kemregik

[kemregik]

Corollary: Humanity™️ is a status that can be voluntarily sacrificed for other things, whether in whole or in part.

Everyone starts out with an equal amount of Humanity when they are born, this you cannot control. What you do with it and how much you have at the end of your life is entirely up to you, so you can absolutely be subjected to judgement over it.

Doing certain things, like becoming part of the Monster or committing crimes against humanity, can reduce the amount of Humanity you have left, and if that amount ever goes to 0, you no longer have a valid claim to human rights, because while possessing no Humanity you cannot, in good faith, be identified as human.

The amount of human rights we afford to an Individual ought to be proportional to the Humanity that remains within them.

I think you can tell a lot about how rigorous and committed someone's belief in a human right is by how quickly they are able to name people who they think could or should have that right taken away.

[kemregik]

Chronoculpa

(n.) feeling of guilt associated with the time period one exists in when compared to others.

Chronoculpic

(adj.) exhibiting chronoculpa.

[kemregik]

Growing up is realizing your internal experiences have no social primacy, and it is therefore unreasonable and not conducive to good results for you to assume such social primacy.

Just as you will choose to dissociate from those who treat you poorly, others will choose to dissociate from you if you treat them poorly.

Since the OP made their post unrebloggable (and blocked me. Both actions they are well in with their right to do)

I'm going to make my response it's own post because I think the point is important

-

As someone who is autistic and has BPD and CPTSD and loads of trauma yes you sometimes need to change how you interact with others to keep people around

When I was 13 I hit the few friends I had when I was angry

I had to change that in order to keep those friendships

When I was in my early 20s if I was losing an disagreement with my husband I would threaten to kill myself. My husband told me it hurt him and was cruel and manipulative behaviour, because it was.

So I worked hard to change that to keep my relationship

It's easy to say "I shouldn't have to change for others" and that's true to an extent. You shouldn't change your interests or passions or dim your light. And you should have space to be imperfect and flawed and not have to pretend your ugly bits aren't real. But if something you are doing it causing other people harm you kinda need to change that.

That's called "living in a society"

People adapt to each other and make space for each other in their lives. You adapt to them and they adapt to you

You start being more diligent about throwing away the empty toilet roll because it really bothers them. They start warning you before they run the blender because you hate loud noises

I stopped threatening to kill myself because I was mad I was losing an argument and my husband stopped being so vocally judgemental amount media he personally dislikes

There is a certain type of person who heard the phrase "your emotions are valid" and took that to mean "my emotional reactions and my behaviour are always objectively correct because my emotions are valid and if you have an emotional response or react to what I'm doing negatively then you are wrong and you can't be hurt because my emotions are valid"

And that's a recipe for disaster

Your emotions are valid to feel. They are how you feel and there are reasons you feel the way you do

However, your reactions and behaviour are something you can learn to control and can be irrational

We live in a society and we as people change each other as we interact and that isn't necessarily a bad thing

[kemregik]

A basal argument, acting as structural description, for Anthropogenic Climate Change Accelerationism, or anthropoclicha/acc, or acc/acc.

Necessity is the mother of invention. This is a fundamentally true axiom of human history. Whenever persons, communities, tribes, nations, the species is faced with an existential threat, the gift Evolution unthinkingly bestowed upon us activates to its highest potential and we think our way out of it.

Humans are iterative in nature; we build on everything our ancestors built, and every generation that successfully passes their additions down guarantees the next will exceed the benchmark set by the last. This is the force that drives us at increasing speed towards the mythical singularity of fellows like Nick Land (of whom I was not aware, formally, until I had this thought and decided it would be good to check if anyone had beaten me to this punch and I realized he was at the top of any discussion about accelerationism in general because he invented it, apparently) and the occasional Posadist. This iterative process can be, well, accelerated. Human history is uncountably littered with instances of deadly crisis creating salvific technolgical, scientific, and societal innovations. There is little argument to be made against the notion that humans are primarily loss-averse, and so, best motivated by those external forces that stress us maximally.

Allow me now, from this axiomatic foundation, to present a conclusion for your consideration as a validly constructed political position (and not as a directive I believe ought to be carried out) : the only reason we have not solved the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change is because it is not yet an existential threat to the species, and the only way to generate the solution to Anthropogenic Climate Change is to worsen it until it becomes an existential threat to the species.

From the point of view of an acc/acc, by contributing to the degradation or instability of Earth's climate, you are forwarding the cause of climate science more effectively. You are generating the very stimulus required to create the solution, because no amount of public or private funding to a research institution will create innovation if there is no motivator towards research. Capital-S Science does not just throw shit at a wall to see what sticks, it focuses energy on solving problems and answering questions; from most urgent to least urgent. If your focus, ethically, is the promotion of scientific advancement, you by definition want scientists to be working towards a goal, and if you want a particular goal to be worked on, you need to give people a reason to work on it. The best reasons are threats. The best threats are those that levy the highest stakes.

What higher a stake than the fate of the species?

Note that this is NOT climate denial. The acc/acc here has fully admitted that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a real problem, a problem we are making worse by the day, but not bad enough for a critical mass of people to care enough to want to fix it yesterday.

At this point, one could say Enter Ancap and take the position that unrestrained capitalism is the most effective means of creating the climate crisis necessary to fix climate change, but I don't think this is necessary. There are statist answers to this challenge; I can imagine Mexico taking its nationalized petroleum industry and using legislation to force it to be as eco-hostile as possible, then taking the profits and dumping them into climate research institutions. There is no mandatory economic component to this ideology: so long as you make the damage bad enough, the scientific community will produce technology to reverse the effects of the damage you're doing, how you arrive at this point is ideologically inconsequential.

There is no mandatory utopian component here either, to be clear. The acc/acc doesn't need to believe that fixing the climate will bring about some sort of ideal human society in order to want to fix the climate, but I suspect that the primary motivator, ethically speaking, for any genuine acc/accs will be this belief.

I am terrified to think that in the near future, this sort of applied doomerism might become politically feasible to hold unironically. There are enough scientifically literate revolutionaries (I use that word very loosely here) hanging out in polcompball-flavored coffee shops—I think the kids call them "Discord servers"—for this to catch on eventually given the general distrust in academia and the scientific community at large in the current era, so I will not be surprised when banners reading "tree-huggers for deforestation" start showing up in Lafayette Park.

[kemregik]

I was recently confronted with a perspective on relationship dynamics I hadn't really grappled with before.

It's still ruminating in my mind, and I think the word I was looking for to describe what I'm trying to avoid from my perspective is "performative." I don't want expressions of devotion or loyalty in a relationship to be performative in regards to the general public because they are not the intended audience for said expressions. If these things are done with the general public as the intended audience, it suddenly becomes meaningless in my mind, because the person it's supposed to mean something to is suddenly not the person you're doing it for.

Day collars were the object of contention in the original conversation, objects that to me, are meant to be discreet, inconspicuous, or wholly unseen by any passersby on the street. Using the example of a simple steel chain worn low and under clothing; in my conception, this is an object worn on one's person for oneself and the gifter. Like a wedding band for the religious, it's meaningfulness comes from its subtlety. To that end, criticism is commonly directed at those who use the wedding band as an vessel for opulence. Relationships aren't supposed to be status symbols, after all.

But therein lied the challenge, that my view was, of course, not universal. There are indeed a number of people for whom relationships are indeed representative of a change of status (especially those who, contrary to the norm, engage in monogamous dynamics) that does necessitate public display (I had described it as "broadcast" but this was objected to) in order for that change in status to be meaningful or otherwise complete. The counterexample here being a necklace displaying a name (or other personal identifier), worn high on the neck so as to not be obscured by clothing.

In my mind, such a display is tantamount to inviting the public into your bedroom by allowing the gory details of your relationship to be tied to the Record Of All Things. However, there is something to be said about this reaction of mine being the product of a deep-rooted desire to keep a strict separation of my public life from my private existence, as well as my extreme (bordering on obsessive) paranoia about the two intersecting. It's very possible that others simply do not experience this separation, and that for them, the distinction is unnecessary, meaningless, or unintuitive in some other way, as alien as this might be to my observation.

The conversation progressed into commentary on the other side of the coin, which is to say the experience of witnessing the display as an uninvolved party. On my end, the train runs in both directions: I am equally disinterested in both displaying the intimate details of my relationship to others and bearing witness to the displays of others, as there is a base discomfort associated with receiving this information. I do not want to think of strangers—let alone friends and family—in sexual terms or in a sexual context, and displays of this nature behave as infohazards in my mind. I don't think much of such boundaries, as I operate under a code-switching scheme that involves concentric circles of intimacy, where lower-level (read: more private) information is not meant to travel upwards uneuphemized, but the other party perceived this as an unwarranted restriction on their behavior. They felt that their ability to freely express themselves was being affected by my desire to not witness it.

What is there to be done about this conundrum, then? Where one party desires to maintain a clear barrier to the intimate, wishing not to think sexually of others or be thought of sexually by them, and the other party wishes to freely display themselves sexually to others and to bear witness to other's freely displayed sexuality, who has the responsibility to acquiesce? If, to the Private Man the Public is infohazardous, and to the Public Man the Private is restrictive, how does one resolve this?

At first glance, this double bind is a Chinese finger trap, where compromise leads to an armistice via a no-win scenario: the Private Man will have to withstand some level of display and the discomfort it brings, and likewise the Public Man will have to withstand some level of taciturnity and the discomfort that brings. Simultaneously, both parties have half of their desires met in allowing the violation of the other half; the Public Man can display but cannot be privy, and the Private Man can refuse to divulge but cannot avoid being privy.

Maybe I'm overthinking it all. It would be on-brand for me, after all.

[kemregik]

Hate how even in femdom, which is supposed to be less misogynistic in theory, the beauty standard is still you need to look like a child. Tf????

[kemregik]

"I want three things out of my life:

1. To know for certain that my work has had real, tangible impact on a person who only knows of me through my work,

2. To know what it feels like to be loved completely and unconditionally,

3. To know at the moment of my death that I will die having made no additional blemishes to my dignity from this point on."

Repeat as needed.

[kemregik]

When all that needed to be said had been said, I said nothing more.

[kemregik]

It is easy to desire.

Want is a simple experience; no more than longing directed. An image burned into the imagination, far grander and more prone to exaggeration than mere interest or curiosity. Want is a viperous denizen, carving holes in one's psyche with identitarian pretext, as if it's truly any wiser than its host.

Of course, on many occasions it is, and the host is left rotting in the squalor of rabid desire, no longer adorable but rather pernicious in its autodebaucherous disposition. You become little more than a vessel for it, that unguided and unrestrained engine of animosity.

One ought want nothing, then, it would seem, so as to retain oneself over whatever there is to obtain. Were it so easy, who would testify to it all?

[kemregik]

other than to tell me who is calling if i ask do not touch my phone. like ever.

i didn't understand my friend's behaviour over which we had a disagreement so i'm seeking opinions

[kemregik]

I've come to realize that I hate you not because I think you're stupid, but because you're one of the most emotionally intelligent people I know and somehow this doesn't give you the ability tell when you're being emotionally manipulated.

How is it that you can spend all of five minutes speaking with someone to discern with incredible accuity when and how they're being abused or manipulated, but you can't tell that your partner is cheating on you? How is it that you can experience deep, intimate moments of empathy towards the suffering of others but not notice when someone is engineering your social interactions? How is it that you can synthesize complex commentary on the musings of political figures but you can't tell when the news media you watch is produced with spin and bias?

I find it incredible that you can view people so critically and with such fine resolution, but you cannot see the rest of the world with the same. Like a strange psychological near-sightedness, where scrutiny becomes exponentially harder to apply the more detached you are from the manipulation in question. This would overshadow your duplicitousness if I hadn't been a direct target of it, making me unsure that others who have not yet seen what you have shown me are aware that the rest constitutes a pattern. It may be that this one facet is the thread that sews this pretentious quilt of "quirks" (I'm using this in the pejorative, take that as you will) you call a personality.

I might hate more that I can even dedicate words to you on the matter, given how you behave. Nevertheless, the River Vitriol—least serene of all nature's gems—demands that the dam give way, and so it does. Maybe I wouldn't care if I hadn't gotten so close. Maybe what I saw before was a trick of the light, and what I see now is what's always been.

Maybe I just hate you.

[kemregik]

untitled

Go on, and hurry!

The flash, sacred light of hope, escapes you!

I see it reflect in your eyes, your one true love

One true obsession, one true purpose.

Fly fast, fly true!

Just when you think it's gotten away

There, in the distance, a new passion!

Change course, change direction.

Stop, look, listen!

Even the rumble of thunder excites you now

Fills you with hope to find its father

To bottle him once and for all.

Pay the voices no mind!

Explosions, gunfire, a heart's “Open” sign

They're all the same, all worth your time

Better to hedge your bets on distance.

Follow your dreams!

Waking up will halt your progress, so close your eyes

Become who you've always wanted to be

A painted lighthouse, a canary nightlight

Goodbye! Farewell!

The storm has passed over my home and gone with the wind

And so do you, as everyone told me you would

How could anyone befriend a distracted firefly?

[kemregik]

My body aches.

My feet ache.

My head hurts.

I'm hungry, but too tired to eat.

I said "thank you" to hundreds of people who didn't need to be thanked.

I said "I'm sorry" to hundreds of people who should've known better.

I accepted a bribe to ignore a rule I was already ignoring because I had been told to ignore it.

I got paid to watch others have the fun I wish I could have.

I laughed and told jokes with people who will never remember seeing my face.

I was cheated out of four fist fights, but still called for backup the moment I thought I'd be involved in one.

I stood out in the rain to make sure others couldn't get dry.

I stood out of the rain to make sure others wouldn't get wet.

I couldn't hear anything over the radio, and I had nothing to say.

If I was any dumber, I'd be more excited.

If I was any wiser, I'd be more terrified.

[kemregik]

Anything the State requires me to do should not come at a cost to me personally. If I will be thrown in prison for not doing it, I should not have to pay to do it.

It is insane that I have to pay any amount of money to file the paperwork to get a new sticker on the license plate of my car under threat of imprisonment.

[kemregik]

If a Mr. Big scheme is convincing a person to do unlawful things for lawful purposes by constructing a fake criminal organization around law enforcement action, then a police department is a Reverse Mr. Big scheme in that it convinces people to do lawful things for unlawful reasons by constructing fake law enforcement action around a criminal organization.

edit: note that when I say "police department" I mean "corrupt police department" but in this country, making that distinction is redundant.

[kemregik]

Nimiamicia

[nih-mee-ah-mih-see-uh] (n.) - sorrow or lament felt for having misjudged the emotional investment of another in a friendship, relationship, or other social interaction.

[kemregik]

The Absurdity of Highschool DxD, Explained (by someone who's watched the show more times than can possibly be healthy)

The whole premise of the plot is that God Is Dead and so the world is sorta in No Rules Mode™. The reason the Three Factions come together is because with God being dead, they risk their domain over Earth being challenged by a third party that just attacks Heaven while they're weak.

To this end, as soon as the peace treaty is signed, the governments of Heaven and Hell suddenly become diplomatic entities with the other Pantheons, mainly because of the threat that the Khaos Brigade represents to EVERYONE with their trippple stacked dummy oatmeal thicc supercombo crossover nyan-powered GI Joe-lookin' ass Marine Marauders type spec-ops black-ops god-killing freak power team setup. Azazel and his Grigori are sorta subsumed under the authority of Sirzechs Lucifer (this use of Lucifer is a title, he's of the Gremory Clan), as the Governor-General is serving as personal mentor to the Heir-Apparent of the Throne of Hell. The non-Grigori Fallen Ones are just sort of treated as an errant and perennial nuisance that Azazel has mostly covered. Katerea, Shalba, and the rest of the Old Satan Faction are dead and the remaining Magicians are scattered. The Powers in the Domain of the God of The Bible (yes that's his canon name) are, at the current state of the canon, essentially a unified entity as far as any other Pantheons are concerned.

We know precisely how God died, too: the legendary dragons Ddraig and Albion. Those motherfuckers went so hard in the paint with each other that God himself became collateral damage.

Heaven's solution to this, of course, was to gang up on the dragons when they were too busy looking at each other and break them—and most of their relatives—up into pieces and seal them in the Sacred Gears. They can't kill them, since the dragons are pretty much on par with God as sort of "Primordial Powers," so this is the next best option. The Scared Gear system, itself a glitch in God's initial creation of mankind, was sort of a band-aid fix for Heaven, though. Humans are, themselves, inferior and limited in their ability to harness the full effect of the Sacred Gears, but the dragons inhabiting these Sacred Gears, the 13 Pieces of Longinus, in particular technically do have the power to Kill God:™. The trade for Heaven was:

PRO: Generally, wielders of Longinus pieces will not be able to make use of the full extent of the power, and the worst ones are essentially fated to kill each other because of this primordial Grudge that exists between many of the dragons. The vast majority of them will be relegated to important figures of human history (Jesus is said to have been a Sacred Gear user, note that what killed him was, within the canon of the story, True Longinus, the literal spear used to kill Jesus in the Bible (commentary on whether this confirms or denies Jesus as the Messiah is a conversation for another day)).

BUT

CON: You have to keep a fucking eye on the humans, though, because humans can Ascend (which occurs at the whims of and according to the rules of the Holy System, which is mostly frozen in the organizational state it was in when God died until the Brave Saints system is devised), be Reborn as Devils, or (very rarely) breed with them and the Fallen Ones and produce Overpowered Humans™ that can indeed pose a very real threat.

So for the most part, the Domain was stable for a millennium or three. However, suddenly, just as each of the Three Factions are barely recovered from the MASSIVE losses they all suffered during the War in Heaven, you have the following things happening in extreme concentration (one borough of the small city of Kuoh, Japan):

Vali Lucifer, last remaining member of the Lucifer Clan (and by corollary, the most valid claimant to the Throne of Hell), is discovered to be the wielder of Divine Dividing (Longinus 6) and therefore the current White Dragon Emperor. He teams up with,

Azazel, Governor-General of the Grigori, who is in the process of hoarding Sacred Gears for the purposes of creating an Artificial Longinus and also killing his most unstable lieutenant, Kokabiel, only to be doublecrossed when,

Bikou (descendant of Sun Wukong and current Moneky King), Kuroka (rogue cat-spirit uber-devil and Hell's Public Enemy #1), Arthur Pendragon (wielder of Holy Sword Caliburn, the Sword in the Stone), Fenrir, LeFay Pendragon (little sister of Arthur and high-powered Magician), and Gogmagog (legendary British Giant) are all working with Vali just as,

Rias Gremory, who is rumored to be just as if not more powerful than her big brother Sirzechs Lucifer, is nearly done completing her peerage, made up of:

Issei Hyoudou, an emotionally unstable and extremely difficult to predict teenager, who is found to be the wielder of Boosted Gear (Longinus 5) and the current Red Dragon Emperor

Asia Argento, recent Church heretic and wielder of Sacred Gear Twilight Healing

Kiba Yuuto, sole survivor of the Holy Sword Project and wielder of Sacred Gear Sword Birth

Koneko Toujou, little sister of Kuroka and equally powerful cat-spirit

Akeno Himejima, daughter of Baraqiel (Vice Governor-General of the Grigori)

Gasper Vladi, half-dhampir (daywalker vampire) and wielder of Sacred Gear Forbidden Balor View (unevolved form of Aeon Balor, New Longinus 3 (which makes it Longinus 16)) and,

Xenovia Quarta, wielder of Holy Sword Durandal just as,

Ophis, Dragon God of Infinity, is betrayed by,

The Hero Faction, made up of

Cao Cao, wielder of True Longinus (Longinus 1)

Georg, wielder of Dimension Lost (Longinus 4)

Jeanne, wielder of Sacred Gear Blade Blacksmith

The current Heracles, wielder of Sacred Gear Variant Detonation

The current Connla, wielder of Sacred Gear Night Reflection

The current Perseus, wielder of Sacred Gear Aegis Mineralization, and,

Marsillo, wielder of Sacred Gear Dreamlike Curse

This massive concentration of power during an unstable political period is the source of the primary background conflict of DxD. And it's all wasted on tits. For 4 seasons.