#which is a scholarly term

[letters-to-rosie]

finally finished FD Signifier's Kendrick vs Drake vid and it was very good... and useful for how I think I wanna talk about the beef academically lol

[nihilisticlinguistics]

latest ego death experience was realizing that i was having no success finding articles of clothing i actually want because everything was coming up beige trendy hellscape, and having to type into my search engine "dark academia clothing" 😔

[grison-in-space]

wondering about whether you could rec some "romance is a social construct" texts? ofc it is, but i like having books and articles to reference/learn specifics from/see how these ideas have developed.

Sure! Here's a quick reading list. Bear in mind that I am not a professional historian and my reading on this subject is a little diffuse. I'm not tackling the behavioral ecology stuff right now because a) I don't have a more direct book rec off the top of my head than Evolution's Rainbow, which is not technically focused on social monogamy, and also b) I approach that whole field with my eyes wide open for people letting their own perspectives and cultural views get in the way of their observations of animals, and I do not have the energy to go deal with it right now.

If you're going to read two books, read these two:

Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, A History: how love conquered marriage. 2006. All of Coontz' work, having to do with the social construction of the family, is relevant reading to this question (and I'd also recommend The Nostalgia Trap, because the historical context of how we conceptualize families is a major part of the construction of romantic love), but this one is most focused on the social construction of romantic love specifically and what it has replaced. Coontz is, I will disclose cheerfully, a major formative influence on my thinking.

Moira Wegel, Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating. 2016. Exactly what it says on the tin; focuses more closely on the modern invention of dating and romance.

Other useful readings to help inform your understanding of different ways that various people have conceptualized sex, sexuality, society and long-term connection include:

George Chauncey, Why Marriage? 2015. Chauncey is best known for Gay New York, which also offers a useful history of the way that relationship models and social constructs for understanding homosexuality changed among men having sex with men c. 1900 to 1950. This book, published just before Obergefell v. Hodges, is a discussion of why contemporary queer rights organizations focused on same-sex marriage as an activism plank in the wake of AIDS organizing. I find it really useful to read queer history when I'm thinking about how we understand and construct the concept of romantic relationships, because queers complicate the mainstream, heteronormative concepts of what marriage and romantic relationships actually are. More importantly, queer activist organizing around marriage has played a major role in shaping our collective understanding of romance and marriage in the past twenty years.

Elizabeth Abbott, A History of Celibacy, 2000. In order to understand how various cultures construct understandings of marriage and spousal relationships, it can be illustrative to consider what the people who are explicitly not participating in the institution are doing and why not. I found this an interesting pass over historical and social institutions that forbid (or forbade) marriage with a discussion about general trends driving these institutions, individuals, and movements towards celibacy.

Eleanor Janega, The Once and Future Sex, 2023. This is a very pointed historical look at gender roles, concepts of beauty, and concepts of sex, attraction, and marriage among medieval Europeans with an extended meditation on what ideas have and have not changed between that time and today. I include this work because I think a deep dive into medieval notions of courtly romance is useful, partly because it is an important origin of our modern notion of romantic love and partly because it is so usefully and starkly different from that modern notion! Sometimes the best way to understand the cultural construction of ideas in your own society is to go look at someone else's and see where things are the same versus different.

It's a mish-mash of recommendations, and I'm reaching more for books that have stuck with me over the years than a clean scholarly approach to the subject. I hope other folks will chime in for you with their own recommendations!

[tanadrin]

Revised version of "polytheism vs elaborateness" religion chart. I started with a list of around 150 religions, sects, denominations, philosophies, and spiritual tendencies, whittled down to 100 based on what I could find information on and what meaningful differences would actually show up in a chart like this. Dark blue is Christianity and Christian-derived tendencies; light blue is Judaism and Jewish-derived tendencies; green is Islam and Islam-influenced tendencies; purple is ancient Mediterranean polytheism and related schools of thought; red is Dharmic/Hindu-influenced schools of thought; tan is Chinese religion and philosophy; orange is new religious movements; black is other, unaffiliated religions and movements.

Obviously, "what is a religion" is a complicated topic. Some of the things on this chart might strike you more as philosophical schools (Carvaka, Stoicism), epistemological approaches (Unitarian Universalism), or different ways of slicing the same tradition. The scholarly definition of "religion" is sort of fundamentally circular, and that's not something I'm interested in trying to untangle for this entirely non-scientific exercise.

Religions etc. are scored on two axis: polytheism vs elaborateness of practice. Polytheism is a rank from zero to 11, thus:

0. Strict atheist and materialist, denying the possibility of both gods and the supernatural, e.g., Carvaka.

1. Atheist. Denies the existence of significant supernatural agents worthy of worship, but may not deny all supernatural (or psychic, paranormal, etc.) beings and phenomena (e.g., Mimamsa).

2. Agnostic. This religion makes no dogmatic claims about the existence of supernatural beings worthy of worship, and it may not matter for this religion if such beings exist (e.g., Unitarian Universalists). It does not preclude--and may actually incorporate--other supernatural, psychic, or paranormal phenomena (e.g., Scientology).

3. Deist. This religion acknowledges at least one god or Supreme Being, but rejects this being's active intervention in the world after its creation (e.g., Christian Deism). Deism is marked with a gray line on the chart, in case you want to distinguish religions that specifically care about all this God business from ones that don't.

4. Tawhid monotheist. This religion acknowledges only a single transcendent god above all other natural or supernatural beings, who is usually the creator of the universe and the ground of being, and is without parts, division, or internal distinction (e.g., Islam).

5. Formal monotheism. This religion acknowledges a single god, usually transcendent above all other natural or supernatural beings, but who may have aspects, hypostases, or distinct parts (e.g., Trinitarian Christianity). Pantheism may be considered a special case of formal monotheism that identifies the universe and its many discrete phenomena with a single god or divine force.

6. Dualism. This religion acknowledges a single god worthy of worship, alongside a second inferior, often malevolent being that nevertheless wields great power in or over the world (e.g., Zoroastrianism or Gnosticism).

7. Monolatrist. This religion or practice acknowledges the existence of many gods or divine beings worthy of worship, but focuses on, or happens to be devoted to only one of them (e.g., ancient mystery cults; pre-exilic Judaism).

8. Oligotheist. This religion worships a small group of divine beings, who may function for devotional or rhetorical purposes as a single entity (e.g., Mormonism, Smartism).

9. Monogenic polytheism/Henotheism. This religion worships many gods, which it sees as proceeding from or owing their existence to, a single underlying or overarching force or supreme god (e.g., many forms of Hinduism).

10. Heterogenic polytheism. This religion worships many gods, who have diverse origins and/or natures. Though the number of gods is in practical terms probably unlimited, gods are discrete entities or personalities, i.e., they are "countably infinite" (e.g., many polytheistic traditions).

11. Animism. This religion worships many gods which may or may not be discrete entities, and which may or may not be innumerable even in principle, i.e., they are "uncountably infinite" (e.g., many animist traditions).

What counts as a god is naturally a bit of a judgement call, as is exactly where a religion falls on this scale.

Elaborateness of practice is based on assigning one point per feature from the following list of features:

Uses vs forbids accompanied music in worship

Saints or intermediary beings accept prayers/devotion

Liturgical calendar with specific rituals or festivals

Practices monasticism

Venerates relics or holy objects

Clerics have special, elaborate clothing

Clerics have special qualificiations, e.g., must be celibate or must go through elaborate initiation/training

Elaborate sacred art or architecture used in places of worship

Sites of pilgrimage, or other form of cult centralization

Sophisticated religious hierarchy beyond the congregational level

Mandatory periods of fasting and/or complex dietary rules

Specific clothing requirements for laypeople

Specific body modifications either required or forbidden for laypeople

Liturgical language

Complex ritual purity rules

Performs sacrifice

Performs human sacrifice (or cannibalism)

Uses entheogens

Uses meditation or engages in mystical practice

Additionally, a point is taken away for austerity for each of the following features:

Forbids secular music outside worship

Claims sola scriptura tradition

Practices pacifism or ahimsa

Requires vegetarianism of all adherents

These scores are probably pretty inexact, since I am not a scholar of world religion.

This chart is not scientific, it's just a goof based on that @apricops post.

Other fun dimensions along which to chart religions might be:

Orthodoxy vs orthopraxy

Authoritarianism/control of members. This would add some much needed distinctions to Christian sects in particular, and to the new religious movements.

Elaborateness of cosmological claims. Some religions (looking at you, Buddhism) really go hog-wild here.

Social egalitarianism. Even within the same framework/tradition/philosophy, some practices differ radically on how egalitarian they are.

[librarycards]

Hello! I am trying to read “the right to maim” by jasbir k puar and I am getting almost nothing out of it, bc of the depth + breadth of academic concepts :( I’m particularly frustrated by it bc it seems to talk about subjects I think about, talk about and do daily, like disability, transness, and (anti)colonialism. I’m most of the way through the intro and it’s gone almost entirely over my head except for a couple isolated paragraphs that are meaningful.

Do you have any advice for how I can get the most out of this book? My main limiter is time, bc I got it out from the library and it is highly requested so I can’t have it for very long

Hi anon! First of all, in terms of time, I recommend piracy. I recommend it in general. I'm not going to post links here in order to protect the places I use, but dm me if you want them.

If you're having difficulty with the concepts (which makes sense - right to maim is a challenging book!) I recommend going back to basics with some background reading. You can get some of Puar's rec'd background reading from the bibliography, and from the keywords she uses in the preface of the text. a few that I see (i'm looking at the PDF now) include debility, rhizome/rhizomatic, soverignty, biopolitics, homonationalism, impairment [in the disability studies sense], precarity, and neoliberalism. if i was teaching this preface, i'd have students break down each of these terms (and probably others, this is just from a skim) using outside readings. it's totally normal to feel overwhelmed when jumping into a scholarly text w/o any context, and most people who use and cite this book have past experience reading Puar's interlocutors and existing familiarity with this language.

you can get up-to-date while reading using resources in tandem with this text. For example, you can read Puar's discussion of debility at that link to get a sense of the context. You can read a decent summary of Foucault (the coiner of the term "biopower") and his thought at Brittanica. I recommend using Google Scholar for terms you're not familiar with, and taking quick notes so that you don't have to google them all over again each time. if you think you have enough context with a new word but aren't 100%, keep reading and use other clues. think about academic reading like learning a new language. the strategies are very similar! because it basically is.

I recommend using the annotation strategies i just mentioned in this post (and/or developing your own). i also recommend looking up Puar's talks on youtube - she's a well-known scholar who does a lot of events, and has spoken extensively about this book and its genealogy (especially in relation to praxis / Palestinian liberation). You can also read her talk with the hosts of Death Panel, my absolute favorite podcast.

Below, I'm going to give you an example of how I close-read, annotate, and analyze a paragraph from Right to Maim (and, by extension, other academic texts. This strategy may not work for you 100%, but hopefully it gives you some solid suggestions. Overall, remember that learning to read scholarly work takes time. A long ass time. Even when it's about things you've experienced yourself! Academia has its own conventions, verbiage, knowledge base, etc, and it's a learning curve for everyone. Don't expect yourself to read as fast or get as much as someone more familiar with the conventions of academic writing - anticipate reading all of these works many, many times, and getting more with each reading. Progress is more important than perfection, and improvement, even if slow, *will* happen, as long as you don't give up. <3

Below is a quote from the preface to Right to Maim, where Puar lays out her argument. I recommend everyone highlight/remember paragraphs like these (pretty much every ac text will have something like this in the beginning as a roadmap) to anchor their reading practice and help them get the most from a book (emphasis mine):

In The Right to Maim, I focus less on an impor­tant proj­ect of disability rights and disability studies, which is to refute disability as lack, as inherently undesirable, and as the sign, evidence, or fetish of injustice and victimhood. I am not sidestepping this issue. Rather, I centralize the quest for justice to situate what material conditions of possibility are necessary for such positive reenvisionings of disability to flourish, and what happens when those conditions are not available. My goal ­here is to examine how disability is produced, how certain bodies and populations come into biopoliti­cal being through having greater risk to become disabled than ­others. The difference between disability and debility that I schematize is not derived from expounding upon and contrasting phenomenological experiences of corporeality, but from evaluating the vio­lences of biopo­liti­cal risk and metrics of health, fertility, longevity, education, and geography.

In the bolded part, Puar outlines what she's not doing: she's not taking a mainstream (white, colonial) disability studies approach, which is, in her words, to refute disability as "lack." She's stating that her goal isn't simply to prove disabled people as equal to able-bodied people, or to claim that disability can be good and liberating (though it is/can be!). Her point is to look at the conditions in which people become disabled, and stay disabled. Often, these conditions are violent and unjust. Acknowledging this injustice kinda throws a wrench into western models of disability pride.

So, if she's not interested in just arguing that disability ≠ badness, what is she arguing? she's looking, in the latter half of the paragraph, to how people become disabled in multiple ways. One, using the verbiage in the book, she's interested in how people become debilitated - physically incapacitated in a way that may not line up with the social category of "disability"). She's also interested in how "disability" as a social identity is constructed - that is, why do disability rights groups look at Palestinians maimed by the IOF and see an injured civilian, but not a disabled comrade? words and context matter immensely. she's looking at why, and what are the implications.

that last sentence sums up the distinction she's making: "The difference between disability and debility that I schematize is not derived from expounding upon and contrasting phenomenological experiences of corporeality, but from evaluating the vio­lences of biopo­liti­cal risk and metrics of health, fertility, longevity, education, and geography."

the difference, she argues, between disability as western disability studies sees it and debility as experienced by people under colonial occupation isn't because we experience our bodyminds differently, or because Palestinians (for example) magically aren't as hurt by occupation as their white/western counterparts would be. rather, the reason she's using debility over disability is because the category of disability isn't objective: it's informed by biopolitical forces such as the ones she listed. her meta-argument is that what we call "disability" can't be divorced from its settler colonial context, not because colonized peoples are immune to disabling violence, but because the category of disability (and health, and violence) is itself affected by settler colonialism.

in "right to maim," Puar is offering a major shift in the way we collectively discuss disability, because the category is not applied equally across sociopolitical, geographical context. it means Palestinians and others living under occupation are either left out entirely, or unsuccessfully co-opted into western-/colonizer-centric disability discourse that doesn't acknowledge the different conditions under which they live. ultimately, "right to maim" means to make that difference, and its implications, visible.

Let me know if this makes sense! it's wordy and tedious, but lots of academic texts are. i hope that breakdown helps you make some more sense of Puar's main argument/the architecture of the text, and maybe serves as a model for future engagement. :)

[tamamita]

what are sunnis and salafists? sorry that this out of nowhere im a white anon so i dont know alot and you can ignore this if you want

Sunnis are adherents of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jumu'ah (the people of the Sunnah) or the Sunni branch of Islam. It constitutes the majority of followers of Islam, with Shi'as being the second largest group of Muslims. The name is derived from the term Sunnah, which means Prophetic traditions and practices.

Historically, Sunni Islam did not originate at the onset of Islam and following the historical disagreement regarding the successorship of Muhammed (pbuh&hf), but is rather the culmination and consensus of centuries of legal and scholarly opinions, debate and theological studies, thus is it is a misconception to assume that Sunnism was brought about during the political schism in the early years of Islam, whereas Shi'ism were a partisan group before forming its own theology and jurisprudence a century later. Sunni Islam derives its laws and jurisprudence through the Qur'an, Sunnah, consensus and analogical reasoning. Sunni Islam is represented by four school of thoughts: the Hanbali school, the Hanafi school, the Maliki school and the Shafi'i school. Each school of though represents a particular geographic location, and lay people following Sunnism may follow the scholarly opinion corresponding to their geographic origin and location. Most Sunnis follow the Maturidi and Ashari rationalist schools of theology and rely on scriptural sources to derive their understanding regarding God's nature and the material and metaphysical reality.

Salafism is a reformist/revivalist movement within Sunni Islam that holds that the purest form of Islam can only be derived through the opinions and practices of the honorable ancestors (Salaf al-Saleh). They hold that the best generation of Muslims were the Sahabas (companions), the Tab'iun (the second generation) and the Taba al-tab'iun (The third generation), according to a prophetic tradition, viewing later interpretations of Islam as innovations or deviation from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. They believe that only through the Salafs can absolute monotheism be understood and that anyone who rejects them or derive different opinions are deviants or heretics, such as the Shi'as (and some Sunnis), who venerate saints. They reject the concept of Taqlid (emulating), that is, following the four schools of thought, holding that ijtihad (independent reasoning) takes precedence over Taqlid through the study of the Qur'an, the Sunnah and consensus of the Salaf al Saleheen. Salafists tend to reject the rationalist schools of mainstream Sunni theology and adheres to a literalist and traditionalist (Athari) interpretation of Islamic theology as understood from classical scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Kathir and Ibn Qayyim. They may also derive their understanding of religion through the legal opinions of other modern Salafist scholars. There are several Salafist movements, such as Madkhalism (the quietist school), Wahhabism, Salafi-Jihadism, Ahlul al-Hadith and etc. Salafists are known for their puritanical view on Islamic monotheism and literalist interpretation of scripture, hence their intolerance toward other co-religionists that do not conform to their religious interpretations. They most notably hate Shi'a Muslims.

[jstor]

I saw something about generative AI on JSTOR. Can you confirm whether you really are implementing it and explain why? I’m pretty sure most of your userbase hates AI.

A generative AI/machine learning research tool on JSTOR is currently in beta, meaning that it's not fully integrated into the platform. This is an opportunity to determine how this technology may be helpful in parsing through dense academic texts to make them more accessible and gauge their relevancy.

To JSTOR, this is primarily a learning experience. We're looking at how beta users are engaging with the tool and the results that the tool is producing to get a sense of its place in academia.

In order to understand what we're doing a bit more, it may help to take a look at what the tool actually does. From a recent blog post:

Content evaluation

Problem: Traditionally, researchers rely on metadata, abstracts, and the first few pages of an article to evaluate its relevance to their work. In humanities and social sciences scholarship, which makes up the majority of JSTOR’s content, many items lack abstracts, meaning scholars in these areas (who in turn are our core cohort of users) have one less option for efficient evaluation. 

When using a traditional keyword search in a scholarly database, a query might return thousands of articles that a user needs significant time and considerable skill to wade through, simply to ascertain which might in fact be relevant to what they’re looking for, before beginning their search in earnest.

Solution: We’ve introduced two capabilities to help make evaluation more efficient, with the aim of opening the researcher’s time for deeper reading and analysis:

Summarize, which appears in the tool interface as “What is this text about,” provides users with concise descriptions of key document points. On the back-end, we’ve optimized the Large Language Model (LLM) prompt for a concise but thorough response, taking on the task of prompt engineering for the user by providing advanced direction to:

Extract the background, purpose, and motivations of the text provided.

Capture the intent of the author without drawing conclusions.

Limit the response to a short paragraph to provide the most important ideas presented in the text.

Search term context is automatically generated as soon as a user opens a text from search results, and provides information on how that text relates to the search terms the user has used. Whereas the summary allows the user to quickly assess what the item is about, this feature takes evaluation to the next level by automatically telling the user how the item is related to their search query, streamlining the evaluation process.

Discovering new paths for exploration

Problem: Once a researcher has discovered content of value to their work, it’s not always easy to know where to go from there. While JSTOR provides some resources, including a “Cited by” list as well as related texts and images, these pathways are limited in scope and not available for all texts. Especially for novice researchers, or those just getting started on a new project or exploring a novel area of literature, it can be needlessly difficult and frustrating to gain traction. 

Solution: Two capabilities make further exploration less cumbersome, paving a smoother path for researchers to follow a line of inquiry:

Recommended topics are designed to assist users, particularly those who may be less familiar with certain concepts, by helping them identify additional search terms or refine and narrow their existing searches. This feature generates a list of up to 10 potential related search queries based on the document’s content. Researchers can simply click to run these searches.

Related content empowers users in two significant ways. First, it aids in quickly assessing the relevance of the current item by presenting a list of up to 10 conceptually similar items on JSTOR. This allows users to gauge the document’s helpfulness based on its relation to other relevant content. Second, this feature provides a pathway to more content, especially materials that may not have surfaced in the initial search. By generating a list of related items, complete with metadata and direct links, users can extend their research journey, uncovering additional sources that align with their interests and questions.

Supporting comprehension

Problem: You think you have found something that could be helpful for your work. It’s time to settle in and read the full document… working through the details, making sure they make sense, figuring out how they fit into your thesis, etc. This all takes time and can be tedious, especially when working through many items. 

Solution: To help ensure that users find high quality items, the tool incorporates a conversational element that allows users to query specific points of interest. This functionality, reminiscent of CTRL+F but for concepts, offers a quicker alternative to reading through lengthy documents. 

By asking questions that can be answered by the text, users receive responses only if the information is present. The conversational interface adds an accessibility layer as well, making the tool more user-friendly and tailored to the diverse needs of the JSTOR user community.

Credibility and source transparency

We knew that, for an AI-powered tool to truly address user problems, it would need to be held to extremely high standards of credibility and transparency. On the credibility side, JSTOR’s AI tool uses only the content of the item being viewed to generate answers to questions, effectively reducing hallucinations and misinformation. 

On the transparency front, responses include inline references that highlight the specific snippet of text used, along with a link to the source page. This makes it clear to the user where the response came from (and that it is a credible source) and also helps them find the most relevant parts of the text. 

[pseudoquiddity]

Are people aware that the Bachelor's quoting of Latin is a very common part of the academic field? With all those posts calling him pretentious for Latin, I can't be too sure. The difference is that, today, Latin is not necessarily the academic standard when it comes to terminology and so readers can find Latin phrases mixed with German, French, Russian (etc.), too - depending on the subject.

I pulled a random article on Italian futurism and it uses the terms/phrases unheimlichkeit, homo faber, il linguaggio nascosto della tecnologia (so on, so forth). It becomes natural to the essay's conversation (in this case, futurism).

The Western academic world, for centuries, was fed off Roman stories and for most of the Western world's past, Latin was the predominant "intellectual" language until French became the status quo, and now it's English. So when it comes to studying in a certain era, not knowing Latin might bar a person from scholarly work.

Someone who spoke and wrote in Latin very prolifically was Thomas De Quincey (Englishman early, mid-1800s), and he wrote a few short stories. One of which, he's sitting with a coachman and speaks a Latin phrase in passing and then immediately strikes himself as silly because the working class coachman probably doesn't understand him.

Just one example of many where Daniil is clearly expressed as someone completely out of their usual, personally comfortable social circle. Sometimes one language just doesn't cut it for the description of things, but now an avenue of regular expression has been completely shut off from him.

Though I wonder if he uses Latin with general abandon in the town, is mostly speaking to himself when he uses Latin, or if, like De Quincey, is going you fucking fool, he doesn't understand you!

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

okay but the fact that we hear all about kaveh's life post-fall out with alhaitham, the fact he graduated, worked at construction firms and continued taking on others' burdens, had a hard time finding solo work because of how arts are perceived in sumeru, that he went to his mother's wedding in fontaine, that he took a vacation from work because he was stifled by the environment and felt he had lost motivation and worth as an artist, was determined to complete the palace of alcazarzaray at the cost of everything he owned just to have a tangible object of his efforts and view of art only for its outcome to further emaciate him, until he meets alhaitham for the first time in years, is understood at once, has no need to don a front as he does for everyone else in his life, is listened to, is challenged once more and reinvigorated in his perception of his ideals, is offered a second chance, a home, and accepts it, although he cannot comprehend why alhaitham would offer such a thing and yet not ask anything of relevant substance in return, other than rent

all of this, and we hear virtually nothing of alhaitham's life post-fall out with kaveh, besides his graduation and his taking on the job of the scribe. his character stories omit this part of his life whereas kaveh's is full of detail and emotion, mostly suffering. the first instance we see of alhaitham in this time is from kaveh's perspective when the two meet again in the tavern, and in this alhaitham endeavours to understand kaveh once more, before offering his house - the research centre previously allocated to the both of them for the success of their joint thesis before they fell apart - to kaveh.

we don't know why alhaitham moved out of his grandmother's house and into the research centre, why he renovated it from a research centre into a livable home, only that he did so after kaveh informed alhaitham through a third party that he was not in need of a house, nor do we know his thought processes and emotions in the years spent apart - the years that are carefully documented in kaveh's character stories. the image we are presented with is that of stasis; alhaitham pursues no other close friendships, he works as the scribe, owns a nice house within sumeru, is financially secure, and functions within, and carries out, his own ideals - is content with this way of life. in this, from alhaitham's perspective, there are no details necessary to give from this time

but in inviting kaveh to live with him, his character stories tell us that what he gains by doing so is the mirror of himself, both in personality and scholarly thinking, and in this, he is able to gain an enhanced view of the world, which otherwise would be limited. with kaveh being present in alhaitham's life, alhaitham believes that his vision is perfected, whereas it could not be before, with kaveh's absence. it is in this that we hear what alhaitham has been missing in his life, and ultimately, it is kaveh, not just as a scholar, but as a person

what is omitted from alhaitham's character stories is provided in kaveh's character stories; where we hear about kaveh's struggles, we don't hear about alhaitham's. perhaps this is because alhaitham did not struggle as kaveh did in terms of realising and achieving his ideals, but instead his struggles were in silence, recognising that his vision, and himself, had been compromised because he had rejected the ideals that served to enhance his own vision, that he had inadvertently rejected, and thus had been rejected by, kaveh.

[dekariosclan]

Hello my friend!

So we all know how amazing and wonderful Gale is, how kind, good, caring and funny he is. He is, in so many ways, a perfect man.

He is, however, only human. I have the tendency to idealise him, and forget this.

My question to you is - what do you think his flaws are? Both generally and as a husband/life partner.

💜

Ohhh I love this question so much ❤️ I am a hopeless romantic, and I adore Gale’s charming, sweet, loving adorkableness! He is truly amazing—but I can confirm NOBODY (and no relationship) is ever 100% perfect.

The thing about a long-term committed relationship is that, while your partner’s charms make the relationship wonderful, their flaws are what make it REAL. And that’s just as important.

So let’s talk about our charming Gale’s less-than-charming aspects, shall we?

[warning: this went from a short & concise answer to a rambling dissertation, please prepare yourself accordingly! Also I know this ask/answer was supposed to make Gale a little less perfect and help lessen our obsession, but uhhhh, I seem to have veered hard in the opposite direction 😂]

———

First off: The Pomposity™️ (I’m not 100% certain that’s even a real word but you know what I mean right) So we all know that by the end of the game, (human) Gale has come to accept himself as he is, and decided to henceforth be known as ‘Gale Dekarios, a most brilliant wizard of intentionally limited reknown.’ He’s come a lonnng way in cutting down his ego, but let’s be honest: some of it will never truly go away. And that’s fair, because he IS brilliant, and he IS talented, and he IS extremely passionate about magic.

…but it’s tough to remember all that and give him a pass when that usually-oh-so-adorable-finger-in-the-air is now aimed at YOU, as he declares that ‘after all, he IS an expert on [*insert topic here*] because he WAS awarded [*insert scholarly award here*] from the one and only [*insert impressive Blackstaff Academy professor here.*]’

And all you wanted was for your opinion to be taken into consideration regarding the wine selection at dinner.

———

Second: The Disarray / Messiness. Gale has a brilliant mind, one that he applies full throttle to any and all situations: concentration on magic spells, lance board strategy, calculations, poring over ancient tomes, and even figuring out how to cook something edible out of rotting fish heads and some moldy cheese (no veggies, though!)

The problem is, while his mind is brilliant and he will keep it laser-focused on his chosen subject at that current moment, from a day-to-day perspective he is straight-up scatter brained with all the things he has his hands in. We can see this in his vision of his tower: BOOKS. BOOKS EVERYWHERE. Some stacked in piles, some shoved onto shelves, some left open on the page he was reading when he got distracted, etc.

We also get confirmation of this from Tara in the epilogue:

Tara: The way he leaves his potions in absolute disarray—I know for certain he wasn’t raised in a barn, but you’d never know it.

It’s one thing to have books & potions & scrolls scattered throughout his library and sitting room—you have no complaints against that, you HAVE moved in with/married a wizard, after all—but to find them in the kitchen, wine cellar, even occasionally stuffed into your own wardrobe? It’s a bit much.

TLDR: Our rizzard is a hot mess.

———

Which leads us into perhaps his biggest flaw: The Fussiness.

So about all those books everywhere, on everything, all at once? You didn’t try and ARRANGE them or organize them for him, did you?…You did?! Oh, gods! No, no, he had an ORDER to them, you see, and he knew that the exact spell he needed could be found in the third book down in the stack next to the piano, page 453, why did you ever decide to move it?

Well, you explain as patiently as you can, it was in the way, and frankly you could tell from the dust on it that he hadn’t touched it in several yea—

BY ELMINSTER’S ELBOW, did you ALPHABETIZE his illusion scrolls??! Oh, for the love of—!

You get the picture.

There would undoubtedly be moments when you found yourself fully exasperated by this man and his exacting, fussy nature.

———

All that being said: true fights would be rare.

The occasional huffy remark or quickly-forgotten gripe would occur now and then as in any relationship, but a real, anger-filled argument? With heightened emotions and hurt feelings? Rare indeed.

The only thing bigger than Gale’s brain is his heart. And while his mind is dedicated to a great many things as mentioned above (magic studies, lance board, etc) his heart is 100% dedicated TO YOU, and you alone. So on those rare occasions after a fight has occurred, it does not take long for him to come down from the heat of the moment and realize, oh, hells, he’s been an ass, hasn’t he?

He knows you love him. His anxiety about not being enough for you has long since disappeared, and he’s calmed his worries that you would ever leave him, but still…there’s always a lingering concern that maybe you’ll grow distant from him after an argument.

If you are in the wrong and he is certain of it, he will be stiffly polite until you offer an apology, and then he will be taking you in his arms, kissing you passionately and telling you ‘all is forgiven my love, let’s never speak of this again’ (and trying hard to hide his relief that you apologized first, because he was not sure how long he would be able to hold out and stay mad at you.)

If HE is in the wrong, though? And you are truly mad at him? And he knows he really stuck his foot in it? Oh, boy.

You’ll be treated to an apology so eloquent it would make poets weep, and it will come packaged with hand-holding, pouting, pleading, and Gale getting down on his (bad) knees.

And if you’re still mad at him after that?

Well, then you’ll have to complete a gauntlet harder than anything Shar could ever throw at you. You’ll have to try and stay angry, explain your anger, AND explain to Gale why he won’t be easily forgiven, all while looking directly at this:

And this:

AND THIS:

…

…needless to say you will be failing, and hard.

Not that you mind, because the make-up sex will be absolutely phenomenal. Gale doesn’t just want to repair your loving bond after you’ve had an argument, he wants to improve it. Which requires much study and experimentation, of course.

And for awhile afterwards, all will be bliss again.

…until you find a pile of scrolls shoved under your side of the bed, and some open books scattered across your dresser, and you decide it time to do some organizing. ———

So yes, my friend. Gale definitely does have some flaws, and at some point they WOULD drive you crazy in any sort of relationship you have with him. Gale is wonderful, Gale is loving, but Gale isn’t perfect!!

…but when he takes you in his arms after you’ve made up, and his mouth is hungrily devouring yours, and he’s murmuring words of adoration against your skin as he trails his kisses down your neck, chest, hips—

Nevermind! I take it all back. He’s perfect. 😂

[theladysunami]

Many other people have already posted their thoughts on the various peaks of Cang Qiong Mountain sect, so I figure I might as well throw my own thoughts and preferred headcanons out there.

First, my thoughts on the peaks we know exist but don't know much about in terms of their specialties:

Xian Shu Peak: Textiles Peak

This is my favorite headcanon for the all women's peak! The textiles industry is a big part of Chinese history, and was traditionally considered to be women's work, so it would only make sense for it to be Xian Shu Peak's peak specialty. It's not just one specific skill either, as spinning, weaving, dying, garment making, embroidery, rope/cord-making, etc. are all a part of the industry.

As they are a cultivation peak, I expect some of the products of their work to be defensive robes with talismans or incantations stitched into the fabric, Qiankun bags or sleeves, spirit trapping pouches, etc. If rope making is included in their preview, they could also be involved in making immortal binding cables, nets, and so forth.

Ku Xing Peak: Rites, Rituals and Purification Peak

We don't know much about Ku Xing Peak except that they live an aesthetic lifestyle. As it's common for individuals to take on certain aspects of aestheticism (simple clothes, restricted diets, abstinence, etc.) before engaging in many types of rituals, I'm inclined to believe a peak that practices aestheticism at all times would be particularly well suited for such tasks.

I tend to imagine their peak being similar to the Gusu Lan Clan, minus the music aspect (music being Qing Jing's purview). They could specialize in things like summoning spirits, communing with the dead, dispelling resentment, exorcisms, purifying objects or locations, properly laying the dead to rest, etc.

Since SVSSS predominantly focuses on demons, not ghosts, it's only natural a peak that deals more in spiritual cleansing and laying the dead to rest wouldn't be involved in the plot much.

Zui Xian Peak: Potions and Elixers Peak

While lot of fanfics make jokes about Zui Xian being a peak for alcoholics (which is completely fair, as this is the dick joke filled world of SVSSS we're talking about), my first thought upon learning of Zui Xian Peak's specialty was the immorality granting heavenly wine in the Journey to the West. Looking into the matter more, I've since learned that wine has actually been a huge part of Chinese medicine since the Han Dynasty. The traditional character for medicine even includes the radical for wine!

With this kind of precedent, it seems only logical that Zui Xian Peak doesn't merely make alcohol for social and/or enjoyment purposes, it's quite likely to be the ‘external alchemy’ peak of Cang Qiong Mountain. I expect they grow and process at least some of their own herbs and ingredients, along with performing other alcohol and potion making tasks like brewing, distilling, extracting, fermenting, filtering, infusing, and so on.

Next, my thoughts on what the three mystery peaks might be:

I am not going to try and name these peaks, as I struggle with naming things even in my own native tongue.

Hunting, Trapping and Scouting Peak

Having read MDZS before SVSSS, I found the distinct lack of archery in SVSSS to be quite peculiar. As the peak of scholars and strategists, I suppose it's only logical Qing Jing Peak focuses on the four scholarly arts (the guqin, strategy games, calligraphy, and painting), rather then the six arts of Confucian gentlemen (rites, music, archery, equestrianism, calligraphy, and mathematics), but that does leave several ‘arts’ free to be claimed by other peaks! This inspired me to think up a hunting and scouting peak, where disciples excel at archery and equestrianism.

Since mounted archers became a significant aspect of Chinese warfare in the 4th century BC, thanks to King Wuling of Zhao, I'd say having cultivators of this sort in a Xianxia setting is perfectly reasonable. Giving Cang Qiong Mountain sect scouts also nicely fills the gap in their martial capabilities. Without this peak they have strategists, weapon craftsman, ground troops, and suppliers, but no reconnaissance forces!

I also consider this peak to be the rough equivalent of the ‘Beast Taming Peak’ so many works are fond of. Who else could breed and control hundreds of spirit eagles for the Immortal Alliance Conference but a group of cultivators focused on scouting missions? As supernaturally superior mounts and spirit (hunting) dogs would be incredibly helpful to them, they'd likely engage in horse and dog breeding programs as well! Their skill as hunters and trappers would also permit them both to provide game for Cang Qiong Mountain sect, and to aid in the rounding up of various living monsters for both alchemical ingredient harvesting and for releasing at events like the Immortal Alliance Conference.

In summary, this peak would produce disciples skilled at equestrianism, archery, falconry, animal husbandry, scouting, herb gathering, hunting, trapping, etc. For anyone familiar with D&D, I did basically make a Ranger peak here, but I stand by that decision!

Artifacts, Arrays and Invention Peak

Every time I read a work with some variation on the "Mad Scientist Peak" I adore it, so naturally I have to include this type of peak as well. This peak would be for the Wei Wuxians of the cultivation world, hoping to revolutionize cultivation society!

Their focus would be mathematics, spell geometry, arrays, talismans, non-medicinal alchemy (aka ancient materials science), engineering and of course artifact recovery, study and creation. The crystal mirror ‘surveillance equipment’ from the Immortal Alliance Conference? These guys would be the ones that developed it!

Agriculture, Earthworks and Architecture Peak

While I admittedly don't know the nuances of feng shui, I am at least aware there is far more to it then what you usually see in western depictions. In MDZS, it's noted that an area having bad feng shui (like Yi City) can cause premature death, disaster, and an increase in all sorts of nasty supernatural phenomena! With this in mind, a peak that focuses on connecting to and harmonizing with one's environment seems perfect for the final Cang Qiong Mountain peak.

I don't imagine this peak doing much of the actual building in the sect (that's An Ding's job) but when it comes to designing the sect's buildings, or altering its geography through earthworks, they're the ones to talk to. I also see them as producing at least some of the sect’s food supply, using their skills to encourage a positively supernatural abundance of plants.

In short, disciples of this peak would be skilled with things like architecture, earthworks, geography, topography, irrigation, agriculture, element manipulation, etc.

If SVSSS’s heavenly realms have anything akin to TGCF’s elemental masters, there is probably an unusually high chance they come from this peak.

[ohnoitstbskyen]

How I found you was, someone on Tumblr mentioned your Hades LP to the tune of “this guy went into this long rant about how you can’t put modern sexuality labels onto ancient people, yadda yadda yadda, and then he wrapped it up with ‘That said, Achilles was extremely gay’” and I looked you up because I decided I wanted that energy in my life. It was a good choice.

Historian Brain: applying modern labels and conceptions of gender and sexuality to people from ancient history is fraught and problematic. It imposes a modern lens on the past which obscures the true complexity of their identities and the complex ways in which people's emotional and sexual selves have had to navigate culture through the ages.

Bring Achilles forward in time to the modern day and we don't even know if he would identify as a man, much less with any of our categorizations of sexual and romantic attraction. Gender and sexuality are labels we apply to complex human experiences and those labels are always to one extent or another socially negotiated and unavoidably reductive. They must be refined and re-invented continuously to reflect our reality, and that process works backwards in time as well.

The existence of queerness in history should be explored and indeed highlighted, because history writing suffers from a long tendency of systemic queer erasure, but that spotlight should emphasize the historical complexity and fluidity of our identities. It is as problematic and inaccurate to label Achilles gay as it would be to call him a libertarian or hold him up as a model of masculinity in a modern context. Such inaccuracies should be avoided and critiqued appropriately in scholarly writing. Our past deserves to be understood in terms as nuanced and complicated as our present.

Person brain: they mixed their ashes in their fucking burial urns, that is the gayest thing I have ever heard in my fucking life

[coinandcandle]

Coin's Resources for Research

Here's a list of my personal favorite resources for researching witchcraft, magic, and the occult!

Websites

Sacred Texts - This site is a collection of electronic texts about religion, mythology, legends and folklore, and occult and esoteric topics. Almost all of it is in the English language (translated) and when possible they give the original language (which is quite often)!

Jstor - Home to thousands of scholarly content. While there are limitations to the open and free content on the site, they still have quite a lot to offer! If you can afford the paid version I highly suggest you do so.

Wikipedia - I don't care what your high school lit teacher told you, Wikipedia is a great resource and a wonderful way to find where to start when you're learning a new topic. 

Encyclopedia Britannica - A fact-checked online encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of objective articles, biographies, videos, and more.

Hoopla - A digital library where you can borrow books, audio books, and more! It's connected to your local library so make sure you get a library card!

Libby - Same situation as Hoopla.

Worldcat - A website that helps you track down reliable sources that you can only find in libraries.

PDFDrive - A website with thousands of free pdfs. It doesn't always have what I'm looking for but it's always worth a shot to check!

Youtube

Esoterica - Run by Dr. Justin Sledge, Esoterica is a channel that discusses the arcane in history, philosophy, and religion.

Angela's Symposium - Dr. Angela Puca's channel where she covers peer-reviewed research and scholarship on magic, witches, esoteric traditions, the occult, Paganism, shamanism and related currents.

ReligionForBreakfast - Dr. Andrew M. Henry's channel that discusses--you guessed it--religion! His goal is to improve the public's religious literacy by exploring humanity's beliefs and rituals through an anthropological, sociological, and archaeological lens. 

Misc

Ronald Hutton - Hutton is an invaluable resource and a fantastic historian. He writes the facts without being pretentious and is often quite funny too! 

Wiki's List of Occult Writers

Wiki's List of Occult Terms

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

In Judaism, one alternative way of referring to converts is "Jews by Choice."

If a parallel term exists in Xtianity I am not aware of it, but I would like to propose that it really should exist, albeit not just in reference to converts but to all Xtians. Every Xtian should get the opportunity to fully understand their faith in context and to make an informed decision to choose it for themselves. As it stands, many Xtians are deeply ignorant about Jewish history (before and after the formation of Xtianity), the original cultural context for the stories in the Old Testament, the cultural Jewish context that Jesus existed and taught in, the critical historical (scholarly) read of these texts, what they probably meant to the Israelites who produced them, and what they mean to Jews today and how we read these same texts differently in our religious context.

This creates a problem, where Xtians are taught only the narrow band of context that their church deems it important for them to know, and even that is frequently inaccurate or so limited in scope as to make it inaccurate by omission.

And this is because the reality is that the Tanakh (that is, the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures that the Old Testament is based on) does not naturally or inevitably lead to the Jesus narrative. If you are starting from a Xtian perspective, and especially if you read the New Testament first and then and only then dive into the Old Testament, the Jesus narrative is obvious to you because you are looking for it, expect to see it there, and are coming at these texts with that reading lens in mind. And it's not that you or anyone else is nuts to see that narrative there - there are plenty of solid Xtian reads of these texts that make sense if you already believe in Jesus as presented by the New Testament.

But what the vast majority of Xtians aren't taught is how to approach the Tanakh from a Jesus-neutral perspective, which would yield very different results.

Now you might fairly ask, why would they *need* to approach the Tanakh with a Jesus-neutral perspective? They're Xtians! Xtians believe in Jesus, that's what makes them Xtians!

My answer is multi-pronged: First, I believe that G-d wants a relationship with all people, and speaks to us in the voice we are most likely to hear. That's inherently going to look different for everyone. And that's okay! G-d is infinite, and each of our relationships with G-d are going to only capture the tiniest glimpse into that infinite Divine. Therefore, second, when approaching religion, everyone sees what they want to see. If you nothing religion but find your spirituality in nature, you're going to come at these biblical texts with that lens and take away from them similar things that one might take away from other cultural mythologies. If you, like me, are coming at these texts with a Jewish mindset, you are going to come away with a portrait of Hashem and our covenantal relationship as Am Yisrael. And, of course, if you read with a Xtian lens, you're going to see the precursor narratives leading up to Jesus. That reading bias is not only understandable but good or at least deeply human. Everyone sees what they want to see in these texts. There is no objective or flawless way to read them, and to claim that there is, is to claim that not only is there only one answer, but only one kind of relationship that G-d wants to have with people, that you personally happen to know what that is, and that everyone else is wrong. I am sorry, but if you believe that - if you truly think that you in particular (and/or the people you happen to agree with) know the mind of G-d, then you do not worship G-d. You worship yourselves, because to know the entirety of G-d would require you to be G-d. There's a term for that. That doesn't mean there aren't wrong answers too. But it does mean that there is no singular unimpeachable reading of the texts. What you see in these texts then, says far more about you than it does about the texts themselves or G-d.

So the question then becomes: Why do you want to see this? (Whatever your "this" is.) If your read of these texts is something you choose, why do you choose to see what you see? And is it a meaningful choice if you are not taught other ways of knowing, other perspectives on these texts, and to think critically while exploring them?

Judaism inherently teaches a multiplicity of opinions on the texts, and maintains that they can be read to mean different things, even at the same time by the same person. Deep textual knowledge and methods for learning more, asking questions, challenging accepted answers as a way to discover new meaning, and respectful disagreement are baked into our culture and methods. Some Xtians of some denominations have analogous processes, although on the whole still emphasize correct unified belief over correct action with a multiplicity of belief. I am not suggesting here that Xtians stop approaching their own scriptures as Xtians or adopt Jewish methods instead. What I am suggesting is that Xtians should be taught a fuller picture of these texts and learn other perspectives so that they (1) understand their own beliefs and why they believe them (or after further inquiry if they believe them), and (2) understand and respect that this is what they are choosing to believe and that it is not the only thing one could reasonably believe. Because (3) if not, they are more susceptible to having their faith shattered at random by something unexpected, and will connect less to their faith as a relationship with G-d and more as an obligation based on an unchallenged world view.

And, frankly? (4) It will help them to be better neighbors, to love their neighbor as themselves, and to give to others the respect that they would like to receive.

Being taught the historical context, Jewish history before and after Jesus, the differences between the Old Testament and the Tanakh, the timeline of the development of Xtianity in relationship to rabbinic Judaism in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, the development of church doctrine and the various splits amongst the denominations, and Jewish readings of the Tanakh would give clarity and desperately needed context to Xtians about their religion. Is there some risk that some people, upon understanding these things would drop out of faith entirely or, like me, discover that they are actually meant to be Jews? Yes, definitely.

But let me let you in on a little secret: you don't want those people to begin with. You really don't. Because the reality is that if a person is not called to relate to G-d through Jesus, eventually that person will learn this about themselves one way or another. If they are given the information and tools to make a meaningful choice, they will part company on good terms. If not, they will likely become disillusioned and leave the church in pain, anger, and even trauma. They will bring that out into the world with them, and spread the bad news about the Good News making it even more likely that other people who were already on the fence will jump ship on bad terms. You cannot trick people into a meaningful relationship with G-d. You can only give them the tools they need in order to explore on their own and the rest is between them and G-d.

And the bottom line is that you don't need to and should not be afraid of knowledge. If your faith cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it deserves that scrutiny tenfold. The people you lose from the flock? You would have lost them anyway, because we aren't in the driver's seat here. G-d is. Hashem called me to be a Jew with just as much love and desire to connect as G-d calls Xtians to the church and to Jesus. A faith examined is a faith deepened or exposed in its weakness. And if it is the latter, don't you want people to know this sooner rather than later in order to fix it?

So my proposition and wish for Xtians is that they become Xtians by Choice. That they delve deeply into the origins and context of their faith so that they can be 100% certain that they understand their Xtian faith and why they choose to relate to G-d through that lens.

[sorcave]

After finishing my term exams, I have come to an odd realization about Henry Winter and how he reminds me of Nietzsche.

I am no philosopher; please forgive me if this is totally nonsensical. But did anyone else sense a strong whiff of Nietzsche in Henry's character?

A tell is that both suffered from excruciating headaches periodically. More importantly, I think, in an early book Nietzsche describes the tension between the Apollonian and Dionysian mindsets. Henry is an extreme aesthete and thus an Apollonian. He is obsessed with books, art, perfection. As Bunny observed, "He's always up in the clouds with Plato or something."

But he longs (like Faust) for release from his staid, scholarly condition. So, he becomes fascinated with the Bacchanal. Participating in it frees the wild Dionysian in him. He becomes a Superman, dominating the others with his wits even bedding the prize (almost) everyone wants, Camilla. Henry admits that, as an Apollonian, "...my life, for the most part, has been very stale and colorless. Dead, I mean". But after the Bacchanal, Henry has learned "to live without thinking". And now, the newly-minted Dionysian Ubermensch observes "That surge of power and delight...the sudden sense of richness of the world." The new Henry claims that "...I know that I can do anything that I want."

He is Beyond Good and Evil.

But the tension between what he has become and who he was originally is too great. The erudite scholar has become a cold-blooded murderer. His suicide marks a choice between the two polarities. When Richard sees him in the dream, Dead Henry fusses with flowers. He has restored his Apollonian nature. He is now ethereal, beyond the pull of the Dionysian which corrupted him.

Nietzsche had a rather troubled relationship with Wagner after a fracturing of the earlier idealisation of him. Beyond the philosophy and into the biography of Nietzsche himself I thnk there are further interesting parallels. Even Cosima/Camilla have some overtones of Nietzsche's perspectives of Wagner/Henry.

Does this make sense? Or does it read like one of Bunny's term papers?

This is also mildly brought about by @ratticus-the-emperor posting about how the greek class brings about their dionysian and apollonian nature...

[crow-caller]

I read a lot of YouTube comments, and I respond to a lot of them too. I don't know if this is... uncouth or whatever, but I do.

Sometimes, I get comments which are wrong. Sometimes they're abrasive. People who think trigger warnings are excessive, or that something I've called racist/ableist/antisemitic, Isn't. I do talk back to comments like this. And you know?

A Lot of the time, it works.

Most people who reply back consider what I say, and I've changed their minds. It's not that I'm some great writer, it's often that they are genuinely... confused.

A lot of people simply do not know Why trigger warnings matter, because their only context is mockery and extreme examples.

A lot of people don't know what institutional racism is. If you talk to people about things they don't understand, you won't have a scholarly debate— you'll have an argument where both sides thinks the other is an idiot. I had this recently.

I come at people with sympathy and then, gently, advise them. Do not talk to them like they're idiots or scum if you want to change anything. The above comment is saying "ableism isn't real", but what they unintentionally mean is "I don't know what ableism is so I don't think it's real." This is the case a lot of the time, because people's only context for what these terms mean is increasingly mockery, memes, and political ploys.

I was once a mod on the discord of a large gaming youtuber, a phenomenally half-toxic place— most regulars chill, most random lurkers posting the most atrocious memes and not getting why it was a problem. The head mod understood protecting lgbt+ people in the rules, but didn't Get nonbinary people — he was under the interpretation they were real, but the majority were attention seekers. He cited an account on tiktok, whose schtick was gathering and reacting to "blue hair pronouns" cringe. This was his only context beyond the moral instruction "our rules should protect lgbt+ people". He would have put that rule up either way, but only through discussing it did mods realize this was his opinion, and could explain why it was wrong.

I'm not advising everyone has to talk to everyone this way, I'm saying if you're going to engage, consider trying rather than venting.