#from the framework of ‘species evil’

[gossyreblogs]

I mean. Every single time (of the examples provided) Star Trek ITSELF has then dug into why “species evil” doesn’t work.

star trek will be like THIS time we have created the ontologically evil species of aliens that exist only to be hated. and its so stupid every single time. klingons borg jem'hadar and now the freaking gorn am i missing any. it is never going to work or be narratively satisfying in a show like star trek to have The Evil Species CAN we stop trying

[walks-the-ages]

let's play a game.

Biological Essentialism/Determinism can be summed up as, in the most simplified way, "what you are born as intrinsically determines your behavior and destiny".

"Gender Essentialism" uses the exact same framework but with a thin veneer of "trans inclusivity" slapped on top, to say that while your biology does not determine who you are, your gender identity does. Even before you realize you are trans or come out of the closet.

Under the framework of "Gender Essentialism" you're viewed as being X gender and somehow getting all of those 'benefits' from society even before you realize or come out as X gender.

So, some examples:

W is a member of a sentient Fantasy Race who is created to be Ontologically Evil. W being born into this Fantasy Race means that W is destined to be Evil and cruel no matter what and W and the rest of W's race will never ever be able to change their Evil ways.

X is assigned Female at birth. X is expected to be subservient, loyal to a single husband, and want to have children. X is expected to want these things from an early age and can and will be ostracized if X expressed any disinterest in these things or opposite behavior to the things expected of X's gender. (not wanting kids, not being interested in men, etc)

Y is assigned Male at birth. Y is expected to be fierce, strong, and to father many strong sons. Y is expected to want these things from an early age and can and will be ostracized if Y expresses any disinterest in these things or opposite behavior to the things expected of Y's gender. (being physically weak, not minding having daughters instead of sons, not being interested in women, etc)

Z is born into a strict caste system, and is born in the lowest caste. Z is expected to spend Z's whole life serving those 'better' than Z without recompense or complaint, with *no* possible avenue to advance in society due to the caste system.

This is inspired both by the wave of trans inclusive radical feminists who say that

"because trans men are of course men, that means they are inherently evil and oppressive and part of the patriarchy that seeks to tear trans women down."

and also because I've seen too many fantasy and scifi series way too comfortable with making Ontologically Evil Species and strictly enforced Caste Systems where everything is fine and dandy and everyone's happy with their lot in life as long as the ones with a caste system are the

"Beautiful, Pure and Good Elves, because as we all know, Happy Slaves aren't really Slaves, right? And if the Ruler has the Divine Right of Kings and all the little people think that's good, that makes it good, right?" (sarcasm).

If you've ever considering giving your fantasy or scifi race as 'caste' system that determins who does what based on their lineage or their body type and its apparently 'good and natural and everyone loves being their caste and wouldn't have it any other way'

....have you considered that Caste Systems have always been used as tools of oppression and discrimination and this is something real people face, and that we should not be writing "good caste systems" from the comfort of Western Society and perhaps consider the harm in romanticing these very real frameworks of systemic oppression?

Anyways, both in literature and real life:

do you agree that Biological Essentialism, Biological Determinism, and yes, "Trans-Inslusive Gender Essentialism" are ever correct and a good framework for viewing other people?

Or do you agree that this is an absolutely bullshit way to view individuals and that all it does is uphold systems of oppression, especially when it comes to queer people, people of color, disabled people, intersex people and more?

anyways just gonna leave you with this gif.

[ID: a gif from Pokemon the Movie 2000, showing Mew and Mewtwo floating over a battlefield, with Mewtwo having the realization "I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are." End ID]

[techramonic]

The Culture in Morality: Dylan Klebold Journal Analysis, 2.

Below is a quote from Dylan's journal that stands out to me. The first part: the evidence of desperation to cleanse impurities. With this, I can garner that Dylan seems to have a deluded sense of morality. Second: It looks like he is trying to blend in with the general population. It’s not only him who thinks this way, so do other individuals. It’s as if he is trying to attain unity or solidarity from the act of “cleansing himself morally”. Moreso, attempting to be "human". 

Humanity: Ethics and Morality

According to Emile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology, morality reflects the organization of society and binds it together. It serves as an agent that bridges the divide between individuals. Morality, in essence, consists of principles distinguishing between good and bad.

Charles Darwin’s "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," published in 1871, asserts:

“I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important.”

Since then, an influx of questions has arisen regarding the relative importance of culture and biology in determining morality. Whether the moral sense is derived from either of two aspects:

the moral rules humans accept as behavioral guides (assessing right or wrong); or

the biological basis of ethics (consciousness of actions and consequences)

Ethics has an established difference from morality. It is the notion of doing a rather practical or pragmatic action, while morality is the idea of being driven to do good. An ethical code does not have to be moral to be justified, but must be feasible or convenient. This means that as long as an idea is practical, whether it is considered to be good or bad, it is ethical.

In an essay by Francisco J. Ayala titled "The Difference of Being Human: Morality," he proposes that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, while moral codes are products of cultural evolution. Ethical behavior is a byproduct of man's intellectual prowess—a nurtured quality fostered by natural selection. Morality did not emerge as an adaptation but as an exaptation, developing into a function different from its original purpose. This is explained by the presence of three biological conditions for ethical behavior that allow humans to have a moral sense: ability to anticipate the consequences of one’s actions, to make value judgments, and to choose between alternative courses of action.

Moral codes, compared to Ethical codes, are outcomes of cultural evolution, accounting for the diversity of cultural norms among populations and their evolution over time. People accept standards according to which their conduct is judged as either right or wrong, good or evil. These norms vary, however, some norms, such as do not kill, are widespread and perhaps universal. This explanation suggests that while it is inherent to be ethical, morality arises from cultural and sociological factors created out of normative behavior. From this, we can assert that humans all inherently have the ethics that guide them throughout their lives. What makes them interconnected however is the presence of morality that acts as a framework to keep them bonded together and functioning.

Moral Exclusion

With that, it is easy to say that humans are human because of biological factors that distinguish them from the animalia kingdom. However, we can also observe that humans also deny others of the capability of being human even if we are from the same species. Time and time again, we can observe that humans are susceptible to dehumanizing others. So really, why is that?

Most cases, we confer personhood upon each other when we criticize others using a sort of check-list: morality. It is technically a learned culture that allows us to be bonded together and function as an entire whole. What I do, you do, and vice-versa. However, not always can it unite us because other times it can also alienate others. Sometimes, distorting morality itself by using it as a tool to exclude those who do not fit into certain categories of moral preference.

Since it is a culture that evolves through time, there are aspects of it that are different from individual to individual and culture to culture. This means that what can be bad can also be good to others and vice-versa. Not everything is in one standard that's applicable to all because not everything is practical for everyone. Ethically speaking, when we acknowledge other people’s complexities outside the standard black-and-white "good or bad " spectrum, we feel more connected. We realize that we are human because we have the ability to rationalize and do what is pragmatic.

Dylan’s Difference and Indifference

Dylan believed he was outside the norm, devoid of humanity, and different from everyone else. He was ethical in the sense that he understood the consequences of his actions and could make determinations about them. He knew the consequences of taking lives and taking his own life. With this, it is already enough to consider him as human. He could rationalize, therefore he is human.

One of the reasons why he does not feel that he is human is because he lacks the connection others have. Morality being a culture has brought people together and as I have previously stated, also excludes others. I believe that he subscribed to the belief that to be human, one must be moral so they could fit in with society. This creates an internal conflict. Humans are no strangers to latching unto vices because to them, it is pragmatic. We smoke, we drink, and we do things others consider immoral because we think it helps us.

With morality, a tangible framework is provided for achieving a purpose. It is an established system that offers a good reason to quit vices in exchange for acceptance. Dylan sees this difference as a weapon hindering him from being included. He acts like others to be accepted and, supposedly, be happy with this acceptance.

[abracadav-r]

I'm gonna write a bit today about something I was in @/mystxmomo's dms about last night: a section I do like from the Tome of Foes and some thoughts about those things.

Namely, the talk about the "cycle of reincarnation".

There's been a lot of takes on the War of the Seledrine in the past that I am not fond of. Whether it be "cursing them with black skin to mark their status as traitors" or "gold elves do similar evil to the drow but despite this being known they're not perceived as a problem" or "some that didn't get touched by demon blood (none of those red eyed ones gross) can be allowed to do a special magic that allows them to be treated like people again rather than npcs you can freely kill without feeling bad about it (they get to go to elf heaven)."

Another lack of fondness is the cartoonish level of evil that Lolth is ascribed to in those lines of thought. It is her fault this war is still going, everyone's mad she's cavorting with demons. Ignore our gold elves doing the same and wracking the entire world multiple times about it. And trying to counterbalance it with "the one good drow god" who is pretty much described from the get-go as seeing her brother irrevocably corrupted and evil for the Ilythiiri kingdom, despite most of its evils being done after Lolth takes over. There's a whole period there of several thousand years that the Ilythiir were entirely in their own lane with their biggest evil being "expanding a bit too much". They were trying to get along with the dragons!

Images from the Tome of Foes begin under the cut.

As you can read, Mordenkainen takes a different tack than we've seen before in the oft-quoted Evermeet (without context that this may simply be a bardic interpretation of things). It focuses in on this as more of a "Garden of Eden" myth, where there is an irrevocable sin (a hunger for power) that is what Lolth grasps onto to try and overthrow Corellon. But what differs is that this crime falls upon all of the elves, executed as reincarnation.

In that sense, it loops back to the "eledrin" elves of 4e and the "unwilling to be resurrected" elves of 2e (Complete Book of Elves). These elves reincarnate. Sometimes immediately, sometimes after chilling in a god's realm, but they always come back and are ultimately some of the same souls that were part of the "original sin".

It goes on to discuss some caveats that might immediately pop into your head like "what about half-elves" and offers multiple explanations for that depending on your goal with flavor. There's even (see above) a section that discusses that some of those original "primal elves" left over from these creatures after some became gods may come back about. There is a direct line from then to now.

While some "fantasy racist" bits are offered like "drow don't have these dreams in trance and we think that's because they don't have souls actually" it's pretty easy to just ignore it and go to a softer version like "this is why drow choose to sleep more than their kin, they learn to as children to avoid seeing any of these visions that might sneak through Lolth's web."

This book also confronts what comes across after all these editions: it's fact that there are evil surface elves and good drow. You can't avoid this. You can't merely say "the guy with purple eyes and two scimitars is an outlier and shouldn't be counted". You can easily look around him and see that RAS confronts this nature vs nurture, coming down firmly on the side of nurture. His father, his friends, they're all not "evil" either. Jax even swaps from an evil alignment to a neutral alignment over time!

OK. Framework down; on to why I think this is actually a good thing for elven writing going forward:

This helps elves return to something that feels like a distinct species, rather than a pointy-eared human with different stat modifiers and a perk. 2e's rules about resurrection were there since that edition tried to do that sort of thing, make these species feel very distinct from each other and a meaningful choice. But the "no resurrection" thing feels like a punishing detriment in tabletop play, lore flavor is better than mechanical flavor in that sense.

Regarding the "cold war" after the War of the Seledrine, this shows why the conflict continues. Former editions leaned very heavily into "Lolth's evil" as the reason. But that falls flat when faced with the Sundering, Myth Drannor, etc. Why would Corellon allow that to exist? This offers a possibility: it's merely because their ancestors made the right choice, to stay at his side.

Further motivation is given to Corellon's role in this war. He's Zeus-like, full of rage at being pulled down with them. He's not immutable anymore, able to easily shift between all genders and forms that exist. He wants that back. His war with Lolth must continue, even if she's not directly fighting him. Because she hasn't in a while, Lolth's usually more busy antagonizing her own pantheon or trying to sockpuppet gods like Moander. Arguably, this is all for "the main course" later of this war but in terms of desire to follow through on it there's genuinely very little. With this, it's Corellon that keeps the conflict going. Even if Lolth became good, the issue still remains. The god's demand remains. They're simply anathema to each other. The war continues.

This also addresses the twins, changing the established vibe. There's a reason why she chose "father" and he chose "mother". It wasn't a choice made for them, they made it themselves. And this explains why her and her followers are still held without and punished: rather than being something that can be cleansed, it's simply something out of their power. Every elf endures this, but they still have the blessing of Corellon and his love in the form of being an elf, the closest thing to him. She didn't become a martyr that exists to go save them, because she can't. Father's angry and she can't fix it either until Lolth is dead. Maybe this will be good against their backdrop in 5e: they've communed. Accepted the other is right about some things, actually. Now they can lock in and focus on mom, rather than backstabbing each other... Assuming, of course, that the respect remains for a while.

This also explains why the Seledrine/Dark Seledrine behave rather differently than the human gods of the Realms, for example. They've always felt "closer", despite their age. Old, but more like the "new gods" of elevated mortals. It's because they were once the same as them! Every elf god can look at their elf followers and see familiar faces in their souls. They can remember living with these souls in some fey psuedo-mortality before "godhood".

Lolth can have some more realistic motivations, not the motivations of "the Big Bad". RAS having the priestesses ponder why she didn't kill purple-eyes and there being implications offered about why she doesn't crush her enemies even when presented a chance. She doesn't have to be evil manifest anymore, even if you still hold to her turning into a demon herself. Sure, she's evil, but you can find reasons that feel like "human" motivations for it. Power, since that was the promise she made to them. Rejection of the elven ways in rejection of Corellon. No "evil for evil's sake" but careful machinations in a web. She's playing the long con, or she's happy playing dolls with "her" souls because they were the ones willing to listen to her, defend her, have the same moral priorities as her. Maybe she doesn't even care for Corellon's spot anymore, he's the one keeping the war going! It's less good vs evil and more two horribly flawed and petulant, petty gods entrenched into their position that keeps them at war like this forever. Not like she's going to simply let her ex-husband kill her.

[hermitcraftheadcanons]

Skizzekai Community AU

Welcome to the land of Hermiton, a world saturated with magic in the very ground and air itself. In this AU, the hermits are adventurers, rulers of kingdoms, merchants, and more, all in the setting of a medieval-ish fantasy world. As with past community AUs, the contributions of all you headcanoners will be the driving force. But as a framework to build off, here's a summary of the key points in play at the start of our story.

THE MAGIC

Magic flows through everything in this world, with different types of it being most prevalent in different regions. The most dominant type of magic tends to be absorbed by native plants and animals, changing them to fit, so an area saturated in fire magic would be populated by fiery creatures. This includes sapient species- there are no humans in this world, but there is a staggering variety of fantastical races. Most creatures simply channel their magic through inherent traits, like enhanced speed or a breath weapon, but sapient species can additionally shape and direct their own magic for use as spells, learning and growing their skill with practice. Magical crafting and alchemy is also possible, by using the magical properties inherent in everything from a dragon's scales to the smallest of plants.

THE WORLD

Although independent towns and unclaimed land do exist, most of the world is split up into kingdoms, each one with a different magical specialty from the most dominant type of magic within their borders. One example is the kingdom ruled by Joel Smallishbeans, a king recently ascended to semi-godhood from the belief of his people and the application of his own powerful magic. The magic of this kingdom is that of fate and stories, prophecy and lore, and a recent prophecy has been particularly interesting. They say a hero must be summoned from another world, and that they will be needed to defeat a great evil.

THE SKIZZ

And here comes the titular character. Skizz Leman, a completely normal human from Earth, is brand new to this world. He's just been summoned by a man who calls himself a god, told he's the chosen one, and sent out to save the world. He has no idea how to do that.

As for the roles of other Hermits, the magic they might specialize in and the species they may be- that is all up to you! Assuming you've read the guidelines (under the cut), the fate of this AU lies in the hands of the inbox. Happy headcanoning!

Rules and guidelines:

- The end date will be announced later, when the AU feels like it has hit a natural stopping point. A post announcing the end will be made a day in advance of the inbox closing.

- After the AU closes, any remaining asks will still be posted, and discussion on the discord is still encouraged!

- Canonicity of submissions will be taken on a first come, first serve basis. If a later submission contradicts an earlier one, it will be considered an alternate and not part of the "main" AU canon.

- Alternates will be posted with [ALTERNATE] text. They will all still be posted, every idea should be seen, and discussion of alternates is encouraged on their own posts and on the discord.

- Au-related art and writing is strongly encouraged! Please tag hermitcraftheadcanons in your posts if you would like us to see and reblog it.

- Non-AU-related headcanons are still accepted, but will not be posted until all the Skizzekai asks are cleared out once the AU is over.

Thank you all for being understanding and patient about these rules. If you need clarification, feel free to ask.

[rjzimmerman]

The agency that carries out this "program" is called the Wildlife Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I hate this agency with all the passion I can generate, and have ever since I learned about it and what it does 15 years ago. It exists to murder wildlife, particularly to benefit farmers and ranchers. Long ago, someone put handle on the agency, calling it the "gopher chokers." The name fits. I have done more than a fair amount of yelling to my dead representatives in Congress and senators to dismantle the agency or change its purpose and mission.

My favorite statistic. I don't remember the year, but let's just say 2014. In that year, Wildlife Services killed about 350,000 red-winged blackbirds. Why? They were eating sunflower seeds in sunflower farms. You'd think that a sunflower farmer should be taking that risk rather than causing us taxpayers to make his profit for him, right?

Other stats. We're starting to believe that beavers need to be returned to the wild to help us with floods and drought resistance. Wildlife Services killed 24,603 beavers in 2023. Other stats for death: 525 cardinals; 68,562 coyotes; 430 black bears; 17,109 mourning doves; 6,952 cattle egrets; 1,292 red foxes; 24,744 Canadian geese (even though they are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act); 1,209 jackrabbits (four species of them); 1,981 possum; 905 robins. I could go on, but I'm going to puke. Here's the link to the chart.

Sorry about the length of this post, but it takes a while to describe pure evil.

Excerpt from this story from NPR:

The United States Department of Agriculture's [USDA’s] Wildlife Services program is a holdover from the 1930s, when Congress gave the federal government broad authority to kill wildlife at the request of private landowners. In that era, government-sponsored extermination programs for native wild animals, like wolves and grizzly bears, were common.

After the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, federal agencies were required to change course and start helping some of those wild animal populations recover. But today, Wildlife Services employees still kill hundreds of thousands of noninvasive animals a year, data from the agency shows. Even species considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act, like grizzly bears, are not exempt. So long as livestock or human life are threatened, federal rules allow Wildlife Services to kill those animals, too.

Conservationist groups have long protested the program, saying the government is killing animals at the request of private livestock owners without first presenting enough evidence to show that the management methods aren’t harming the environment, as federal law requires.

“One of the biggest issues that comes up with Wildlife Services, and where we've beaten them in court multiple times in multiple states, is the controversy of the science,” said Lizzy Pennock, an attorney for the nonprofit WildEarth Guardians. “We need to get out of the framework of the 1800s and 1900s where it's like, kill any carnivores that might be inconvenient.”

Wildlife Services officials say that with the exception of invasive species, employees only kill wild animals that attack livestock or cause damage. But data obtained by NPR indicates the program often kills native wildlife that didn’t kill or injure livestock.

NPR obtained and digitized thousands of Wildlife Services work orders from Montana, created from 2019 through 2022, and built a database that shows that the program’s employees frequently kill native wild animals without evidence of livestock loss. The documents reveal that during those three years, employees killed approximately 11,000 wild animals on Montana properties where no wildlife was recorded as responsible for killing or injuring any livestock. In those cases, only a "threat" from those wild animals was logged in the records.

The agency frequently used helicopters and planes to shoot large numbers of wild animals at a time, the documents show, a method activists consider cruel and scientists say can lead to local eradications.

Although some livestock organizations financially support part of Wildlife Services' work, individual livestock owners do not pay a fee when federal employees come to their properties. Employees are allowed to kill wild animals on those private areas as well as on public land, like state forests and parks.

“That’s a bloodbath,” said Collette Adkins, a lawyer who leads the Carnivore Conservation program at the Center for Biological Diversity. “That just seems like yahoos with rifles killing everything they see that moves. It’s horrible to imagine the amount of suffering involved there.”

“Of all wildlife encountered in FY 2023, Wildlife Services lethally removed 5.14%, or approximately 1.45 million, from areas where damage was occurring. Invasive species accounted for 74.2% (1,079,279) of the wildlife lethally removed,” a representative wrote.

An NPR analysis of those reports shows that Wildlife Services killed more than 370,000 noninvasive animals across the country in the 2023 fiscal year. And over the past nine years, Wildlife Services killed 30 threatened grizzly bears and at least 1,500 gray wolves in states where they were otherwise supposed to receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, like in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

But the reports don’t reveal the names of the livestock owners that use Wildlife Services. That’s to protect the privacy of people in the agriculture industry, the agency has said. Wildlife Services also doesn’t disclose in those reports how many wild animals were killed by federal employees on public land.

[prof-ramses]

Bee is really the most evil, when you think about it - written by a Mammon kinnie

Now, I know this is gonna read like me being a Mammon apologist (because I am) but this is something I've been meaning to bring to light for a while now. I believe that Beelzebub is the most evil Sin, at least of the ones we've seen so far.

Bee might seem very approachable and friendly, but this is exactly what makes that much worse than she otherwise would be.

The main thing here is the hellhound pound system, which is, at least in my eyes, the most horrific piece of worldbuilding we've gotten in the series. An entire sentient species being treated like pets and kept in squalled conditions within a framework created and overseen by their ruler and likely creator, someone who is for all intents and purposes, their god.

Thought not confirmed, it's implied hounds that age out of the system are just straight up euthanized. Again, this has yet to be confirmed, but it definitely doesn't help Beelze's case.

And what exactly becomes of Gluttony-born hellhounds who survive the pounds and get adopted? Why their love bombed with parties where their "benevolent" mistress uses their positive emotions to make a substance that can form dependency in demons the way alcohol can in humans just so she's even better off. Either that or they end up adopted by someone who just uses them as expendable muscle.

At this point I'm sure someone is saying that Mammon is still worse, and they'll likely point to the general state of Greed, being a polluted over-industrialized mess. But this just raises another point in my favor.

Unlike Mammon, who's upfront about only caring about his citizens' money, Bee puts on the persona of being a ruler of the people, not above them. She makes Gluttony seem so idyllic while also basing a contender for Hell's most deplorable enterprise out of it.

Beelzebub is such an adept manipulator that she gets Loona to come out of her shell, when Loona's closed of nature was spawned from her trauma that Bee's pounds are responsible for in the first place! For all we know, this also applies to Vortex, I mean, something had to blind him in one eye, perhaps a fight with a former cellmate?

And worst of all, she herself doesn't seem consciously aware of it, she may genuinely see nothing wrong with the conditions her subjects live in, likely because she judges their quality of life based on their "vibes" at her parties.

I just want to end this saying that I don't hate Bee, nor do I think Vivienne intended for people to infer these things, knowing her, it's likely she just didn't fully consider the implications while writing. But it is still a valid interpretation of Beelzebub's character based on what we presently know about her.

[frashokereti]

My Journey to Zoroastrianism, Part I:

Hello followers! My aim with this blog is to introduce Zoroastrianism to all those who are interested with a unique twist- my own journey, step by step, into the faith of my ancestors in the context of a post-COVID modernity. In this blog I share my insights, translate events into a Zoroastrian framework, discuss the faith and philosophy of Zoroastrianism, and my own personal journey and struggles in adopting this faith and allowing me to understand the world around me. It is my hope that followers can find themselves in my experiences and hopefully derive some benefit from learning about the world through the Mazdayasna lens.

In a world largely dominated by Abrahamic traditions, Greco-Roman philosophy, existentialism and continental philosophy, and of course secular ideologies like liberalism and Marxism, it can be difficult to view phenomena outside of these lenses. For many, the realities of modernity had led to a loss of meaning and purpose, and an unfulfilling life. In helping you all understand the Mazdaean philosophy, it is my hope to help people find this meaning and order. It is not meant for everyone, but for those who find this journey worthwhile, I offer my respect and share my joy. And while many see no validity to the metaphysical and spiritual in the age of machines and code, there is still something to be learned from Zoroastrian as a way of life and a philosophy- even if one does not want to believe in the cosmological. For me, I found this most helpful.

My journey to Zoroastrianism has imbued my life with a sense of purpose and an ethical basis by which to understand the problems of humankind and today's confusion as well as my own inner struggles. As they say in the Zoroastrian tradition, the cosmic battle between Asha and Druj occur not only in the world of Getig, our material reality- they also occur in our inner psyche. The cosmic battle between order and chaos, truth and the lie, righteousness and evil, is just ass much in our hearts and minds as it is all around us. And we are tasked to make meaning of this and partake on both fronts. Throughout this journey I will refer to Zoroastrian phenomena and concepts in both symbolic form, tying them to real-world phenomena, and in lore-form, respecting the faith as-is.

A turning point in my life was in the years of 2020-2024. Much happened here that made me reach a limit of sorts. The best way I can describe it is that my soul and mind were worn out. I was raised a Christian, but had a falling out with the faith in my late teens and into my twenties. I became an atheist in the era of the New Atheist movement, voraciously reading Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris. I found that divorcing myself of my juvenile understanding of God and the Cosmos was liberating, and though surrendering to an unknown void was terrifying at the time, I slowly felt less of a need for faith, belief in an afterlife, or deity in my life. I still, during that time, was not acutely acquainted with mortality, and I was surrounded by negative influences that imbued me with a sense of despair and pessimism. I saw that without this guiding light, I could continue to live on an ethical basis of humanism, but as I got to know humans more- our psyches, our systems, our motivations, and the true nature of history- I realized humanity as a species is deeply flawed and in many ways not redeemable. I found myself seeing the point in Christianity's concept of sin and repentance. My foundation of humanism was challenged when I learned to challenge my inner narratives that I was a good person, I learned that much evil occurs when people believe they are right and others are wrong. I realized our minds lie to us, they protect us with defense mechanisms designed to justify our selfish interests while convincing us we are inherently good and those that are antithetical to us are wrong.

I believed in naive notions of progress, fostered by Enlightenment thinking. Deep down I believed in progress not just historically, but personally. I believed as long as I kept trying to perfect myself, rid myself of trauma and flaws, process emotions and develop a sense of worldly maturity, that the world will accept me, that I'll finally fit in. I had this wrong-headed belief in experts and authorities, believing that the world was just, had an order and expectation to it, a rhythm of propriety, and if I just brought myself up to par, the world would be easier. I was dead wrong in this as events of the past several years taught me our world is anything but just and ordered in its current form, that experts are often pushing angles and just as imperfect as we are, that the true nature of the human application of justice and law is deeply biased and imperfectible, and that blind belief in progress makes us unthinking followers. I also saw society going in many directions that I felt were puzzling, and ultimately saw that society as a whole had no answer to global injustice, and that we are all partaking in it. This stirred something in me. I could no longer use humanism as an ethical basis to live my life. It placed too much faith and hope in our imperfect species and world, and it masked raw self-interest, political motivations and prejudices. I realized then that what I needed was to find something rooted in an ideal we ought to aspire to.

[victorlincolnpine]

I've noticed that when people get to the topic of morality, it's defined as this thing that humanity collectively nurtures through all of history. That in our early days our understanding of right and wrong was infantile, but now we today stand as "educated" people who "know better" than those before us.

It's this idea that drives the concept that we as people today are morally superior to those of yesterday, and that the horrific behaviors of people from history are simply "a product of their time".

This to me is an idea that's all at once ignorant, reductive, and to a great extent incredibly fucking racist.

It takes the idea of human morality and how we grow as people through our lives and applies it to an uncountable multitude of people who all grew up and learned right from wrong, doing so in a way that voids all their growth and all that they learned.

"The people of the ancient past just weren't as developed as us" this idea would argue. "Let bygones be bygones, because the vile and the evil were not so evil in comparison to everyone else back then, and the people that stood up to them were defying their times, they're from our time. Our better, more developed society".

Need I mention that the very idea that we as a society are simply better than another society is the root of how imperialism takes root in a society?

It's to the exact same reality-devoid extent that we see people lamenting a past that never was in the form of actual self-proclaimed Nazis lamenting the fall of the Roman Empire.

If you look at history, you do not see a species growing and becoming more kind over time. No, instead we see people in their inflated arrogance proclaiming themselves to be "better" than somebody else. More "developed" than somebody else. We see the same racist shit as from 40 years ago, with absolutely nothing changed except the technology through which they might broadcast their racism.'

In our yesterdays we see genocides and people rallying behind a "superior race" and in our today we see the same things. With some of the names not even changed. And our tomorrows will feature the same old shit unless we cast aside our arrogance and the idea that humanity's growth to a more inclusive and accepting social framework is simply an inevitable factor of time.

We will not see that brighter tomorrow by sitting here and musing about how great things will be. We will of course see the dystopias of our nightmares if we wallow in our self-importance and self-pity.

For no better example, look to Gaza. Look to people being slaughtered like animals, no different than the Holocaust of yesterday.

We got there by pretending the world will get better with time and without our interference.

Those people we look to as examples of how humanity "naturally" trends towards goodness? They're the fucking reason why humanity is a little better than before. And they were ordinary people too.

And those people we deem as less developed socially and morally? They included those heroes we look up to. I would argue that our yesterdays have already seen moral epiphanies that make our current social structures that we hold in such regard look like the actual manifestation of Hell itself.

No, the people in our history were not perfect. But we aren't either. We're no better than them.

And that means if they can fight for equality or wear the boots of tyranny, so too can we.

[alephskoteinos]

Easily the most embrassing thing about the fact that LaVeyan Satanists (or any Satanist to be found in "the libertarian right") base even part of their worldview on Ayn Rand is actually just the fact that Rand herself was, above all else, a moralist. Yes, Rand and her followers did indeed espouse "selfishness" as a virtue, but the only way they could bring themselves to do it is within the framework of what is essentially moralism. Think about the fact that the Randians/Objectivists constantly feel the need to define themselves against the idea that individualism means "I do what I want", and constantly feel the need to define themselves against thinkers like Nietzsche or Stirner. Rand in fact opposed Nietzschean egoism because she thought it was "subjectivism" and that it interpreted any action as "good" if it was meant to satisfy one's own desires, and naturally favoured "Apollonian rationality" over the Dionysian principle.

There's also an essay called Counterfeit Individualism, which was written by Nathaniel Branden and published by Ayn Rand, in which Branden opposed Nietzschean and Stirnerian egoisms while actually claiming that "altruists and collectivists" want people to think of egoism as "doing what I want" in order to control them. Instead, of course, Branden argues that individualism must be based on a rational ethical principle based on moral rights. The thing you have internalise from all of this is that Randian philosophy is, fundamentally, and above all else, a species of moralism. Realise that, and you will become aware that the standard objections to Rand and Randian philosophy actually fail to understand this aspect, and thus fail to understand the nightmare of capitalist austerity as the product of moralistic and ascetic accumulation.

It is exactly this ascetic morality of accumulation - which, if you think about it, isn't at all divorced from Kantian morality or Protestant Christianity - that is the real nature of how Rand and her followers define "selfishness". Of course, the implications should be rather embarassing for the Church of Satan and really any Satanist still following LaVey's example on Rand. Simply put, basing your Satanism on Rand is nothing more than a concession to the ascetic morality of Christian rationalism.

But the evasion of this fact is not only a product of ignorance. It also helps to preserve the dominant moralistic worldview, in which egoism must be always subordinated to the will of society, and therefore the control that societies can exert over individuals. Needless to say, progressives are entirely complicit in this project, by refusing to locate the affects of Randian capitalism as products of Randian morality in favour of recourse to libidinal greed and thus abstract "selfishness" (and therefore ontological evil). In reality, capitalist austerity has always regarded expenditure as an ideological and moral failure, for the same reason that Christians denied the satisfaction of the sex prnciple and the same basic reason that Kant argued that pleasure should be suspended by reason. The Objectivist concept of "altruism" is really nothing more than expenditure, and there's nothing unselfish about expenditure.

Bottom line: Rand and the Objectivists are simply moralists who want to be selfish, want to be egoists, and actually believe that they are selfish individualists who have broken free from the slave morality of society, when really they have failed to be egoistic because they have failed to break away from the confines of morality. Rand was always nothing more than someone who needed permission to be selfish or to be an egoist, and the difference is that, instead of the authority of God, she requires the authority of Reason. This is the primary difference between Randians and Christians, besides the sheer blinding arrogance of the Objectivists.

[papabirdurskeks]

I'd like to know your opinion on a thought surrounding the precursors I had. A lot of people have speculated that unveiling has been retconned or is just witness propaganda, but I posit that unveiling is a Theodicy, an explanation as to why there is evil in the world when something as powerful as a god exists, [the traveler, the veil, paracausality at large]

This would also mean that, compared to a Christian framework, the terraformer at the beginning of entelechy [I've only just began reading] is something akin to a theological Satanist in the eyes of precursor society

To be honest, I am very much in the same boat with you when it comes to the thoughts surrounding Unveiling.

It feels to make more sense to view it as a probable religious text of sorts for whomever created the book than to just simply keep it in the dark as a lore drop of Character A and B interacting in full. And the more I look into it, the more it feels as such. At least, in my eyes it does. And that is pretty normal to have in a universe where lore and world building are as big as this. Little bits and pieces of an unknown culture/society may have written this text to again, as you said, explain the existence of evils and chaos in this universe as there is a means that there are blessings, miracles, etc. After all, the Traveler was always deemed as a sort of god and religious figure of sorts among various species in Destiny. What's to say that other things or entities similar to the Traveler could not be viewed in the same light? Sentient species, by heart, will always want a sort of logical explanation to the unknown, especially when an answer can't be proven or given scientifically or by any means that a truthful answer will make sense to them.

Plus, as mentioned before, if like a religious text and people within Precursor society having issue with what they say or read, it is akin to our society and how we hold religions in general too. The proposed terraformer could either be viewed in light more akin to an atheist or agnostic as opposed to a Satanist if making comparison to human society and its views on religion. But again, we get so little and few lore drops in between that it's really hard to make out exactly what is truly going on in full!

Sadly, people are very quick to jump to conclusions of it being one or the other, but they also tend to forget that some things WILL change in a story line over the course of ten years BUT Bungie does have a plan for a good chunk of their lore and what is connected here and there. And while I myself am still not 100% on what to really think of the whole thing, I like to leave it up to interpretation and make the best of what I can get out of it. And with recent lore drop from Bungie, it does pose a lot of interesting and probable information of Precursor society, though I do have a few knit picks here and there about some of its set up. But that's just me, haha.

Whatever the real reason is behind this lore book, I am sure there is much more than meets the eye. OR maybe it's not that deep and we are being fooled and blindsided by the surprise we may encounter later down the line? And that, to me, is what makes unraveling the lore of this universe so fascinating overall! You never quite know what might happen!

There still is a lot of time to wait between us and the Final Shape! Plus, whatever else happens after that we may get! It's all in the matter of patience.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, anon! Always fun to think and chat on the possibilities of lore!

[primordialchoice]

Character Stat Framework

Name: Lilith

Nickname(s): Lil, Lili, Saturn, Female Leviathan, First Wife, Snake, Monster, Ghost, Primordial Woman, Proto-human, First One, Ancestress, Human, Demon, Vampire, Whore, Harlot, Wife of Harlotry, Menstruating woman, Evil Klipah, The end of all flesh, The end of days, Sinful Evil Lilith, Murderer, Child Killer, Kidnapper, Wicked, Dark Maiden, Evil Maiden, Evil Wife, Queen of the Desert etc.

Age: N/A, created as an adult, at least 6000+ years

Birthdate: N/A, celebrates her birthday randomly, tends to do it on New Years/Jan 1st (Gregorian Calendar)

Species: Primordial human, primordial demon

Gender: Cis Female

Preferred Pronoun(s): She/Her

Romantic Orientation: Grey-Aromantic

Sexual Orientation: Pansexual

Parents: None, created from the Earth by God

Siblings: None

Significant Other(s): None (verse dependent), divorced from Adam

Children: Many adopted, many dead, No living biological child (verse dependent)

Eye Color(s): Pale grey

Hair Color(s): Red (verse dependent)

Body Build: Voluptuous, lean

Height: 5'9-5'10

Tagged by: No one!

Tagging: @crowiley @darkhearthorns @fiirstnephalem @ravmalakh @handgiven

[isa-ah]

Bad writing to a T indeed

not everything needs to be expanded upon, explained, or anything. I remember seeing in one of Brandon Sanderson's writing classes the iceberg theory: the tip of the iceberg is what you show as a writer, and the rest is what you know. Yoy know the backstory, you have all the cards, but the audience doesn't need all that worldbuiling and development, both to keep the storytelling interest but also for their own amusement (big fan of fan theories)

but it's this that also annoyed me about skyward sword: they had such a specific story to tell that they sacrificed game play while coming off as amateur fanfiction IMHO. They had to have an origin story not just for the main conflict but also for the master sword, and why the tunic is green, and even why the shield has a red bird on it... It just feels unnecessary, and the further back they go in the timeline, the more they write themselves into a corner, like with TOTK

It's ironic that BOTW came as a reaction to the criticism of SS (the handholding, the railroading) but then TOTK fell right back into that trap + retconning what little story BOTW had

see i agree that you dont need to tell Everything about it, but ANYTHING would have been nice. what of the zonai got elaborated on or was relevant to the story at all, beyond draconification? which could have been done by any race or species or setting? why use the zonai, a fan favorite topic, if you have nothing interesting to say about them, their perspective, their culture, or Anything at all really? it just feels like the most hollow form of fan service to me, like filler if anything.

thats fair yeah. i never got thru skyward sword (ive tried... repeatedly lol) so i get the frustration with it. i like the story in theory, i think its cool to have a lore filled back story, but its entirely undermined by totk in a way that is irreconcilable LOL i feel that way about every story previously though. "end of the timeline" my ass, its entirely outside of the framework of ANY of the lore thats been laid out in a way that really cant be fished back i think.

having ganondorf be an established threat to the kingdom at inception, having him be evil for evils sake, after the sacred stones.. having him sealed away at the very beginning of hyrules history. thats entirely incompatible with everything down the timeline, bc ganondorfs hatred of hyrule stems from their subjugation in the desert where they lack any resources or mercy and are driven to lives of crime that is then heavily punished by the royal family. this leads to the civil war within the established kingdom in ocarina of time that kicks it all off, really. and from there its the same ganondorf all the way down.

so.. removing his reasons for attacking the royal family, and having him be an empowered threat from the very start of the kingdom makes no sense. if hes locked up, how does Anything Else happen? what was the point of any of this lol?

[yujiehuang110720]

Blog Post 1: Binary Oppositions In Films

In this blog post, I will try to explore how binary opposition works by using a concrete example of films. First, I will explain the definition of binary opposition and structuralism. Then, I will discuss their deeper meanings in the world of digital media.

Before diving into binary opposition, I want to introduce structuralism. Structuralism is a 20th-century social science theory, which focuses mainly on relationships and interactions (structures) rather than the essence of things. This theory also seeks to find universal structures or standards behind various phenomena. During the latter half of the 20th century, this approach was influential in analyzing language, culture, psychology, and societal issues.

Structuralists believe that binary opposition can effectively explain human thoughts and culture. The simple rule of “either this or that” clarifies complex concepts by dividing things into contrasts and opposites, such as beautiful vs. ugly and light vs. dark. According to Levi Strauss (1958, Structural Anthropology), all symbolic elements can be understood in binary relations, and it is important to note that any element outside this relation is meaningless. On top of this, these oppositions are unequal since the first term is often valued more than the second. For example, in good/evil  and beautiful/ugly, the former is always seen as “better” or “preferred.” Levi Strauss applied this idea to human civilization and identified various opposites: rationality vs. sensibility or science vs. myth. For him, binary structures shape the frameworks of civilization.

When it comes to cinematic work, binary opposites in narrative structures can highlight tension, create external or internal conflict, and push the plot to a higher level. A classic example is good vs. evil or order vs. chaos in superhero movies when the conflict between hero and villain serves as a binary opposition, which creates a space for viewers to contemplate the story’s moral complexities.

Application of Binary Opposition in How to Train Your Dragon

How to Train Your Dragon (2010), presented by Dreamworks, is a fantasy film directed and written by Dean Deblois and Chris Sanders. From the very start, it shows the world of binary opposition, as the protagonist, Hiccup, lives in an environment where humans and dragons are nemesis. Humans are perceived as “good,” while dragons are seen as “evil.” As the story goes, this opposition shifts, and the narrative shifts from conflicts to reconciliation between humans and dragons.

In addition, the relationship between Hiccup and the rest of the Vikings, especially his father Stoick, exemplifies binary opposition as well. Hiccup’s gentle and passive personality is strongly different from that of the aggressive and dominant Viking people, which reflects the opposition of “cowardice” and “bravery.” This is also the reason why Hiccup is desperately trying to prove his worth by killing a dragon, whereas he is also depressed to find out that he is not “brave” enough to do so. However, this exact contrast is what pushes the story deeper. Hiccup’s kindness leads him to bond with the dragon Toothless, creating mutual understanding and trust, eventually becoming sacrificing for each other.

The application of binary opposition is later elevated to a new level by the interaction between Hiccup and his environment, which challenges the hierarchy between the two parties. For instance, Hiccup throws off the Viking helmet his father gives him and tries to prove that there can be peace between different species. As the audience, we can see that he is trying to heal the wounds torn by generations of different parties. As the audience, we start to root for Hiccup, praising his bravery in challenging the traditional value of not only killing the dragons but also other people who are seen as “stronger” and “better.”

From my perspective, human’s fear and hatred toward the unknown (dragons) is not a mark of justice, but of fear. This mirrors conflicts between different communities, where neither side is truly “right,” but rather lack of trust turns to conflict. Furthermore, Hiccup’s “cowardice” becomes the very trait that drives him to bridge the gap and lead to peace. This unpopular trait turns him into the hero, highlighting that opposites can shift, and flaws can have advantages.

As the film explores these dynamics, it questions the old binary definition of good and bad, which implies that conflict resolution lies in understanding. This can be perfectly explained by Astrid’s (the female main character) words: “You’re the first Viking who wouldn’t kill a dragon, but you’re also the first to ride one.”

In conclusion, binary opposition allows filmmakers to delve deeper into societal issues, bringing attention to conflicts of class or ideology while offering solutions or a space for reflection. As a concept artist, my role involves not just designing appearances but incorporating these designs into a coherent world narrative. A story is essential for creating a worldview. In an assignment, I used binary opposition to craft a world where food waste monsters avenge humans. The contrast between humans and monsters is a binary opposition, as is the reversal where discarded food waste now attacks humans, highlighting environmental themes like reducing overconsumption. I aim to explore binary opposition more deeply in future stories to enhance narrative tension.

Sources:

Levi-Strauss, Claude. (1963) Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

Rotten Tomatoes Classic Trailers (2018) - How to Train Your Dragon (2010) Trailer #1 | Movieclips Classic Trailers. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AKsAxrhqgM (Accessed: 7 Nov. 2024).

Terry Tamal (2015) - HTTYD 1 ''conversation with Stoick''.  Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQs9dwXFwl0 (Accessed: 7 Nov. 2024).

Mega Moments (2024) - Hiccup's Viking Test ⚔️ | How To Train Your Dragon | Movie Moments | Mega Moments. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0s2Wu7atEA (Accessed: 7 Nov. 2024).

[magnusrosen-blog]

I love people, that's why I write so often. I hope with all my heart that the hatred and condemnation will go away.

We humans on mother earth, yellow or red, or beautiful brown or shiny white, we are all brothers and sisters of the same species "man" on a tiny little planet far out in the big universe.

A developed mind is being able to show respect and give room for other people's opinions. It is long-term and sustainable in a peaceful world.🌎

A framework of human rights and free speech is a good guideline!

P.s the picture is from a concert with Bai Bang in England!

Magnus

* Peace starts with friendship * Make the world a better place * Love, p.e.a.c.e & Understanding * I see evil as undeveloped

I am an Ambassador for RNS - Riksförbundet Narkotikfrit Samhälle https://www.rns.se

Magnus Rosén - Ambassador for Green Cross P.e.a.c.e on Mother Earth Green-Cross www.green-cross.se

I am an Ambassador for RSK national association stop men's violence against women https://www.rskriksforeningen.se/default.asp?HeadPage=464&Language=sv

I am an Ambassador for an attempt at spiritual maturity

www.magnusrosen.com www.baibang.se www.magnusrosenband.com www.culturemeetsindustry.com www.covershow.se

@followers @all @everyone #bahiarock @followers #baibang #volvo #union # #chalmerstekniskahögskola#e #lecture #lectures #argentina #allfollowers #avelibooks #alibris #basenimitthjärta #ebs #baibang #thebassinmyheary #proudandjoy #lillynails #magnusrosen #arko #rns #magnusrosen #ebs #factorbasses #hardrock #rock #rockmusic #glamrock

[the-earth-priestess]

there's a statement i want to make and it's about "starseeds". this article explains it well, but to summarise, the idea of "starseeds" is deeply embedded in ableism against neurodivergent people, racism against bipoc people, anti-semitism, neo-nazism and fascism.

i've unfortunately unknowingly been using a deck called "the starseed oracle deck" by rebecca campbell. she is also a white australian, yet uses closed practices like Q'ero and Munay Ki.

i want to share one paragraph that really drives the point home about "starseeds" though (sourced from the first link): The starseed myth provides what all good religions provide — an explanatory framework for suffering and evil. You’re suffering because you’re not from this planet. That’s why you feel lonely and strangely superior to the people around you. Never mind ‘your problems come from your parents or ancestors’ — your problems come from your multiple galactic lives. Why are you phobic of dogs? Because you’re a Lyran! Why do you have a speech impediment and can’t pronounce your r’s? Because your previous alien species didn’t use r’s (literally, that’s what this person says).

i find this whole thing abhorrent. i believe that problems in general stem from the actions and mindsets of people, the behaviour of our fellow humans. this is freeing because it means no matter what, the Universe, Spirit, God, the Gods, whatever you believe in -- they're unconditionally loving of everyone and everything. they want you to be happy, they want you to be successful, they want you to have what you need -- but you may need support if your circumstances have barriers from getting you there, and your actions can be what results in your success.

i also believe that the lack of connection between people is directly correlated to their capacity to understand themselves. this "starseed" fad is also extremely falacious because it removes the believer from accepting fellow humans, implanting these mindsets that result in a harmful othering.

so. needless to say, i will not be supporting rebecca campbell or using this deck anymore, and i apologise for my negligence in using it in my practice. going forward, i will research more thoroughly before supporting anyone in the spiritual community.