#who literally aren’t even in oppressive religions

[jewishbarbies]

if you’re an atheist who spends their day telling religious people they’re lesser somehow for being religious, I hate you and I hope you have a horrible day.

[olderthannetfic]

The level of Blood and Soil nationalism that people are trying to claim is somehow “progressive” in the replies of that Greek mythology appropriation post is bizarre! Outright claiming an Italian-American can’t possibly know what it means to be “invested in one’s heritage” simply because they mention their home state in their blog description?!?

It is tbh really disturbing how many people don’t recognize that investment in genetic ancestry + living in a place continuously for thousands of years (the combo of the two) as a marker of identity = an inherently right wing ideology. It doesn’t matter who is saying it — though hopefully it coming from Greece, a European country with a past and present history of violent fascist movements, makes it more obvious. Their ideology is literally used to deny that Asian and African immigrants have a right to be in Greece. Ancient Greek mythology is regularly imposed on other cultures as propaganda attesting to the greatness of “Western culture.” All the blogs of the people posting about that are obsessed with the idea that their ethic Greek identity living continuously in Greece somehow gives them some mystical connection to a religion their ancestors haven’t practiced in nearly two millennia. But a descendant of immigrants in the US can’t have a connection to the culture of relatives in living memory, apparently. I definitely don’t feel some kind of way about this as a black person who had their ancestors’ culture forcibly stripped from them. Being able to know that shit and have that unbroken line backward is a privilege, frankly. No wonder a lot of us over the years have had to find solace in other mythologies.

I just hope that people are using their critical thinking skills and not falling for how people are abusing the language of cultural appropriation and diversity and sensitivity to sell an inherently right wing ideology (and let’s not even go into how a lot of investment in pre-Christian European paganism, especially coming from these kinds of nationalists, is based in the antisemitism of Christianity “coming from a Jew.” Specifically when it’s coming from ethnonationalists, I’m not saying other kinds of pagans are like this). This is why I think it’s important to name specific problems when talking about cultural appropriation. When you just make it about “taking from a culture that’s not your own” without tying it into larger power structures then it just opens the door for ethnonationalist weirdos like this, claiming that people with objectively less power than them are somehow doing them harm. Or even when they claim “you can do it just do it right!” they manage to claim that people with graduate degrees in Ancient Greece are somehow “doing it wrong” purely because they have the wrong ethnicity, like Madeline Miller. How does that not reduce it to blood and soil yet again? It’s saying that only people with that blood and soil (maybe I should use the original German, Blut und Boden — I just think that makes it more obvious for people what this ideology is, you know?) can “really know,” that there’s no amount of expertise those of us of different ethnicity and geography can acquire. It’s ethnonationalism, pure and simple.

And I don’t care if I make those right wingers sad. At some point just like with stuff like “white women’s tears” you have to recognize that people’s claims of hurt feelings aren’t the most important thing when they’re furthering oppressive ideas. Maybe it’s easier for me to do this as a black woman, but I hope other people (including white people) can learn to recognize these rhetorical games so they don’t fall for it either. Someone can be sad and also wrong, even offensively wrong! Blut und Boden ideology in every country (including Greece) has a high body count.

--

[anakinh]

I think my problem with the moral greyification of the prime deities is that, for the last two campaigns, the two exandria unlimited campaigns, and tlovm, critical role portrayed the prime deities as benevolent and actively helpful, at the very least willing to fight for and protect mortal beings. Every time someone in C3 asks “what have the gods done for us?” we, the fans, are going to remember stuff like Melora shielding Fjord from Uk’otoa under the Arbor Exemplar, or Pike and her relationship to Sarenrae, or Vex shooting an arrow created by a cleric while radiating sunlight from her blessing from Pelor. We, the fans, have pretty good reason to like the gods. Hell, the last time we had a “the prime deities are bad actually” argument it was from Asmodeus, lord of the hells, prince of lies, and he later subverted his sympathy for the devil shtick in a scene that would go down in history as one of the best in Critical Role. I think now we’re looking at people complaining about the gods and it’s jarring because to us it seems like it came out of nowhere with a lot of evidence against it. “What have the gods done for us?” Fucking a lot.

(Also, it’s true that the C3 characters haven’t seen what we have, but Laudna was brought back by a cleric of Sarenrae and Orym has a literal sword blessed by the Wildmother. The gods actually have done things for them)

Another, smaller thing is that the Prime Deities in Critical Role aren’t associated with the hate and oppression and violence that is tied to modern religious institutions (which was something I thought was to CR’s detriment given the existence of Vasselheim, and I actually do like them showing the dark side of Vasselheim now). We haven’t been given a reason to hate religion beforehand, and even now that we do, we can argue that the actions taken by mortals in the name of their god does not justify the eradication of said god. Anyway, I think this just goes back into the “it’s jarring, it seemed to have come out of left field” concept. 

The last thing is I’m honestly sick of hearing the players and NPCs debating why we should help the Prime Deities since they’re #problematic. Who gives a fuck. Imagine if an old man was sick of the king so he decided to release a rabid bear in the king’s castle, and you’re like “okay but I live in the castle too though?” and he’s like “Don’t worry, it won’t harm you.” Would you follow this man? No! Imagine knowing this old man who was involved in the murders of so many people, including your friends and family, in cold blood to achieve his godless world, and someone says “actually I don’t like the gods” and you’re like “oh damn, maybe this old man has a point.” Who cares if he has a point! He’s murdering entire villages of innocents! The ends don’t actually justify the means! I’m glad Orym and Ashton and Laudna are at least on board with that part, but I’m worried their resolve is weakening. Also I wish the god debate would just shut down when one of them points that out instead of continuing on.

[radfemsiren]

Egypt was only occupied by France by 7 years though compared to the decades and even century other countries have. So why are you using France as a shared imperialist occupier in north africa as 'proof' instead of the fact that Egypt has been affect by multiple imperialist powers e.g France, Britan and America. That point was weak.

Besides FGM isn't part of Islam, it's just patriarchy I agree with that aspect. If these women were educated and able to read and critically interpret religion against the mainstream misogynistic narrative then they would see that it is a mere cultural custom with the attached pressure of religion.

And it is a dogwhistle because the liberal/right french politicians do not have women's interest truly at heart- they have done hijab bans in Iran and Algeria in colonial eras which were politically unpopular as women's emancipation is more than an physical appearance, it's economic as well. Think how many times Western powers have attempted to start wars to 'hurr durr save the women'. It's what fascists use to appeal to the masses social insecurities without addressing the economic decay of the nation

It’s not a weak point, I brought up FGM to illustrate that non white societies also perpetuate patriarchal oppression, and that colonialism is not the root cause of every single ailment in our communities. Hey! We Egyptians still say merci to waiters so don’t discredit the French’s influence on us lmao

But seriously tho, I can’t keep engaging with you when you are clearly not even reading what I write. I already said FGM isn’t related to religion, I said I’m using it as a clear example of blindly pushing cultural traditions as a pushback against western powers is dangerous to women and children.

And I KNOW you aren’t reading anything in good faith because me and the frenchie anon never said western politicians had good intentions with banning hijabs/ other Islamic practices. We said the climate of not being able to offer any valid criticism of Islamic misogyny is the problem, and we both acknowledged the issue of conservatives leeching onto us for their own agenda.

Do you know how many times I offered progressive, feminist framework critique of Islam and got yelled at for being racist? Search my username and you’ll see people canceling me for “racism,” when I’m literally an Arab who has never said any bad thing about my race or culture, only Islam. Keep dying on the hill of protecting harmful imams and mullahs, the right side of history is definitely not with me, a pissed off woman. It’s with powerful men with unquestioned authority, keep it up girl ❤️!!

[11x13kyle]

alright so I need help with something. One of my friends believes that everything Cartman has done is okay because Stan and Kyle are on the same level of malicious as him.

I told my friend that Cartman is constantly racist, antisemitic, transphobic, etc etc., but he says that Cartman shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions and is innocent. He says that Kyle is just as bad as Cartman because Kyle picks on Cartman back, when in reality Kyle is just standing up for himself. He also brings up a few small bad things Stan and Kyle have done to try and argue that they’re just as bad as Cartman, but most of his excuses can be summed up to the fact that Stan and Kyle are eight, and don’t have the best parents. My friend also argues that Cartman is just young and not raised well, but Stan and Kyle aren’t racist or antisemitic or homophobic/transphobic or anything like that, and Stan’s dad is one of the worst parents. Stan and Kyle never dressed up as hitler or fed a guy his parents.

But still, my friend thinks Cartman is innocent and just a victim. I need help proving why Cartman is basically just a vessel to be hateful.

ok, so i’m first going to link you a great post by one of my mutuals that i think explains the concept really well, just to give you even more to work with!: https://www.tumblr.com/amporella/712879294897094656/those-posts-floating-around-about-how-all-the-boys

also this got way longer than i expected it to so here’s a read more lmao

what i will say is that, crucially, when characters like stan and kyle do anything particularly bad, it’s shown as something that stands out in contrast to other things they’ve done in the show, and usually the consequences they face are less slapstick and silly than the ones cartman faces bc, well, they’re not usually bad people! like in Super Hard PCness, kyle’s actions leading to nuclear war with canada doesn’t just affect the world at large but also his personal life. his relationship with ike is damaged. his relationship with stan is damaged. you’re supposed to see it as distinctly WORSE than how kyle usually acts!

cartman, on the other hand, quite literally exists to do bad shit. when he does terrible things, it’s not supposed to contrast his character, it is his ENTIRE CHARACTER. stan and kyle are (usually) the mouthpieces for what matt and trey think of as “good,” whether we see it that way or not. for a WHILE it was a south park trademark to end with kyle (or sometimes stan) saying “i learned something today,” because they’re the moral compasses that you’re supposed to relate to and empathize with. cartman never learns. why should he? that’s boring! if there are characters who are stand ins for what matt and trey see as the opinion that you should have, there must also be a character who stands in for the character who represents something they see as stupid or reprehensible. this is—most of the time—cartman (sometimes randy or mr garrison, but NOT stan and NOT kyle!)

now, as far as kyle’s picking on cartman being just as bad, i’ll say this: antisemitism has a body count dating back thousands of years. it is one of the oldest forms of discrimination and it harms jewish people to this day on many MANY levels. when cartman is being antisemitic, is quite literally cannot be compared to kyle making fun of him being fat or being fatherless or being stupid. it just can’t. i know it’s taboo to compare oppressive systems but let’s just be real here: kyle calls cartman a fatass. cartman thinks that kyle’s entire ethnicity and religion are bad. he treats kyle differently because he’s jewish. you’re not supposed to equate these! and you know this because the worst kyle’s fatphobia gets is using cartman as reality tv fodder in Raising the Bar. the worst cartman’s antisemitism gets is attempting to raise the townspeople up in a revitalized nazi movement in Passion of the Jew. if i need to explain how THAT isn’t the same, idk what to tell you!

now, a lot of people see cartman as innocent or a victim because he’s a kid. his dad being absent, his mom being an enabler, the many implications of csa, etc. the thing about this things are that matt and trey didn’t write these in as something for you to feel bad for cartman over. stan has multiple episodes where you’re supposed to feel bad for him re: his relationship with his dad. kyle has the same. and the majority of kenny centric episodes literally exist to make you feel for kenny. many of these are even played straight! this is not the case for cartman. this is because cartman doesn’t have the level of three dimensionality that the other characters do. sure, he has episodes where he is given a bit more depth, like most recently i’d point to the Vaccination Special. but these are VERYYYY rare, especially when compared to the other members of the main four, who actually do grow and change throughout the show. unlike cartman, who sometimes changes and grows, like in s20, but then he immediately reverts back to how he was by s22. this is not something that happens w the other three!

this is getting rambly so i’ll try to wrap it up here: cartman isn’t a character who you’re supposed to empathize with. you’re supposed to laugh at him. you’re supposed to be shocked by him. you’re supposed to find it funny when he does fucked up things but also cheer when he gets his comeuppance. cartman is INTEGRAL to the plot and the show itself. south park wouldn’t be south park without him! but this is because of how distinctly horrible he is. to say that anyone is as bad as cartman is not only disingenuous, it’s missing the point.

EDIT: i lied i have one more thing to say. you wanna see a character who does bad shit and becomes progressively worse than the other kids throughout the show who it can be easily explained by victimhood? butters. that’s why butters exists. if you want a character who does a lot of shitty things but you can still empathize with and pity due to the awful hand they’ve been dealt, they literally wrote one of those for you. ok now i’m really done. probably. you never know.

[moondrawzsstuff]

No, they didn’t. And the fascists are the ones burning trans books, like the Nazi party did. The fascists are the ones calling for HUMAN RIGHTS to be taken away from you (not American rights like owning your toy designed to kill people even though Dems aren’t taking that away from you like Fox says they are), such as the right to get married, the right to adopt children, the right to not have children, the right to keep your children who are different than what you freaks want them to be, the right to be protected from maniacs with guns who want to murder you for existing, the right to freedom of religion (not talking about Christianity which has never, nor will ever be oppressed in America).

The fascists are the ones that told their disciples to storm the capital and try to murder people for doing their job they were elected to do. The fascists are the ones who have literal KKK members coming to their rallies in support for said fascists.

[mchiti]

typical armys always blindly supporting their oppa no matter how many mistakes he makes. many support him because his fans say he is not wrong. he is an islamophobe. Even if you support him to death, you shouldn't put men above religion. he had to apologize to Muslims, apologize for insulting Islam. We aren’t people who remain silent, we are people who honor our religion, so do not think that the matter is over. apologize matters.

...it's been one year? he insulted no one and the 10 year old song he shared has nothing islamophobic in it you just can't understand some lyrics lol

also is this for real or a joke lol because like idgi it's been one year let it gooo, why are you abusing me because I reblogged something about him a couple of times on this blog lmaoooo. listen i started liking them literally 9 years ago and in 9 years you have no idea how many men I've dropped for being problematic. I'm just not gonna drop him for sharing a song you and some others decided it was islamophobic. it's not because I'm muslim that I can't think for myself and have some critical thinking about things. And I'm not putting my religion blindly over my critical thinking yeah? The two should go together for anyone. it's offensive to you, okay, free to unstan and turn to other bands, but that song has nothing islamophobic in it for me and that's all really. I didn't take degrees only to not be able to recognise people are free to do storytelling and they are free to use religious scenery to reflect about themselves and their place in the world. frank ocean never said Islam is a bad religion but that he can't connect with any religion given his identity which is a right for him to think so you know. or are we gonna pretend queer oppression isn't a thing in any religion. it was NOT aimed at Islam. He just had an encounter with a muslim man, which is the frame of his storytelling, he could've been any other religion really. not his problem you just can't fucking understand three lines in a row. and not namjoon's problem either, the man's fine. funny cause i'm here reblogging about footballers who had notoriously the lowest IQ and never ever express opinions on anything and turn out problematic 24/7 and I'm supposed to question an artist who's actually super educate idkkkk you're being weird your issues are not mine. plus he is an atheist yknow? he can't perceive your oversensitivity on something that is vital for u but means nothing to him and that has to be respected too. If he did something offensive sure, but since he literally didn't. just stop thinking Islam is at the centre of the world and I say this as a Muslim. unfollow me if my opinion is a problem ok

[automatismoateo]

Religion is child abuse and Im sick of being told to respect others beliefs via /r/atheism

Religion is child abuse and I’m sick of being told to “respect others beliefs” I really don’t care anymore if it comes off as extreme but as I get older I feel like I resent religion more and more and anybody who believes in it. After being raised in religion and going through 2 episodes of religious trauma induced mental health episodes I’m so glad to be FREE (by the way haven’t had any religious anxiety or mental health issues for 8 years. Best life has been)! At first when I left religion (Christianity) I had a mild attitude about it. I still had some love for the people and the church even if I didn’t associate with it anymore. Slowly that dwindled….the more and more I thought about it from the outside looking in now, the more fucked up I can see it truly is. I can now confidently say I believe that it is child abuse because kids really have no say in the matter and are automatically vulnerable to the adults around them when putting them into religion. The idea of hell damnation and punishment to perfectly good people just because they don’t believe is all kinds of fucked up. Not to mention the sexism, patriarchy, misogyny, and homophobia that they spew. I just remember the religious anxiety of hell that i felt even before I reached double digits. And that continued into my early teens. Literally got so bad I was too afraid to go into a car because I thought if I crash I might go to hell (it’s not even that I didn’t believe at the time it’s just that I didn’t feel I was good enough or had intrusive thoughts about somehow not really believing). Literally had nightmares about the rapture. Now that it’s all behind me I truly realize I didn’t deserve to suffer like that. No child should suffer like that. And that’s why I think it’s child abuse. I almost laugh now looking back because it’s like wow, I was that stressed over something that was totally fake and baloney. And the adults around me were endorsing it. I’m not saying there wasn’t good moments with religion (I had good times at church camp ) but none of that matters when you start thinking of your own mortality. To my next rant, I hate it when non believers tell me I should respect religious peoples views. Idgaf when religious people say this because I don’t take them seriously anyway, what really irks me when the NON believers have to say this shit to seem neutral and come off as “uwu let’s understand each others differences🥺🥺” like first of all NO. Hard NO. Why should I respect the people that believe in a religion that is BY THE BOOK homophobic, sexist, patriarchal and all other kinds of fucked up???? As James Baldwin said “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” Religion inherently is oppressive to queer people also and by design breeds homophobic people. I want no parts in respecting such people. Too many people are too fucking obsessed with respecting shitty beliefs to appear neutral . It’s cowardly in my opinion. Also I’m not saying I’m a fucking genius but I truly believe people who aren’t religious just automatically have a leg up over religious people in terms of who’s smarter. Like if you are over the age of 18 and still believe this bullshit ….girl I’m sorry but I hope you break free of that jail!! Maybe I sound too hateful but I love my non religious friends and deconverted siblings. We’re free of the prison of shame, guilt and anxiety . I just don’t want other kids to go through that. Rant over lol Submitted August 25, 2024 at 03:22AM by BigTimeSocalist (From Reddit https://ift.tt/QekoPg1)

[ninjakittenarmy]

People generally understand that toxic behavior isn’t ok just because it has its origins in trauma. Like being a misogynist or a terf isn’t ok because you had bad experiences with members of the opposite gender for example. And generally we get that if you treat people like shit, they’re allowed to be mad at you.

But as soon as you say hating on a religion because of religious trauma isn’t ok, suddenly that’s insensitive somehow. Like, I’m supposed just grin and bear it while people talk shit about my most cherished beliefs and customs because people from my faith have been horrible to them.

Fuck that shit.

Look, I’m genuinely sorry for what happened to you and disgusted with the people responsible but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna take that shit lying down. You’re not exempt from judgement for your shitty behavior because of trauma. You’re no better than the people you claim to hate because you assume that everyone similar to them because of other factors. No form of bigotry is intrinsic to any group that isn’t explicitly founded on said bigotry. And no, whatever religion you’re thinking about right now was not founded on bigotry as a major tenet. Not Islam, not Christianity, not Judaism, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Zoroastrianism, none of them.

The antitheists I’ve encountered tend to come in two forms. One type hates all religions and paints them with the same brush, one type only opposes specific religions. They hate each other.

Type one is your typical militant atheist who reads Richard Dawkins and thinks some stuffy old British guy understands every culture enough that if he paints them all with the same brush, they don’t need to look any further. The irony of these people claiming to stand for equality and understanding and tearing down the oppressive institutions of the past is truly astonishing. It’s literally just good old fashioned European colonialism except that you’re saying your religion is bad too. Just ignore the fact that all of the traditions you hold dear and the majority of ideas considered foundational to your “secular” society were developed by Christians in a predominantly Christian culture with Christian ideas ingrained in their way of life who cited Christian scripture in their writings.

Of course it just so happens that every idea from another that sounds strange or superstitious or pointless to you, any holiday with odd sounding festivities who’s significance you don’t get, any common social customs that seem “restrictive” even if it’s fully egalitarian, any lack of interest in common foodstuffs traditionally not within their dietary laws, any ideas that are extremely in line with ideas like tolerance and liberty and egalitarianism, even any ideas that are exactly like yours but that people took the time to justify with their faith, just as the people who introduced it to you did, is the product of religious indoctrination. A relic of the past they’d be better off without. You just need to enlighten them. Never mind that these are cherished customs hurt no one and may even help them in the same way yours help you. They not like us, they’re not “enlightened”.

One laughable thing that I’ve seen countless antitheists like say if you take offense to their rhetoric is “well it’s not just YOUR religion. I make fun of/hate ALL religions!” Even without the biases above, how is you hating other religions supposed to make you BETTER? You’re just an even bigger bigot. You suck even more!

Type two tends to say that while they don’t hate religion in general, they hate ONE in particular. Now, you may be asking, how is that any different from plain old discrimination? How is that any different than your conservative uncle who hates Muslims?

That’s a good question! And I’d love to hear an answer from them that makes some fucking sense!

See these people aren’t any different from the Trump supporters who wanted a Muslim ban in the States, but they SAY they are because THIS religion is the bad one! No for real, it’s totally legit! Bro trust me!

These people fancy themselves progressives. Usually they target whatever religion is dominant in their region. Whichever one they hear cited when people justify reactionary beliefs. That’s obviously The Bad One. All the others are just misunderstood. No other religion has these issues.

And then when you point out that other cultures with different religions totally have a lot of the same issues, and all of them have several unique ones that other religions don’t have, just like The Bad One, suddenly you’re deflecting! How dare you bring up problems other cultures have when our culture also has problems! Ignore that pertinent information or you’re a xenophobic bigot!

These antithesists unsurprisingly often find themselves allying with reactionaries from other religions that hate the same one. Hate Christianity? Side with far right extremists and governments in the Middle East! They HATE Christianity! And also a lot of other religions that face just as harsh persecution but you know, details. They’re over there, Christianity affects ME PERSONALLY. Yeah I saw Hamas flying Swastikas and establishing ties with Neo Nazis, but they oppose Israel! Which is mainly Jewish, not Christian, but I never bothered to learn the difference!

It goes the other way too. There are indeed a lot of ex-Muslims, for example, who back reactionary politicians in non-Muslim nations because they hate the religion for similar reasons people hate Christianity. We don’t look fondly on them here in the West because the horrors of Islamophobia are well known. The idea of Christianity facing the same issues abroad is treated as absurd despite countless cases of it world wide. But that’s what they think of Islam too.

The ultimate paradox of antitheism is that it nearly universally claims to support progress and the breaking down of barriers between peoples and an end to ethnic discrimination, while also being a fundamentally colonialist and ethnocentric mindset. They wish to aggressively spread non-religion just as the colonialists of the past did with their own faiths. After all, why not? Our way is the better way, shouldn’t everyone else be like us?

[the-king-andthe-lionheart]

Honestly, the fucking audacity in this comment on twitter.  Like dude, I don’t care if you prefer Sansa and her story over other characters, but equating Sansa fucking Stark to a native population is not only uninformed, but sick and fucking tone deaf. 

First, how do stans of Stark character’s not even know the history of the house they support?  Because Starks are descended from the First Men who were ESSOSI.  They were the colonizers of Westeros, along with the other First Men.  They genocided the Children of the Forest, and tried to erase their culture and religion and languages.  How does that not resonate?  How do people not see that the Children of the Forest are the native equivalent in this story?  The Starks AREN’T the native equivalent!  The Starks were the colonizers and oppressors.

Secondly, what exactly did the Targaryen’s take from the Stark’s and the North when they conquered Westeros?  Yes, they conquered them, but Torrhen bent the knee, which means there were no Northern casualties in that conquest.  Did Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya force the North to give up the Old Gods in favor of Valyrian practices?  DId they erase their traditions and cultures?  No, they literally only took the title of monarch, and Torrhen’s crown, said that Torrhen could remain leader of the North as a Warden, and said the Stark’s and the rest of the North had to pay a bit of taxes to the crown.  *gasp* How horrible and traumatic!  I can see where the generational trauma comes in. *rolls eyes*

Thirdly, the Starks are WHITE and so is “precious wittle Sansa”.  The fact that people out here are equating an extremely privileged and rich white noble house to oppressed and disenfranchised peoples, in world and out, just blows my mind and tells me that they are not only trying to victimize Sansa and the Stark’s more than they have been victimized, but that they are being extremely disrespectful in their privileged positions.

Forthly, I love when non-native’s say things like “I’m all for natives taking back their land” while they themselves sit on their asses on NATIVE LAND.  Like I’d like to see them put their money where their mouth is and actually give their land and property back to the natives, but they don’t.  Oh, but wait, they said “for natives taking back their land” which means they are saying “If natives got up off their lazy asses and rose up and tried to take back their rightful lands, I’d be a-okay with it” which is highly fucking doubtful.  It’s all a bunch of woke meaningless platitudes being used to justify liking a fictional character over another.

And before anyone comes at me, yes, I am part Native American, which is why this pisses me off so much.  I’m also a big House Stark fan, so it really boggles my mind that so many proclaimed “Stark Stans” continue to whitewash and ignore these things.

[simonalkenmayer]

This is a general rant about antisemitism, because I am annoyed. It contains larger ideas about how Christianity has evolved to see antisemitism as a necessary thing that excuses any action they take.

Back when Obama was deciding to run for office, I got into a heated debate with an old white man at a bar. He asked me if I thought that Hillary would get the party nomination over Obama, since he was a newbie and younger. I said no, Hillary won’t get it. He was stunned. He demanded to know how, in this racist country, I could say that the woman wouldn’t get to run for President before the black man. He was convinced racism in this country was such that it would be impossible to expect a black candidate.

My reply was simple: “misogyny has no color preference.” Meaning men of all colors can oppress women, and do. And sure enough, Obama got the nomination as a new senator, beating out Hillary, despite her tremendous experience.

Kanye West is an antisemite and his words are harmful both to the Jewish community, and his own. Oppression of any kind harms everyone, especially other oppressed or underserved groups, but this kind of bigotry doesn’t seem to have a preference, eh?

I’m so so so tired of this. Humanity has been scapegoating the same people for literally thousands of years, no matter what they do—succeed in spite of or fail utterly. They’re blamed if things go wrong, blamed if things aren’t ideal. But it makes a kind of sense, in that Christianity—-as a system of ideas—is oppositional to all faiths. It has the doctrine of superiority built in. And in Judaism, it finds both its early foundations and yet also is denied by it. The modern Protestant conservative Christian is militant and narcissistic, and they find the opposition almost like a personal attack. To them, they cannot be completely Christian as long as other faiths that are older, and therefore have more legitimacy than their faith, contradict their savior and flourish beneath their noses. Their very existence is an aggravation to that memeplex.

Here I go again, but no, I really want to address this:

When you run electricity over a circuit, the energy takes the shape of the wire layout, doesn’t it? The water follows the riverbed, doesn’t it? Is the path the thing we walk or the thing we leave behind?

Ideas mimic the structures they inhabit. They mimic cell structure. They are replicators, just like DNA, viruses, bacteria. Most closely, they mimic bacteria—breeding through conjugation—borrowing advantageous pieces or discarding pieces that cause conflict in the survival landscape of people’s minds, with all its cognitive flaws intact. What I’m saying is ideas replicate identically to the biological system that makes them, and the mind can either allow or discard them in part or in whole.

For example: let’s say you are an ancient Roman. You know nothing of scientific methods. You have murky ideas about how the universe functions. Any knowledge that comes to you must do two things only to survive—it must be beneficial to you and it must seem sensible. That benefit can be a skill that helps with a difficulty, or a reinforcement of your ego, or a new way to control people, etc. that idea, to live in your head, must be seen as necessary. But let’s say you like one aspect of the idea, but not other aspects. Let’s say it’s a religion that asks you to deny yourself your favorite snack. That won’t do. You won’t accept it. Unless you can find a way to alter the memeplex to fit your own head. Well maybe the book says it’s fine as long as your favorite snack is dietarily necessary. Even better if you can tweak some translation to make it say that. This is how ideas evolve like genes, as they move through groups. They lose or acquire traits as they are spread—like bacteria.

Stay with me, I’m making connections.

A kind of informational feedback loop forms as the individual sculpts the idea and then the idea sculpts the culture. People who are hateful will taint the original memeplex with ideas that benefit them personally. The memeplex of Christianity has evolved over time to incorporate racism, violence, sexism, viciousness. It has been given to cultures that seek superiority, and those cultures have combed that book for any tiny trace that supports their belief. Those cultures work at the words again and again to evolve them too, so it can further change shape in the modern brain. But then again, the ideas sculpt the culture too. In this way man and his thoughts change at the same rate.

The abrahamic religions challenge the validity of Christianity, simply by existing—if one foundational system can evolve in three separate trajectories and each contain millions of believers…

Then Christianity can’t be inviolate.

So it makes complete sense that at every turn, to support personal bigotry, the faith as a whole, must embrace an active rejection and militant destruction of any idea that might supplant it. Christianity can only survive by killing off Judaism and Islam. It will put up with Orthodoxy, but only until it gets rid of everything that directly contradicts it.

Over time, the whole faith shifts, until it’s so tainted and diluted by individual bigotry, it no longer resembles the original memeplex. It’s now a very lethal and carcinogenic bacterial infection, resistant to cleansing ideas like compassion and empathy (which require work). It is even resistant to antibiotics like Jesus saying “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. It has borrowed so many interpretations that support villainy, it has transformed into that.

And it did all that before it ever met guns, or bombs, or Nazis.

Someone with a long view of history could say (is saying) that what we are seeing is Christianity as a whole, waging a memetic and therefore physical war against the faiths that threaten it most, with the humans who believe it as little mindless bigot drones, wandering through their ignorant lives as sculptors and tools in a giant machine of egotistical masturbation.

It’s disgusting and I hate everything about it.

[notthegrouch]

The lack of travel is not why we tend to say that though. 1) The situation is fucked up beyond belief because white Europeans colonized the entire continent while not having the population to need that much space in the first place. If you want more borders and more cultural diversity, go vote to give back land to the natives, call your representatives. 3 percent of your country, that’s nearly 10 million people, still don’t get to live their own culture on their own land, under their own rule. Grant them complete independence and the money and resources to rebuild their land, build schools where they teach in Hawaiian, Na-Dene or Iñupiaq, among others, instead of English. I understand the situation that you are in, but let’s not forget that this situation is your countries own responsibility. Your continent is a large monoculture mostly because it was made to be so. We can also create easily accesible cultural diversity if we encourage it to grow.

As long as you play national sport competitions that you call world series, as long as you pledge allegiance to the flag everyday, as long as you still have a two party system of a far right and a center-right political party, you will have to deal with the stereoype of being uncultured. That has nothing to do with not being able to travel, and everything to do with literally being a country that constantly oppresses cultural diversity at any chance it can get.

2) The situation being fucked up beyond belief does not negate that you don’t leave the USA mentally either. Almost 80% of your country is monolingual English speaker. In Europe 56% is bilingual.

To graduate high school, 16 states don’t require you to learn a second language, 24 leave it as optional.  you have 430 languages being spoken or signed in the states, 117 of them are indigineous to your land and native people! one in 5 people don’t speak english at home.

You can start learning a language today.

You don’t need to travel 8 hours to find a reason to learn more cultures. Look at at your own family, your neighbors, you classmates/coworkers. do you understand them and their culture? Try foods from different cultures, eat some Vada Pav, Hete Bliksem, Räkmacka or Jianbing. Try out foods you’ve never tried before, and if you aren’t sure: ask what something is made of, google the history of the dish, and look up the pronunciation in the original languages. Wikipedia that shit.

3) You’re a country built by immigrants, settlers, Native people and imported slaves. You are literally the biggest, most excessive, cartoonishly obvious example of a melting pot culture in the western world. Go watch a bollywood movie with subtitles every once in a while, listen to welsh music, download babbel or duolingo or something and learn one or two languages, read books from different countries, study different religions, and when you are hungry go eat a meal in a restaurant from a culture you’ve never eaten from before. try new things.

You don’t even need to leave San Francisco to find someone you can speak French, Spanish, Tagalog, Xhosa or Hindi with. Don’t use the 8 hour train way as an excuse.

4) Europeans, Asians and Native Americans mostly say “you don’t have any culture“ because we often have to deal with tourists and internet shoppers trying to americansplain our own culture back to us, while not even speaking the language. All the reason you seem to need to tell us that the “Leaning Tower of Pisa should be in Rome” is apparently that your grandmother was Italian, while at the same time forgetting that A) your grandmother was a sicillian immigrant, and B) it’s called the Leaning Tower of Pisa because it’s in Pisa. We know that. You, when you DO travel to our countries, don’t even seem to do some light reading beforehand. “Dealing with Americans who don’t know that different countries have different cultures, and therefor different societal expectations, rules and perspectives“ is a very common experience when dealing with people on the internet and with tourists. I am not kidding when I tell you that I have had to tell more than a dozen american tourists that Rotterdam is in fact not a walking distance away from Amsterdam. Most of them were offended because they thought  I was lying, also claiming they knew better because they were (fill in a weird percentage) dutch heritage. It might just be me, but knowledge and culture isn’t blood related. Behavior rarely is, too, and even when it is, it’s not something like “Well I am Russian, so I must like vodka“. That is not how things work, but that is the kind of people we have to deal with, because you don’t actually have any interest in learning what other cultures actually are like.

It’s not your lack of travelling we are annoyed by, it’s your hypocrisy of maintaining a self-centered anglocentric culture, while having such rich cultural diversity that you just blatantly ignore, while you are ALSO bothering every single person in the world with your know-it-all attitude and your weird bloodline alchemy beliefs in which you seem to thing that cultural traits are blood inherited and you therefor don’t need to do research.

europeans will really look americans dead in the eye and say they’re so uncultured because they never leave the us

[mithliya]

south korean men bullied a girl and her mother to suicide bc they thought she was using a feminist symbol in her twitch stream when she was in fact talking about font sizes (jammi95 if you wanna look it up). several female k-pop stars had their carreers ruined because they were accused of being feminists. nth room, an online sex trafficking site streaming videos of the rape of women and young girls they blackmailed was done by south korean men. they elected their current president because he's a raging misogynist and antifeminist. he plans to abolish the ministry of gender equality and family.

this isn't about race, it's about culture. sexism is not an innate quality of korean men, western men would do the same shit if they could get away with it. but not acknowledging how misogynistic a lot of korean men are does a huge disservice to korean women.

y’all… nowhere did i say they aren’t misogynistic too? nowhere did i say they were good and feminist icons? i simply expressed my distaste with the way people keep ranking one race of men as The Worst Men as if it’s that simple. today i shared something horrific a pakistani man did. a few days ago i reshared a terrible “religion” that is basically pedophilic sex slavery which exists in countries like ghana. ive shared white men partaking in sex tourism and harming women in the process. ive shared an arab man who raped a female refugee. pretty sure i shared the story about that swedish serial rapist as well. these are just at the top of my head but there are beyond dozens of stories of horrible misogyny men partook in and there is literally no race of men that hasn’t partaken in it. there’s something showing how horrible men of every single race and culture can be and how they all unite over their misogyny, and to see that completely go over some of ur heads and lead u to conclusions like “oh well pakistani men are the worst men” “arab men are the worst men” “south korean men are the worst men” “north african men are the worst men” “white men are the worst men” “black men are the worst men” is so absolutely tired at this point and it’s exhausting seeing u guys see misogyny that women go through at the hands of these men and then make it about their racial heritage. these men aren’t horrible because they have some sort of worse or inferior culture. the society itself is misogynistic (something we all deal with but, yes, to varying degrees) and they have legal and social power as a result. weve seen over and over that when men get the chance to remove our rights away and harm us, they will take it. nothing ive ever said has even slightly implied that people should not talk about ANY group of men’s misogyny, im simply sick of seeing men’s misogyny being reframed as in anyway relevant to their race. and it’s especially tired coming from white women or women that are outsiders to that group. how exactly is that supporting south korean feminists when u risk derailing their movement into something racial rather than feminist, instead of bringing awareness to male violence + misogyny and these horrific issues you’ve made mention of? we should be sharing these atrocities and encouraging women to fight back, not turning the focus from sex-based oppression to race. as u said western men can and will do the same if they have the chance, and much of what you mentioned HAS been done with various western men already. it doesn’t help anyone, not even korean women, when we obscure what the issue is: which is misogyny & male violence.

[habbadax]

I have this thought pingponging around in my head and I’m just gonna vomit it out here and hope it takes some kind of concrete form.

I feel like over the last couplefew decades of secularization in the United States, a huge swath of secular people have just sort of forgotten how religious the United States really is. I’m seeing a lot of very secular explanations for why the GOP is Like This and why Roe v. Wade has been overturned. From people who are themselves very secular. And so many of them strike me as missing the forest for the trees.

I see conversations like these and like, they’re not quite wrong, per se. But I think maybe the motivations have gotten a little skewed down the line. Yes, the conservative powerbrokers in this country are a misanthropic, classist lot. But they are also strongly religiously motivated. Religiously motivated to a point that I suspect most secular folks like me might not even be capable of fully comprehending it anymore. Because so many of us have grown up in a relatively secular environment.

And I think the part where the forest is missed for the trees is that yes, absolutely, you could reduce abortions with things like these. But these things are also in opposition to the religious motivations that drive the religious political power blocs in this country forward. While precarity and an oppressed underclass certainly falls in line with their overall beliefs, that’s not the primary reason they oppose these things.

The primary reason is religious. Because they’re a bunch of Christians. Often times I will see people use ‘They aren’t pro-life, they’re pro-birth!’ as a sort of rhetorical gotcha, and I’m not sure they realize just how close they are to the truth. They are correct in quite a literal way. I would say for the majority of Christian denominations, birth is more or less the meaning of life. The Christian religion is heavily focused on the propagation of the Christian religion by any means necessary. And birth is one of the primary means by which it is perpetuated. It’s why they do missionary work. It’s why so many adoption agencies are own by Christian groups. It’s why they’re always on the lookout to make conversion. And it’s why the religious political blocs in this country are so strongly opposed to anything that might result in people having fewer children.Their religion demands it.

And from an outside, secular perspective, I suspect a lot of people have difficulty comprehending this kind of motivation. To the point where you get explanations up there. Which are not necessarily incorrect. But they are, I feel, somewhat incomplete.

We now return you to your regularly scheduling lurk an’ reblog content.

[eastern-anarchist]

Why intersectional theory doesn’t fit the description of ethnic discrimination in Eastern Europe (longread - I don't know if you will read this, but I think it's important)

Disclaimer 1: I am a historian, not a sociologist, and this affects my analysis. Disclaimer 2: I know best the history of the Russian Empire and least of all the Ottoman history. As we know, intersectional theory emerges from the concepts of "privilege" and "oppression". There are social categories that have greater access to benefits (education, good income, representation in art and media, etc.), and there are those that are oppressed for certain essentialist reasons, although the reasons are actually socially constructed (non-white skin color, non-straight sexuality, but you know about this without me). It’s important that such a system has been established for centuries, starting from about Early Modern times.

Intersectional theory is aimed at increasing the diversity of discourse and representing as many identities as possible in society. Also, the theory assumes a description of the intersections of various discrimination, where race, class, gender and sexuality aren’t separated from each other, but together form a person's identity. But ironically, this theory is very Americancentric, as it stemmed in large part from racial conflicts in the United States. It’s also partly Western Europeancentric, and includes mainly such colonial relations as between Britain and India, France and Algeria, etc.

But on the example of countries on the territory of the former Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, it doesn’t work well, and here's why.

Mostly, the intersectional theory assumes the same type of conflicts and relations (racial, class, gender) in society over the centuries, which began to be established precisely in the late 15th - early 16th centuries, and this isn’t at all obvious for Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe has distinguished itself by its "long" feudalism. Feudalism, on the other hand, means political fragmentation instead of absolutism, a greater concentration on religious affiliation (hello to the beginning of secularization in Western Europe) and the priority of status over class. Yeah, in capitalism it was difficult for a peasant to become a worker, and a worker (even more difficult) to become a small entrepreneur. But feudalism, in principle, doesn’t imply any social mobility - everyone is literally obliged to remain within the framework of their social strata.

Thus, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth remained de facto politically fragmented up to partitions in 1795. The Russian Empire retained the priority of (Orthodox) religion over class until (!) the February Revolution in 1917. For example, in imperial Russia there was such a concept as the Pale of Settlement - a territory where Jews could live and were forbidden to move outside of it. At first glance, this looks like normal segregation, HOWEVER. Christianized Jews could live outside the Pale of Settlement, and especially rich and educated Jews had the right to do so. Yes, here it’s necessary to make disclaimers that there were such a minority and towards the end of the Russian Empire there was state discrimination of "privileged" Jews (for example, under tsar Alexander III). But we must take into account this "ambiguity" of social relations.

In the three empires, very different peoples lived side by side, who didn’t live segregated from each other, and built their identity not on "citizenship", but on the same religion or even on the area of ​​residence. It can be said that Russians were an ethnic group in the Russian Empire, but this statement will tell you nothing about the relationship between Jews and Ukrainians, Poles and Romanians, Georgians and Armenians, etc. Moreover, empires had many mixed families, which significantly influenced attempts to build "nations" in these regions.

Serfdom existed for a long time in the Austro-Hungarian and especially in the Russian Empire. In fact, this is a form of slavery, but it extended to peasants, regardless of their ethnicity. In general, returning to the first point, the stratification here was very strict. In the Russian Empire, at the time the Bolsheviks came to power, 3/4 of the population were peasants and illiterate.

Oh yes, the Bolsheviks. The USSR in general confused everyone. At the beginning of the USSR, all nationalities were formally declared free (the Pale of Settlement and the priority of religion were abolished), but things went badly after the arrival of Stalin, under whose rule massive repressions were carried out against national minorities. At that time, many Germans lived in the USSR, who were a rather privileged community in the Russian Empire (recall that Catherine II was an ethnic German). But under Stalin, the Germans were among the first repressive and deported  groups (largely due to the arrival of the Nazis in Germany and the invasion to the USSR). But by God, for reasoning about whether the USSR was an "empire" and what ethnic conflicts there were, 10 more posts are needed.

Finally, relations with the metropolises. Due to the redistribution of territories, the same territories with ethnic minorities belonged to different empires. The Balkans were part both of the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia also wanted to annex them. As for today, the Czech Republic or Western Ukraine are unlikely to have any conflicts with Austria (but I’m not saying here about the entire Western European world). What can’t be said unequivocally about the Balkans and Turkey, and even more so about Russia and Belarus, Ukraine and Central Asia. In general, guys, it is possible to operate with intersectional theory only in the case of countries which 1) colonies were far from the metropolises; 2) capitalism developed early; 3) racial and ethnic minorities were severely segregated. And it hardly applies to countries that have been feudal for a long time, have gone through a massive revolution, a Soviet / nationalist dictatorship and suddenly become neoliberal.

[elfyourmother]

@allycryz​ asked me the religion question and the answer was so incredibly fucking long I just made it a post.

43. Are they religious? What do they think of religion? What do they think of religious people? What do they think of non religious people?

Gisele has a very complicated relationship with religion, almost inevitably given her upbringing and the abuses she suffered at the hands of the Andrastian Chantry, but because ultimately praxis is far more important to her than belief, really. To Gisele Logic, people believe many things, but their actions are what matter to her. And so she has a tendency to separate “religion” from “gods”.

"Gods" she's fine with, despite being an agnostic her entire life in Thedas aside from secretly honoring the Dalish Creators out of trying to keep that connection to her mother. She believed the Maker was a Fade spirit and Andraste was a mage, and funny enough she wasn't all that far off--the Maker was actually Lahabrea inciting rebellion against Tevinter (founded by Emet, ofc) by whispering to a convenient illiterate hedge witch and betting the superstitious would build a cult of personality around her "prophecies" fjdslkfs. But Gisele's problem was never with the Maker or Andraste so much as the very man-made Chant of Light and the chantry's oppression. In general, Thedas-era Gisele had seen far too much as a mage and a Grey Warden to put much stock in gods as anything but the construct of man for various purposes, some benign and some evil, though she was wise enough to realize she probably didn’t have all the answers, and was open-minded enough to be proven wrong, which is why she considered herself agnostic instead of atheistic.

Anyway, on Source Gisele's views have taken almost an entire 180; dying and being reborn to another world all because you're under the explicit, personal protection of a cosmic entity who directly intervened to save your literal actual soul from oblivion is enough to do that. Hydaelyn was the closest thing she’d ever felt to devotion of the religious variety but that is so fucking complicated to explain that I don’t even think Gisele could. She was simply Mother, and also so much more than that.

But Gisele very much believes in the Twelve almost entirely because of Hydaelyn and her rebirth experience, if not as literal gods than as exceptionally powerful beings much greater than herself. And so she takes the very pragmatic Phedre no Delaunay approach of always honoring the god(s) of a place--partially out of respect for these cultures she is a guest in, but also a sort of transactional kind of pragmatism. To endear herself to the locals of course, and make them more amenable to whatever it is she's doing there. But also the gods themselves--even if they aren't actually gods and "just" benign Primals or something like Ramuh, Gisele believes it's always prudent to give powerful entities their due, if only to avoid smiting, but also to call in favors when necessary. "Religion" is where it gets dicey for her.

When Gisele first arrived to Ul'dah as an amnesiac the very first place she went after the Adventurers' Guild was to the Arrzaneth Ossuary to learn thaumaturgy. Once she got her memories back, the synchronicity of it all was absolutely not lost on her--that she was a woman who died and was reborn in the sacred land of the God of the Dead, that she received sanctuary in his temple and began to walk her path as Hydaelyn's champion under the literal eyes of his statue.  She did odd jobs for the Order of Nald'thal to support herself when she was first starting out. I hc that they sanction sacred sex work out of one of the temples, as a form of worship; people seeking the god's blessing on their economic endeavors will lavish sums of money for sex at the temple as a form of sympathetic magick, engaging in the equal exchange of services for coin as an offering to Nald'thal in order to gain his favor. I've been torn as to whether or not Gisele would have done that to support herself in mainline canon, namely because I'm skittish about it (Warlords AU!Gisele is actually a priestess of Nald'thal who was plucked from the pillowhouses for this purpose, until she was given to Raubahn). But I think Gisele saw the gross economic inequalities in Ul'dah and the obscene wealth of the Order and was more than a little disturbed by it. Again, respect and devotion to the god, not so much the institution.

And then there’s Ishgard. HOO BOY.

It was very, very difficult for her to view the Ishgardian Orthodox Church as an institution through any lens but the one she has as a Thedosian, because so many of the superficial trappings are so similar to the Andrastian Chantry that did her a great deal of harm growing up. An institution that on the macro level was responsible for her people living in squalor and degradation or forced to be nomads piecing together what's left of their culture after Chantry-led genocide and colonization, and on the micro level it literally tore her from her mother and locked her up in a tower in the middle of nowhere and tried to tell her that a fundamental part of who she was was a curse and her existence a sin in the eyes of the Maker. She tried to be open minded and judge the Ishgardian church on its own merits, for the sake of her own sanity and her love for Haurchefant, and it did work for a time in the beginning--the fact that men held leadership positions was a huge culture shock to her but helped her to differentiate it, as did the fact that the Enchiridion couldn't be more different than the Chant of Light in many respects. But...then she went on the road trip and discovered the truth about everything.

The Ishgardian Church's penchant for secrecy, lies, and hypocrisy in the name of oppression reminded her uncomfortably of the Chantry's coverups of its various atrocities against the elves. She sees no fundamental difference between the lies the Chantry tells to oppress the Dalish and the ones the Church told to slaughter dragons and oppress the lower classes of their own people for a thousand years. And it colored her views inevitably. Gisele was furious for example when Haurchefant lay in a coma in the Congregation's infirmary after the Vault and priests came to perform last rites, when he was on the brink of death in the first place on account of the Archbishop and his "holy" band of thugs.

Gisele does come to a certain peace with the Church again after all is said and done though, and it really helps that her spouses and lovers who do believe in it and consider themselves pious (Aymeric, Haurchefant, and Lucia pretty much) aren't especially zealous about it and are rather progressive in their views of scripture. Getting to know the Scholasticate gang also really helped, and gave her the hope that the Church can reform itself into something better, to really serve the people; there are many, many good people in the institution, and cutting the rot out at the top did it a world of good, she thinks.

But she still decidedly is not a member of the Church and was given special dispensation to be married in Saint Reymanaud's to the lads despite not being dedicated to the faith, given that you know, she's the woman who ended the goddamn war.

That said, Gisele often says that she and Halone "have an understanding" because of what happened in Ishgard. In her darkest hour, when Haurchefant hung on by a thread, she prayed desperately to the Fury and made her a bargain: spare the life of my beloved and I will cleanse your church of these wicked men that do evil in your name. Haurchefant woke up, of course, and Gisele ran ripshit through Thordan and the Ward. Until this new raid came out I was pretty content to leave it ambiguous, but now that we've started to actually meet the Twelve for real and they are Legit Entities I have a lot of renewed feelings about That Deal Gisele Made With God. I'm adamant now that Halone really did hear Gisele and Aymeric's desperate prayers and saved Haurchefant because of that, and she very much noted that Gisele came good and upheld her end of the bargain. Until we get to that tier I probably won't write anything but it's on the table for sure once we do.

tl;dr: Gisele was devoted to Hydaelyn above all else, believes in the Twelve,and while she honors them all as a polytheist she considers her patrons to be Nald'thal and Halone, while giving special honor to Menphina and Thaliak.