I personally think all forms of hate are a waste of time. But if you feel the need to hate so strongly that you must invest your time and energy in it, you can hate. You can hate a philosophy. You can hate those who carry out those philosophies violently. You can hate the cowardice of people whose silence tacitly supports that violence. But you cannot hate Jews of wildly varied political opinions and philosophies and from a variety of backgrounds and other intersecting and differing cultures who have never done anything to harm you or those you love, support the harm of you or those you love, or who often take direct action to support and protect you and those you love both as a tenet of their Zionism as well as a matter of individual belief. You cannot hate such a broad spectrum of socially conscious, non-harmful, empathetic Jews of a variety of backgrounds for any reason and not be antisemitic.

Assuming that Palestinian indigeneity is dependent upon dismissing Jewish indigeneity. Two groups can be indigenous to the same place.

Flattening Jewish ethnicity and culture to force-fit it into other ethnic categories. This is definitionally antisemitic erasure. Jews are not white. Jews are not European. Jews are not uniformly any one other category. Jews are Jews. In addition to their ethnicity as Jews, they may or may not be European, Arab, Asian, American, or anything else! They may be white or black or brown or anything else! Jewishness is its own ethnic category and does not necessitate grouping into any other category. Doing so is as bigoted and nonsensical as claiming that all Muslims are Arabs. They’re not. You know they’re not.

Rewriting or ignoring Jewish history. Jews sprang from the Levant. Jews were the victims of a recent genocide and a more recent pogrom. Jews were violently expelled from every country in the Middle East very shortly after they were ethnically cleansed from all of Europe. Every single country where Jews have ever lived has been hostile to them. Jews choosing to return to the Levant is not and never was in itself colonization. You may absolutely have your own opinion on how and why Israel was formed and you may absolutely take issue with many facets of it. However, to justify your hatred for the modern state of Israel by denying that it was founded in a place of historical significance to Jews is antisemitic. Justifying your hatred for the modern state of Israel by saying that the only Jewish connection to the land is biblical is reductive and antisemitic. There is ample cultural, archaeological, and other physical evidence of Jewish history and indigeneity in the Levant. And not just in Jewish sources but in academic as well as Christian and Muslim sources. Denying that the vast majority of those who founded Israel were refugees of ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout Europe and the Middle East is ahistorical and antisemitic.

Claiming that Jewish presence in the levant is historical only. Despite 2000+ years of persecution and cycles of expulsion and ethnic cleansing, Jews have maintained a continuous presence in the levant as well as the surrounding areas. They are neither refugees nor colonizers. This land has always been their home. I have an entire line of cousins who has lived in The Land of Israel since the biblical era. I have never been to Israel or met that side of my family due to ongoing threats to Jewish safety and due to my opposition to the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestine.

Claiming you want Israel to burn to the ground, especially without proposing a humane plan for what should become of the Jews who currently live there. Half of the world’s Jewish population currently lives in Israel. You simply cannot claim that you are not antisemitic while also saying that you believe that half the world’s Jewish population deserves to lose their homes as well as the protection of a government who cares about their interests. Especially when you’re condemning the majority of the other 50% who dare to express concern for the people you hope to disenfranchise or for how your actions might impact those in diaspora. You can absolutely propose alternative plans for how both Palestinians and Israelis should forge a better nation, set of nations, or confederations. I have been encouraging people to do this. I particularly favor A Land for All at the moment. But I’m very open to other suggestions, assuming those suggestions account for the lives and safety and protection of both current Israelis and Palestinians.

Claiming you want large groups of Jews to die. I cannot believe we are in a political landscape where I need to say this explicitly, but if you want a large group of Jews—including civilians—to die, that is antisemitic in every conceivable instance. This is not a hot take.

Wishing for Jewish death to be painful. This has no possible political purpose and has no permutation where it is not violently antisemitic.

Saying that your personal sense of peace and safety is dependent upon the painful death, violent dispossession, and systemic disenfranchisement of Jewish people. You are using a lot of words to say that you are an antisemite. A person who wants Jews to die is an antisemite. A person who wants Jews to experience violence and loss is an antisemite. A person who wants to revoke a framework of safety from groups of Jews without providing a viable alternative is an antisemite.

Dehumanizing Jews. You did this pretty obviously when you said we were “vile, disgusting, and inhuman.” It doesn’t really get more clearly and obviously dehumanizing than that.

Points of Clarification

Jewish people and their allies pointing out that hating Jews for being Jewish or hating Jewish people for existing in the same space as non-Jewish people is not “Turning this into a religious thing.” Opposing antisemitism isn’t a religious thing. Opposing antisemitism is a bigotry thing.

Nobody is claiming you are antisemitic because you disagree with Jews. We are pointing out the fact that you hate Jews because of how you literally told us you hate Jews, want us to die, want our deaths to be painful, and want those who do live in Israel to be violently dispossessed of their homes and government protections.

Even if you say that you only want all these terrible things to happen to “Zionists” or “Israelis,” you are still antisemitic. Why? Because Zionists are too diverse to possibly form a coherent target of rage and violence. Because “Israelis” comprise too large a proportion of Jewish people to make a coherent target of rage and violence. Because you have demonstrated that your understanding of Zionism is not based on any actual facts or data or history or philosophy and is therefore just a term that you use to describe Jews you don’t like. Lumping millions of Jews into a group, dehumanizing those Jews by assigning them a term of classification to which they do not self-identify, and calling for their violent dispossession, disenfranchisement, and death is inherently and without exception antisemitism.

Do not call me bestie. I am not your bestie. I am a human being (whether or not you see me as one). I do not deserve to have my life or safety threatened for any reason, let alone a post on the internet. I do not deserve your hatred. I have never called for hatred or violence or pain upon any people ever. I am a nonviolent pacifist who routinely advocates for Palestinian safety, equality, self determination, and indigeneity in their ancestral homeland. You do not believe Jews living in Israel deserve the same thing. Your message to me and to all other Jews communicates only one thing:

You do not want safety for Palestine and its citizens. You want death for Jews. I know this because your message did not propose anything to help Palestinians. It only involved methods and reasons to kill Jews. Because you’re an antisemite. That’s how antisemitism works.

Oh wow. This is really antisemitic, @iblewrichardspeck

You are deeply antisemitic person.

And guess what? Having a Jewish grandfather doesn’t change that.

Your knowledge of Jewish history and culture is nonexistent to the point that I won’t even bother to confront most of it.

I encourage my allies to step in and address your nonsense with reason and links to credible sources.

Two huge standout points of your lack of knowledge that I want to point out though:

Most Jews in Israel are NOT in fact European or Ashkenazi. Do literally one Google search.

“Jews have always had a right to safety in their homeland.” I want you to know that I am pretty well regarded as a person who keeps their cool in situations like this. So I want to be explicit that my ability to stay calm right now is an act of superhuman will. I want to scream at you and cry because of the amount of death and pain you are erasing with this outright, easily disproven lie. Jews do not and have not ever had safety in their homeland of ISRAEL. Nor have Jews ever had safety in any of the locations where we have made a home. Judaism and jewish life has never “thrived” anywhere, at least not for the last 2000+ years. We have always been a target of attack and displacement and genocide. Always. Without exception. The idea that Israel somehow took all the Jews of the Middle East away from their homes where they were peacefully chilling out is nonsense. The middle eastern (who are the majority btw) Jews in Israel came to Israel after being expelled from their nations of origin or murdered for refusing to leave. Poland? Yeah. It had a swell Jewish community about 1200 years ago. It’s a shame about the centuries of ghettoization and you know that pesky genocide you might have heard about. Ethiopia? You mean the place where Jews had to be smuggled out of by Israeli covert forces because of the danger they were in there?

I don’t know if I believe that your grandfather was Jewish. Maybe he was. Maybe you made him up to legitimize your own antisemitic views.

But if he was really Jewish, I’m sure he’s wildly disappointed in you.

I won’t be blocking you because I want you to see this and change your views in a deeply fundamental way. And I want you to apologize. I’m 99.99999999% sure you won’t. You’re too steeped in your hatred. But who knows. People can change. I hope you do. Because right now, your attitude, beliefs, and behavior are rancid. I will not be responding to further messages from you.

Allies or fellow Jews with bandwidth can take it from here. Adios. Shalom.