#Objective Basis for Belief

[astraltrickster]

I guess I'm on a Somewhat Serious Internet And Fandom Culture Things kick today but

Fandom really, really needs to get better at sitting with the fact that sometimes people don't neatly fit into specific queer labels and that's okay - people in general need to get better at this, really, but this post is specifically about fandom.

There is a bi/gay cusp (I'm on it, hi), there is an allo/gray-ace/ace cusp, the pan/ace overlap is more significant than a lot of people think ("and when everyone is attractive, no one will be"), the GNC/nonbinary/trans cusp is something that has been examined in depth through queer history (please read Stone Butch Blues), while not all intersex people consider ourselves inherently queer our existence very much highlights the inherent problems of framing any and all of these concepts in such rigid binary-based terms, the list of gray areas goes on and on and they even blur into each other -

But I'm not here to talk about that, exactly; I'm here to talk about how a lot of fandom is...superficially okay with this fact in theory, but show just how superficial that awareness and acceptance is when it comes to fictional characters.

If a character is confirmed to be queer, it's not "queerbaiting" to not put a specific label to it. It is not "being wishy-washy and cowardly and refusing to commit," nor is it inherently "making a joke of it". Telling an unlabeled but explicitly queer story does count as representation. It is capable of letting people - out, closeted, or somewhere in between - see themselves reflected with no caveats; people who cannot or do not want to neatly label themselves deserve that as much as anyone else. It is capable of showing people who don't share that experience that, yeah, this is just how some people are - which, some of you are clearly the ones who need to hear it.

Sometimes definitely-not-cishet-but-otherwise-unlabeled is a temporary state. Sometimes it isn't. Headcanoning it as a temporary state in a specific character is one thing - that's perfectly okay! That's 100% fine! Using such characters for self-reflection and self-exploration, well, that's a major part of why fiction exists in the first place! Saying that their queerness doesn't count until they say your specific label out loud, or attacking other fans for not sharing your specific headcanon, on the other hand, is an entirely different beast and very much not okay. It's hardly different from calling an endgame same-gender romance "not real" because it wasn't your OTP.

Your already-confirmed-queer blorbo does not need to be confirmed as [insert specific label here] to "own the queerphobes". The fact that shitty people ignore and erase unlabeled or cusp cases (or mspec people or nonbinary people, for that matter) does not make it right for you to join them in doing so.

[eve-was-framed]

tbh I don’t think I’ll ever really forgive the trans movement for indoctrinating so many people into the belief that women speaking about our sex-based oppression is “terfy” and shouldn’t be allowed and any woman who does it wants to genocide trans people. even if they back off of this stance, the damage is done.

me saying “women are oppressed on basis of sex, not gender identity, and we cannot identify out of that oppression” does not mean I think it’s okay to kill or hurt trans people. it does not mean that I agree with right-wingers when they say gender non-conformity is destroying civilization. It does not mean that I am going to vote for politicians who think all gay people/gender non-conforming people are groomers.

it literally just means you cannot change your biological sex (which was never a controversial statement, even among trans people, up until like 5 years ago) and females should have special protections and spaces since we are constantly being preyed upon by males who see us as subhuman sex objects. that doesn’t mean I think all trans people are predators, it means that enough males are predatory toward women that we deserve to have spaces away from them (especially spaces where we’ll be not fully clothed).

we deserve to be able to talk about female-specific oppression without being told we’re evil genocidal nazis. and the fact that they constantly have to misrepresent what our actual beliefs are tells me they know we’re right and it scares them.

[saint-ambrosef]

I think the big problem with a lot of post-modern concepts of morality is that so much of it (e.g. gender theory) is ultimately based on the assumed premise that "not hurting others" is the end goal of all moral philosophy and social behavior.

Conflict with these theories and concepts primarily stems from a rejection of this fundamental premise. "Not hurting others" is a highly subjective goal that is difficult to define or qualify, since it requires an agreed understanding of everything that constitutes "hurt". But it's highly idiosyncratic by nature because it's such an individual response, so morality then becomes an incredibly difficult dance of knowing every individual person's tiniest preferences and sensitivities in order to be a good person. When hurt is held as the ultimate evil, there is never a reasonable justification for not validating sensitivities. If what you know that what you think, say, or do hurts people, you're a bad person - full stop. (Although it usually comes with the unspoken understanding that this only applies to certain groups of people you have arbitrarily determined are not problematic, i.e. it's okay if your beliefs hurt bigoted people).

And yet it also raises the major moral conundrum of self-inflicted pain; if you believe suicide to be "hurt" and therefore immoral, but the person in question does not see it as such, is it morally correct to let them commit suicide or to stop them? If we admit that not all perceptions of hurt are equally valid, then we must question how we distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate. And if we consider that self-inflicted hurt is still bad even when consented, the oft-cited counter-argument, "Let people do what they want as long as it's not hurting others" falls hopelessly flat - because what if the 'other' they are hurting are themselves? Who gets to determine what constitutes self-harm? "Hurt" is such a highly subjective perception, and everyone will argue that their perception is the moral standard, while arguing that everyone else is unfairly projecting their own standards for "hurt" on others (thereby causing hurt in the process). It's chaos.

This is why basing an entire moral philosophy off "not hurting others" is bananas. It's one thing to hold that philosophy for yourself, to determine what you think is the true standard for "hurt" and avoid that as much as possible in your choices. It's another to assume that everyone agrees with your assumed premise that avoiding hurt is the basis for all moral decisions.

There have been multiple times I've been in an argument with someone over a perceived injustice, and it's fascinating how often their point ultimately boils down to "it's mean to make people feel bad". But that's not what I base my morality on. I base morality on what I perceive to be objectively true, and although I never wish to make others feel hurt, others' subjective emotional response to confrontations with moral truth is not my responsibility.

[weirdmageddon]

i posted this on twitter also but it’s still eating at me. i’m so fucking embarrassed to be jewish rn. i dont want to be associated with this ongoing bullshit from israel. why do we need our own state. theyre just making every jew across the globe look bad in general even though many of us are conflicted about zionism and the legitimacy of israel as a state

people have hated jews throughout history for no fuckin reason but now israel exists but now its like. GIVING people reasons to hate us as a group. note that i DON’T conflate zionism with jewishness, but a lot of people in the world don’t know the difference because theyre uninformed and been dripfed cultural antisemitic tropes their whole life and that’s the scary part is them falsely putting two and two together. like what the fuck israel stop youre just putting fuel on the fire for people around the world to hate an entire group of historically persecuted people if youre being this shitty with your insane colonialism and apartheid like……I Want No Fuckin Part Of This. you’re spelling our own doom. you cant just swoop in and go “mine now” and then oppress the people you took land from under a regime without my blood boiling at the injustice no matter WHO you are. even if my lineage is tied to you. so when news outlets support israel it doesn’t feel like they have the best interest of jews as a people in mind. it’s in the interest of a zionist ethnostate and whatever that christian zionism belief is about the jewish people returning to the holy land as prerequisite for the second coming of jesus. its not like they care about us as a dispersed ethnocultural group, it’s all for that religious narrative that a bunch of people in the US are backing.

saying you want all jews to die is antisemitic. beating someone up because they’re jewish and no other reason without knowing their views is antisemitic. criticizing human rights violations perpetrated by israel and the belief that one group deserves more rights another is not antisemitic. and the fact that israel has the ability to pull that antisemitism card in response to criticisms of the violations they commit because their state is the “jewish homeland” drives me fucking insane. take fucking accountability for your actions. and yes, there do exist full-on anti-jewish groups in the middle east that go beyond hatred of israel’s policies and existence as a state and i’m tired of people pretending there aren’t in fear of appearing to seem like they support the state of israel. on the other side of things many people overestimate this by fearmongering and saying EVERY arab is out to get jews worldwide, telling people like me “they want YOU dead”. this is not the belief every person in the middle east and it really rubs me the wrong way that people group millions of individuals into all-encompassing lumps like this. many people there do understand nuance of this political situation.

even if i have that “right of return” by israeli law or whatever, i don’t feel obliged to it; it does not register as fair. why do i have a “right of return” when i’ve never even been there in the first place while palestinians who have homes there can’t return to them? what’s the basis for that? substituting objective reality with an imaginary reality? i don’t think like that. i can hypothetically come and go whenever i please but palestinians are severely limited in mobility? what makes me more entitled to that land than the people who lived there for centuries? nothing that comes from natural law thats for sure. it’s all artificial and inflated.

but at the same time i also dont want to be the target of antisemitism and caught in the fray just for being ethnically jewish. once people start calling for the genocide of entire groups we’ve got issues (and you better believe this absolutely applies to the palestinian victims in gaza too), because people who dissent to the violence perpetrated by the loudest are caught in there with the people who are perpetrating the violence. lack of nuance. people conflating israel and its zionist apartheid policies with jewish ethnicity and culture worldwide. other people conflating being terrorist anti-jew with muslims worldwide (like that 6-year old palestinian-american boy that was just stabbed to death in chicago). scary times man. but as a jew i can’t just opt out of this if it’s how i was born as. i don’t have control over that. but i can control what i think and what my beliefs are

[floralcyanidee]

ɪ sᴇᴇ ғɪʀᴇ - ᴊ. ʀᴏʙᴇʀᴛ ᴏᴘᴘᴇɴʜᴇɪᴍᴇʀ

Cillian!Oppenheimer x AFAB!Reader (NSFW)

request: scientist reader and Oppenheimer have sm sexual tension between them and trying to hide their feelings for each other cause they're colleagues but then when the Manhattan Project comes up and they both work on it together it just gets too much to handle. by @aporiasposts

disclaimer: this is a work of fanfiction. cillian's representation of oppenheimer is also fictional to a degree. if you dislike this kind of fanfiction, please keep scrolling and do not interact with this post. otherwise, have a lovely day. ♥

warnings: smut, penetrative sex, p in v sex, unprotected sex, multiple positions used, mutual pining, years of sexual tension

word count: 2090

author’s note: please read the disclaimer several times if you must before you decide to comment something snarky or send a dense anonymous ask. (: this is my first time writing smut for Robert so it was interesting!! I rather enjoyed it and I think I'm going to finish the other smut I was going to write for him. also, I changed the request details a little. reader is a historian/ political scientist of sorts instead of a scientist. I feel like there is a lot of scientist!reader fics out there and wanted to be a little different haha. I hope everyone enjoys!

main masterlist | cillian murphy masterlist | add yourself to the taglist here

Having a doctorate in history has led you to places you never thought possible. One of those places ended up being the University of California - Berkeley. You were given the opportunity to lecture there with some of the brightest minds in the country- one of them being physicist Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer. Your disciplines differed but had the same solid foundation of facts, evidence, and logic. Needing to see things to believe it for yourself was one thing the two of you had in common, which brought you together. You were interested in his lectures and as he was yours. Both of you have learned a lot from each other and have become good friends. However, there were times when you would interact, and it felt intense. You’d grade papers together in comfortable silence, sometimes stealing glances at one another. Whenever you caught Robert staring, you’d give him a small, knowing smile. When he caught you staring, he’d hold your gaze, which made you nervous. 

You enjoyed attending Robert’s political discussions after class to see how passionate he was about current issues. Dr. Lawrence, your other beloved colleague, often warned you to avoid them, but you ignored him. The energy you’d feel toward Robert every time he’d rant about how every person deserves the freedom and the right to choose was electric. It was the very basis of your beliefs as a historian and a professor. The two of you would often go for a cigarette in the courtyard between classes to enjoy the fresh air and discuss politics. Robert loved hearing your stance on things, especially since you knew your stuff about the history of politics and how things work with them. The tensions were high that day, and before you knew it, Robert leaned into you as you spoke. But before anything could happen, it was time for classes to resume. So you went your respective ways. 

When you were contacted by the government to assist on a top-secret project, you were shocked. They needed your expertise in politics and history, as well as your reading and writing skills. You asked if Robert would be involved due to his talent in psychics, but you got no answer. You didn’t take long to learn of Dr. Lawrence’s involvement in the project, and you were ecstatic to have someone you knew tagging along. He was worried about Robert not being present for the Manhattan Project simply because of his mutual and close friends being communists. You insisted you’d speak to Robert about the matter, but Ernest objected. However, after a meeting about the Spanish Revolution that Robert had held, Ernest blew up on him. He mentioned there was a project and that Robert wasn’t allowed on it as long as he was sticking his nose in communist politics. So, Robert stopped the meetings, and sure enough, General Leslie Groves eventually poked his way into Robert’s office one afternoon to discuss the Project. 

Now, the three of you were involved and had to leave Berkeley. Robert quickly assumed the position of Project leader and already had a location picked out for the Project headquarters. You had heard many stories of this location from him and demanded he take you to it before construction began. You and Robert left Berkeley and traveled to Los Alamos via horse, talking and laughing the whole time about your childhoods and times in school. You both decided to camp there overnight and enjoy the desert and its beautiful sky before dealing with the most significant project in human history. As you sat by the fire that night with Robert, you stared at the sky in wonder. Robert watched you with just as much wonder, enjoying seeing you smile. Because pretty soon, there wouldn’t be much to smile about.

By the time you had moved into Los Alamos and started getting to work, the tension between you and Robert was becoming impalpable. The camping trip solidified whatever was going on between you two- even if it was nothing at all as of right now. Robert ensured you were at every meeting so you could give your two cents if it was needed; you were the brains and the empathy of the project. Gen. Groves admired you for it because no matter how steep the project was getting, you never once panicked or got in over your head. He also admired how you managed to keep your hands off Robert despite how you looked at him. And one day, he mentioned it to you.

“What’s the first thing you’re going to do when you get out of here?” Gen. Groves asked you one day during a field test.

“Oh, uh,” you hadn’t given it much thought, “I’m not sure. Probably continue lecturing.”

“No one special in your life you want to be with?” Groves asked, a kind smile on his face.

“Not really,” you mumbled sadly, your eyes glanced over at Robert, “Not yet, anyway.”

“Maybe once all of this is over, you can pursue them,” Groves suggested knowingly, “We’re so close now. It won’t be long.”

You nodded, seeing that he knew who was on your mind just by how he studied you, “Maybe.”

After all the hard work and growing sexual tension over the tedious years at Los Alamos, the bubble separating you and Robert finally burst the morning of the Trinity Test. The test was a success, and Robert was basking in the afterglow. Everything from getting his hand shaken to being carried by the crowd of excited and ecstatic workers- it brought him some relief. There’s always sunshine before the rain. 

You invited Robert over to your quaint house on the outskirts of Los Alamos for your nightly glass of wine, but this time it was heavier. It was more meaningful because you finally accomplished what you’d been working so hard for. When Robert sat next to you on the chaise next to the fireplace, his leg touched yours. The sexual energy was like a thick, wet blanket. You took large gulps of your wine as Robert’s eyes stared into yours, his glass pressed to his lips with slower sips.

“I can’t believe it’s all over,” you shook your head.

“Me either.”

“What do we do now? What’s life after this going to be like?”

“I’m not sure about that,” Robert had set his wine down on the floor, “But I’m sure about something else.”

“And what’s that?” you asked, polishing off your drink.

“You.”

You slowly sat back up after putting your empty glass on the floor by your feet, “Me?”

“Yes,” Robert paused, “Ever since I met you, I’ve wanted you in ways I can’t explain. And I can usually explain anything.”

You chuckled at that, nodding in agreement, “That you can.”

Robert leaned in, and your smile faltered. His hand reached up to touch your cheek gently, his thumb pushing some of your hair out of the way. Your eyes fluttered shut as you waited with bated breath for Robert to finally, finally kiss you. It had been years of waiting now. And the second his lips pressed to yours, all that time seemed to drift away. There was an explosion in your chest at the feeling of Robert pressing against you on the chaise, pushing you down onto its cushions. His coat and tie have long since been discarded, so all you have to do is worry at the buttons of his shirt with your shaking fingers. Eventually, you get the shirt opened and off his slender frame as it hovered over you. Robert let his skillful tongue slip past your lips with ease, exploring every centimeter of your mouth. How you had longed for this moment.

“Need you, Robert,” you pulled away for air and sighed as his hands pushed up your legs and underneath your dress, “Always have.”

“I’m here, darling. I’m here now.”

Robert shoved the skirt of your dress over your hips and stomach, revealing your slowly soaking white and dainty underwear. He hummed in satisfaction when his finger circled the wet spot at your entrance, causing a moan to leave your lips.

“Eager, are we?” he teased, pulling down your underwear without hesitation.

“Yes,” you said bravely, “Now, nothing fancy tonight. We have plenty of time for other things, but for now, I need you inside me.”

“Alright then,” Robert chuckles, hastily unbuckling his slacks before pushing them far enough down his legs to be comfortable.

He glided his tip along your slickness, gathering all he could to push inside you with less friction. You whined at the contact, a wanton moan escaping you suddenly as he moved into you at a patient pace. But you were anything but patient, especially at this point. You pushed your hips, causing Robert to enter you further, to which he let out a delicious groan. His hands gripped your sides intensely, sure to leave bruises tomorrow. He buried his face in your neck, his teeth baring down into the skin as he felt you suck his cock in. 

“Wanted- needed this for so long,” Robert whispered in your ear as his tip finally brushed against your insides.

“God, me too,” you cried out when he slowly pulled back out and then slammed back into you, “Fuck.”

“Such a dirty mouth,” Robert tutted playfully, to which you flashed him a smile, moving your hips to wiggle him further inside you.

Robert had thrust himself into you again, this time a little faster than the last. He kept doing this until he had a steady rhythm, lifting your legs to put on his shoulders to get a better angle. You growled at the sensation of him hitting your cervix, and your hands scratched down his back. Robert picked up speed, almost making the chaise scoot on the floor. He was fucking you like mad, and you were taking every second of it like his cock was water and you were thirsting in the desert. In this situation, the figure of speech wasn’t too far from the truth. The feeling of him repeatedly steering into your stomach made you nearly squeal from pleasure. Robert presses your thighs to your shoulders, the undersides of them against his chest. You were a mess, moaning like a whore and gripping Robert as if you blinked hard enough, he’d disappear.

“Taking me like such a good girl,” Robert grunted, moving a hand to your cunt to swipe at your clit in time with his thrusts.

You tossed your head back, crying out at the sensation. No one had ever fucked you with such vigor and passion. You felt that growing bubble in your gut, expecting it to burst any second.

“Cum in me,” you demanded, “Need to feel you.”

Robert laughed breathlessly at you, “Are you sure?”

“Certain.”

And as if he weren’t going fast enough, he pulled out, flipped you over, and took you from behind even faster than before. Robert pushed your cheek into the chaise cushion, watching you as you side-eyed him with utmost pleasure. You could feel yourself clenching around him, your orgasm creeping up. Robert pushed your lower back down as far as it’d go, your stomach flush with the material of the chaise underneath you. Your ass being in the air caused Robert to hit a new spot inside you, sending you reeling and spilling over the edge. As your cunt suffocated his cock with its walls, Robert followed your release with his own. His hot cum filled you up with warmth, your hips still bouncing against him. Robert panted from behind you, slowly pulling himself out of your now-dripping pussy. 

You rolled back onto your back, now facing Robert, “That was… wow,” you exhaled.

“I concur,” Robert joked, sitting back and pulling you onto his lap.

You hummed in exhaustion, blissed out as you hung your head on his shoulder.

“Want to stay?” you asked tiredly, eyeing the now-spilled remainder of wine Robert had placed on the floor earlier. You’d worry about it tomorrow.

“I’d love to,” Robert muttered into your ear, kissing it before picking you up off his lap.

The rest of your night is spent watching Robert study you as you lay beside each other in bed. He took you in as if he was seeing you in a new perspective- and he was. Robert was as curious about you as he was about the world and how it worked. Except now, he had to worry about not destroying you like he had the world.

taglist:

@baizzhu @hjmalmed @queenshelby @hjmalmed @amanda08319 @orijanko @naty-1001 @raineeace @savagemickey03 @langdons-slut @shynovelist @sstar-ggirl @trixie23 @dunklerkeks1611 @hllywdwhre @slut4thebroken @mypoisonedvine @burnyouwithacigarettelighter @cranesbathtowel @arieslost @nefhertari @forgottenpeakywriter @llucky-llove @october-atoner @madlittlecriminal @ynisthatyou @starbxnny @darkmoviesquotespizza @newtsniffles @acapelladitty @radmerrmaid @loverhymeswith @lacontroller1991 @pictureinme

[rainbow-crane]

In-Depth Character Analysis On All The DR Characters Because What, Are You Gonna Try And Stop Me? Who Are You, My Mom? Yeah, I Didn't Think So- Part 1: Kiyotaka Ishimaru

Yes, I'm aware the title is ungodly long, it's called comedy. Behold, a series inspired by my overwhelming hubris! Despite my better judgement, I love this series and (almost) every single one of its characters, so I decided to do this little series of posts on the side, just cuz!

So part 1 of like, 88 I think?, going through the characters from THH, DR 0, SDR2, UDG, DR3, and DRV3 with as much objectivity as possible, analyzing their character using only canon material from the games/anime/novel/canon adaptation they're present in. So sit back and enjoy while I go feral! Or just scroll, if you aren't interested. Whatever works for you.

Part 1- Character Design

Kiyotaka Ishimaru is depicted as a very aggressive honors student, and is shown as such through his very expressive facial features and his choice of clothing. He has large eyebrows and big eyes, and is given a uniform meant to make him look more like a soldier, reflecting his rigid dedication to the rules and his ethics. This uniform also includes an armband meant to signify his authority within the class as Hall Monitor and as the unofficial class rep. His sprites are very animated, with big gestures using his arm(s) and his mouth often wide open, whether in a wide smile or while yelling. This makes him one of the more expressive characters in THH specifically, as most of those characters are pretty restrained on a day-to-day basis and only become more exaggerated when put under high levels of stress.

Something interesting about Taka is that his talent changes from the original Japanese to the English translation. His official talent is the SHSL Public Morals Committee Member, meaning his original talent was that of discipline and social order. This was translated to Ultimate Moral Compass in English, as most western schools don't have a Public Morals Committee. This change in translation unintentionally shifted the perception of his talent from discipline to morality. This change in distinction has had a bit of a negative impact on the Western perception of his character, as rather than appearing to impose order on the other students, it instead appears at the beginning as though we, the audience, are supposed to view him as a beacon of morality. We're not.

Part 2- Character Introduction

Taka is one of the first characters to actually speak to Makoto directly, berating him for being late on the first day of school, despite the fact that he and everyone else had experienced a strange warping of memory. He also goes on to interrupt your first conversation with Sayaka, stating that their time is being wasted by 'ridiculous back-and-forth'. Despite this, when it's his turn to introduce himself to Makoto, he goes off on a tangent about how cool Makoto's name is. He's described by Makoto as a 'flawless honors student' and is most publicly known for his work on his local Public Morals Committee. He believes in putting 'every ounce of effort' into living, and imposes this belief on those he interacts with, something Makoto finds irritating(This guy is... kind annoying.").

So in short, Taka's first impression on the player is that he's a mildly obsessive honors kid, and a bit of a hypocrite that isn't fully aware of his own presence or the effect it has on the rest of the cast. The game goes on to use this lack of social awareness as a source of comedy, as he takes Monokuma's initial greeting as Headmaster fully at face value. He struggles to grasp the concept of the killing game at first, opening the discussion upon Monokuma's departure from the welcome ceremony with dialogue that sounds like it was pulled from a customer feedback survey("So guys, how would you define what we just experienced?"). He's not a malicious or hateful figure; he wants to work with the class but isn't quite sure how to.

Part 3- Early-Game Events

The game spends the early-game establishing Taka's more negative traits. He's shown to be inobservant and wrapped up in his own ideals and need to command authority to even notice Kyoko is missing and, upon being informed of her disappearance, cares more about her punctuality than her safety. "Not only is she late, she didn't tell anyone she would be late! A most unbecoming personality trait..."

He's also established as hypocritical once again, and a bit egotistical, as he has trouble fathoming the others' lack of discoveries but overinflates the importance of his own.

He then goes on to agree to Celeste's suggested nighttime rule for all the boys in the class, without letting them speak for themselves. While ultimately, no one has a problem with the rule, this is the first real instance of him doing something that, on paper, is beneficial to the group, but without considering how the others actually feel about it.

Taka doesn't show up in-story again until the day of the motive, when he goes around to the entire class demanding that they will now all have breakfast together every morning after the morning announcement. Although this is a good idea, allowing for everyone to bond and creating a morning headcount, he makes this decision for the entirety of the group. Leon and Makoto both complain about this if you speak to Leon outside the cafeteria, but ultimately go along with it because they don't want Taka to continue bugging them about it. So we can see that his efforts are perceived negatively by his classmates and go unappreciated.

Already we've seen Taka act overbearing and commanding over and over, inadvertently separating himself from the majority of his peers. He's direct and to the point, forming the breakfast meetings expressly to 'become friends and build trust' with the rest of the class. So we can see in no uncertain terms that he wants to befriend his classmates, but that his lack of social skills leads him to fail at every turn. He doesn't ask the class to join him for breakfast, he tells them. The strategy he employs doesn't leave room for choice, and ends up building resentment from his classmates.

It's not until the first body is discovered and the rules of the class trial are revealed that reality fully seems to set in for Taka. He, along with everyone else, are given the rules of a game they don't really want to play- that should they fail in the trial, all of them will be killed. And it sends Taka to a breakthrough- that some regulations can be harmful to those they're imposed upon.

There's now a shift in his actions- he's still trying to push for the class to follow the rules he's set, yes, but there's a newfound urgency to them. When Byakuya disappears in chapter 2, his concern has shifted from punctuality to his classmate's safety. He's the one to lead the search for Byakuya when he doesn't answer. Despite all his harshness, we can see that his strictness now comes from a place of genuine concern for the people around him, a direct parallel to earlier in the game when Kyoko went missing- "I'd like to think so. But I'm worried something might have happened to him."

This growth of character, though not focused on, is undoubtedly present. The dedication he has to his discipline and his ego are still fully intact, but now that dedication has moved beyond just order. It's an act of protection, for him and everyone else. The invisible threat of death has become all too visible with Sayaka's absence from their last breakfast meeting. If he can keep track of everyone, then he'll know they're still alive. He can prevent another murder. It imposes upon him the responsibility of the leadership he craves.

Part 4- Relationship(s)

Unincluding if the player actively seeks him out through FTEs, Taka only ever develops a real relationship with one character of the other fourteen in-game, though he does have some important dynamics with others. We'll continue moving in chronological order.

4.1- Ishimondo (these bitches gay?)

Throughout the game, whenever Taka is saying or doing something stupid, Mondo is typically the one to call him out on it or shut him down. While this doesn't start to take real shape until chapter 2, it is visible here and there in the early game.

But their connection doesn't really start to take focus until chapter 2, as Taka's failings as leader and Mondo's constant correcting him puts them at odds. Mondo's attitude is the antithesis of Taka's, living a life of complete risk and impulsiveness, yet has a matching level of energy, and despite being more intimidating on a surface level, he's able to actually befriend characters like Chihiro, Hina, and Sakura, while Taka's left on the out. One of the best examples of this is found not in the game, but in the stageplay adaptation, where both characters attempt to help Chihiro feel better about her weakness in the daily life segment.

When Byakuya starts mocking Chihiro for her fear, Mondo threatens him, and insists that Chihiro's weakness doesn't matter because she's a woman. But when this makes her upset and Sakuraoi call him out on it, he offers to help Chihiro train as an apology, acknowledging that his behavior was irrational. But when Taka tries to give her advice by telling her not to be weak anymore and is told to be reasonable, he can only insist that Mondo's words don't matter anyway.

In the game itself, Taka's barely present for this exchange, as it chooses instead to focus on Chimondo's relationship. Regardless, the animosity between Mondo and Taka is still made very clear in-game.

Mondo and Taka are both demonstrating the desire to protect their classmates here, but in different ways. Taka is the more logical of the two, focusing on keeping track of resources and devising a system of check for everyone to keep watch over each other in the breakfast promise. Mondo, meanwhile, wants to push the importance of actually getting everyone the fuck out of there. While their endgoal is the same, they disagree on how to go about it, and both their stubbornness drives them to butt heads as time continues to pass, leading to the sauna scene.

After being slowly built up in the background, Ishimondo's mutual anger finally comes to a head, with both not understanding the position that the other is in. Taka still believes Mondo's value to be what he provides to society, and as a biker gang leader, that's not much to a man that lives by lawful discipline. Meanwhile, Mondo can only see Taka as an egomaniac with a stick up his ass and doesn't know the background to why(and neither does the player without actively seeking out his FTEs). They each follow a different code of ethics, and view themself as the protector of the class, leading them to see each other as rivals. Yet, despite that, both of them still share their core value of total dedication, and so when finding a way to prove themself the better man, they end up with an endurance competition. For Taka, this reflects his belief that men connect by baring their souls, and do so by baring their bodies(something only learned in-game by approaching him for FTEs).

(This also leads to the implication that, while Mondo insisted on entering the sauna with all his clothes on, at some point, he was, in fact, naked while with Taka that night.)

The information as to what happened in that sauna is intentionally left unanswered, remaining fully private between both men in-game. The only thing either of them will say is that a brotherhood was formed between them, and that who won their initial contest no longer matters. Finally, Taka has found someone. Someone he can confide in and lean on, someone who'll support him and that he can support in turn("And if you can't do it alone, just find someone to support you, and you can support them back! That's how you can overcome any storm!" -Taka ch 1).

And then Chihiro's case happens.

At first, when the motives are introduced, Taka is one of the few to vocally insist no murder will take place. He has newfound confidence in the willpower of his classmates, and puts faith into everyone else for the first and only time. Even when presented with his own unknown secret, he finds it ridiculous that anyone would kill over the embarrassing memories and secrets. It's here that we truly see the highest high of this character- when he comes up with the idea to share secrets. When he presents this idea, he moves forward as usual, preparing to be the first one to reveal their secret and take the pressure off. But when his classmates insist they can't (Toko & Celeste) he doesn't keep chugging along, and he doesn't completely shut down, either. He looks around at his classmates, and he asks Chihiro. He actually steps back and asks for someone else's opinion.

And when she isn't yet comfortable, he backs off. He respect her wishes, and he stands with the class, ready to help them face their secrets the following day. Finding a friend in Mondo has softened his rigid exterior a little bit, enough to actually consider the opinions of the others. He's gotten comfortable. All that comes crashing down with the discovery of Chihiro's body the next morning. After finally taking a step back and letting his classmates- his friends- make their own choices, it directly leads to the murder of one of them("Dammit! I'm sorry, Chihiro... It's all because I wasn't strong enough!").

Taka fully blames himself for allowing Chihiro to be murdered, and as the guilt of failure starts to set in on him, he looks to his ethics and order to solve it. Chihiro may be dead, but the murderer will be condemned through the class trial("Justice always prevails! Right, bro!?"). A solution, a path forward, still exists for him. He still has Mondo by his side, and he and the rest of the class can surely prevent this from happening again, right?

The trial only validates him at first, revealing the existence of a serial killer among the group, someone so clearly immoral for her killing obsession. But it's not her. Why isn't it her? "Could such a heinous villain really be innocent!?" But his confusion is quickly stamped out- of course, it's Byakuya, the guy that's been threatening everyone and refusing to cooperate, the guy that has no regard for the rest of their classmates. "He kept calling this a game, right? So he'd totally be willing to do whatever it takes to 'win'!" But no, wrong again- he didn't know that the murder was in the boys' locker room, and was taken aback by Chihiro being AMAB. It should be him, someone so clearly antagonistic, that's how it's supposed to go, right?? But no, it's wrong! Why? And, who could kill someone like Chihiro at their most vulnerable?

He's failed. Taka's failed in every way conceivable. Mondo, the first person he's ever truly felt connected to, a murderer? Chihiro's murderer? That can't be it. Even long after Mondo's stopped arguing, Taka continues to push back against Makoto and Kyoko's accusations. It's a coincidence, that's not actually proof, anything to get them to stop, to save his brother, to save himself from the reality he's about to have to face. When sent into the BTB, it's Taka we fight in his despair, not Mondo. Until the very end, Taka won't acknowledge it. He can't. He can't bring himself to vote his Mondo a murderer, a killer. How could the man who gave him the chance no one else would, ever be so cruel? "I- I refuse to believe it... There's no way... no way he would kill someone! Why!? Why why why why why!? WHYYY!? Why did you do it!?"

He learns the truth of Mondo's story alongside the rest of the class, unable to process it all. It makes no sense. They were friends who trusted each other, who helped each other. And what about the man's promise? Doesn't that count for anything!? This doesn't sound right. This isn't Mondo, not his Mondo, not the man from the sauna. How could he have been so wrong about him?! It just can't be, but it is; the truth is but a slap to the face.

He was wrong. He stood by Chihiro's killer and defended him. He let his brother become the monster he saw himself as. He didn't stop it when he could have. He was blinded by his own beliefs, and as he watches Mondo's death, his spirit dies with him, the game cutting out all music as Taka screams, filling a deafening silence. "As Taka's sad screams invaded our skulls, we were each forced to realize once again..."

4.2- Kiyondo Ishida

Taka enters chapter 3 as a hollowed out shell of himself. He's gone near comatose, staring at nothing and saying nothing. He won't eat, won't speak, won't sleep, and although there are a couple weak attempts to get him back in action from Hiro("It's times like this where the committee chairman needs to get things going with a BANG!"), he's mostly left to grieve by himself, as the rest of cast is more concerned with the expanded school than the bossy guy they didn't like that much.

Monokuma even goes out of his way to torture Taka, to punish him for his grief, lying about the existence of a time machine just to fuck with his head and give him false hope, sending him further into despair- "Hmm... You sound disappointed. But actually, I was lying about the whole thing anyway. There's no such thing as time machines!" He's forced to become Monokuma's most successful project from the class, completely and utterly destroyed.

When he learns of Alter Ego, something in his head clicks. He can still talk to Chihiro. He can repent. He can apologize directly to him. So, with Makoto's help, he's brought to the laptop. His guilt finishes totally consuming him as he asks: "Do you... hate Mondo? And since I couldn't stop him... do you hate me?" His own self-hatred stemming from his failure is projected onto Alter Ego in one last attempt to come to terms with what's happened. The response he receives, unfortunately, is the culmination of all the toxic and unhealthy ideas of manhood the other boys carried with them via an attempted simulation of Mondo.

"You're not letting yourself get crushed under the weight of that responsibility, are you!? A man's only worth as much as the load he can carry! You get it, right bro!? Hell, what am I saying? Of course ya do!"

"So you're just gonna stand there, huh? Just wait for things to get better? Just take your time and get all depressed... Take the time to indulge your regrets... You might even start walking again without realizing it. Sure, that kind of mediocre thing might work for some people."

This speech, while attempting to inspire Taka to keep living for Chihiro's and Mondo's sakes, encapsulates the desperate need to be perceived as strong and untouchable that Mondo himself carried, and that Chihiro admired so much. It sinks its way into Taka, convincing him that the way to respond to his guilt is simple- pretend it isn't there! Mondo has clearly returned to him, and he's never letting him go ever again. He fully deludes himself, and he's fused with this idealized version of his bro. He permanently ties himself to Mondo's memory, and goes from the SHSL Public Morals Committee Member to something else entirely- Kiyondo Ishida, the unholy mixture of both men.

This revelation also leads him to an obsession with Alter Ego, viewing it as the vessel in which his bro was returned to him. He views it as another chance to protect his bro from ever being hurt again, as some divine second-chance he's been granted. All desire to be around the rest of his class is gone, replaced with this obsession. He's put at odds with Hifumi, who's also connected with the AI, and separates himself from the group that much more. When Alter Ego disappears, he can't handle it. He panics. He won't let his bro die, not again. And so he dooms himself, refusing to let go of the shadows of the past enough to see his own death looming before him, and he's killed in the early hours of the morning, led by desperation to his demise. And even so, the class can only worry about the semantics of when he died, barely mourning him.

5- Isolation (What's the point of this guy, anyway?)

Rather than learning from the mistakes both Chihiro and Mondo made by subscribing to the societal expectations of what makes a man, Taka ends up doubling down, burning away the optimism and more reasonable logic Taka used to have. Taka's story is that of a doomed fate to become the symbol of manhood and its self-destructing nature, leeching off of his first and only friend's unhealthy behaviors and sending him spiraling. And it's allowed to happen because of his social isolation.

From the very beginning of the game, Taka is singled out as annoying to be around. He's put in a negative light and viewed as unpleasant to spend time with. Every attempt to befriend or connect with a classmate is written off as a nuisance, a hindrance. Taka doesn't know how to make friends. He doesn't know how to do anything besides follow the rules and regulations he's been taught. He sticks to his regimen, because it's comfortable, and doesn't understand why others can't conform in the way that he does. He's very thoroughly isolated mentally and emotionally from his classmates at every turn, to the point where even in the very first trial he's standing with no one but the dead by his side(as Sayaka and "Junko" were positioned on either side of his podium).

All this is done with the deliberate intention to showcase his solitude, and more importantly, the loneliness that comes from it. It's to the point that when he finally does make a friend, he thoroughly idealizes him in his subconscious, coming to view him as some perfect person who'd even support him. It's inherently contradictory from his established beliefs going into the game, that a delinquent could be kind, but he accepts it wholeheartedly. He gets to know Mondo on some deeper level while in that sauna, and it's enough to rapidly develop a massive codependency on him. So when Mondo self-destructs and dies, so too does Taka.

Taka's purpose as a character is to suffer. He wraps himself in his moral beliefs, remaining steadfast in what he views as right and wrong, making judgement calls he's 100% sure of, and when they're challenged/disproven, he's thrown wholly out of whack. He exists to serve a purpose- what would've happened if Makoto didn't accept the truth about Sayaka? What happens when you let your idealism blind you to the truth? What happens when you blind yourself to the reality of the people around you, of the darkness in the people you care about? You self-destruct. He's tossed aside, killed as an accessory to the plot of someone who does nothing but manipulate the truth. He dies, and that's just it. His story is cut short; he doesn't get to heal or grow or come to terms with the truth. Such is the fate of the failed.

6- Afterword

...I didn't even touch his FTEs for this. Holy shit.

I'm gonna be honest, as much as I love Taka, I never expected this post would become as long as it did, or that I'd uncover such a dark fucking reason for why he gets as totally fucked over as he does. Don't get me wrong, I still really wish he'd lived and gotten to grow after this, but maybe his death was more well-written than I used to think. Good god.

[burst-of-iridescent]

You constantly portray Katara (in your posts and in your "dissertation") like some damsel in distress who is in a codependent relationship and does not defend her opinion in front of her partner, to the point that she allows him to mistreat her children. But the basis of her character is that she will never tolerate any shit from anyone. She always defends her opinion, and she does not oppose Aang precisely because their values are basically the same with Aang. You cannot agree with this, because then you would either have to admit that Aang is not the terrible person you paint him, or that Katara is not the perfect girl you want her to be. That is why you are forced to humiliate her and completely rewrite her character, just not to admit that she is in an equal relationship with Aang and their values coincide.

In addition, such a "katara" makes even less sense for zutara, because if her character has a tendency to codependence on her partner and a willingness to tolerate shit from him, then their relationship with Zuko would not be healthy, since Zuko is prone to self-pity, selfishness and outbursts of anger even after his redemption and he does not show even a tenth of the maturity that Aang has by the end of the show (and even if you do not agree with this, I hope you understand that if there is a tendency to codependent relationships in a person's character, then this tendency is realized in any relationship, regardless of the partner. And any such relationship will be unhealthy).

well i lost braincells reading this so i expect reparations for that, but i'm in a nice, salty mood today so... sure anon, i'll bite.

She always defends her opinion, and she does not oppose Aang precisely because their values are basically the same with Aang.

you must really dislike katara, because saying that the only reason she never challenged aang is because she never disagreed with him, rather than that her idealization of him blinded her to his flaws is... so much worse. are you telling me she thought it was right for him to recklessly burn her? or yell at her in the desert and abandon her to take care of sokka and toph alone? or kiss her without her consent? or give their airbending child preferential treatment over their other two children?

because katara doesn't hold aang to account for any of the things on that (non-exhaustive) list, and if your explanation for that is that she agreed with him, then we both know who here is really bastardizing katara's character.

do katara and aang share certain core values? sure. they're both kind, compassionate and hopeful people. but saying that katara's morals are "basically the same" as aang's is objectively untrue when they clash in both the southern raiders and sozin's comet over their personal moral codes on the sanctity of life and whether taking one can ever be justified.

neither of these conflicts are ever truly resolved, even by the end of the show. katara and aang never come to any sort of understanding or middle ground, or even raise the subject ever again, despite it being clear that they don't share the same perspective. katara even explicitly rejects aang's creed of blanket forgiveness by stating that she did not forgive yon rha and never will. i don't know about you, but that feels like a pretty major difference of opinion to me.

additionally, the fact that these are the only two times in the entire show that katara actually pushes back against aang's beliefs and decisions - and stands firm on it - proves my point, because she's only able to do so when she has absolutely no other choice. it's only the trauma of her mother's murder and the literal fate of the entire world that forces katara to challenge aang rather than excuse and coddle him. and that is unhealthy both for aang and katara, because an equal partner should be able to call you out on your flaws and mistakes without first having to be backed into a corner to do it.

That is why you are forced to humiliate her and completely rewrite her character, just not to admit that she is in an equal relationship with Aang and their values coincide.

i really adore this recent trend in atla fandom of insisting that it's zutara shippers who are responsible for adultifying katara or humiliating katara or any and all problems that exist within katara's narrative as if we personally wrote the show instead of just... pointing out what already exists in canon.

i'm not the one who robbed katara of all agency in her relationship, or refused to give her arc equal narrative space with aang's, or turned her into a subservient trophy wife with no legacy or voice. you can go take that up with the creators.

believe me anon, i wish i could manipulate canon for my nasty zutara agenda, but alas you can't have everything in life.

Zuko is prone to self-pity, selfishness and outbursts of anger even after his redemption and he does not show even a tenth of the maturity that Aang has by the end of the show

zuko didn't throw a hissy fit because the girl he liked didn't like him back, pressure her for an answer, force a kiss on her, or be preachy and judgemental towards her during one of the most difficult times of her life - but hey, whatever floats your boat.

(thank you for providing no evidence, by the way. saved me a ton of time reading more batshit insane misinterpretations of canon, or lies, or both.)

In addition, such a "katara" makes even less sense for zutara, because if her character has a tendency to codependence on her partner and a willingness to tolerate shit from him, then their relationship with Zuko would not be healthy I hope you understand that if there is a tendency to codependent relationships in a person's character, then this tendency is realized in any relationship, regardless of the partner.

i'm genuinely bamboozled as to why you seem to think that i called katara codependent, because i didn't. i don't think katara and aang are codependent, and i have never once said that. but i understand that sending anonymous, bad-faith arguments is a difficult, underappreciated job, so let's take the hypothetical and assume i did to help you out.

fictional characters are not real people, and so it is possible for them to have different dynamics with different characters. that's why i can ship taang or zutara or mailee but not kat.aang or mai.ko. because each of these relationships are written to fulfil different narrative purposes, the characters involved are not doomed to repeat the same patterns of behaviour in each relationship as real people might be - and the difference between the zutara and kat.aang interactions in canon proves it.

[moonstrider9904]

It's taken me a while to process the fact that Crosshair lost his hand, and I've seen many different takes on the subject. All takes and sentiments are valid and I understand they all come from somewhere, and I'm grateful to have seen such a diversity of opinions before forming my own. Cards on the table, I disagree with the sentiment that Crosshair losing his hand was a bad writing choice on the basis of it meaning that he's now healed.

Let me elaborate (and I will elaborate a lot on this):

I feel like the relation between the hand coming off and the tremor/PTSD stopping is more a symbolic connection that the fandom perceived rather than something explicitly established by canon. It was never said after Crosshair lost his hand "he is now healed because of this." If anything, the way Crosshair was written through season 3 shows us he is putting in effort to healing way before losing his hand. Meditating, slowly opening up, moving past the horrors of Tantiss, etc. These are all things Crosshair does throughout the season that help him move forward. When the subject of Tantiss is brought up again, the tremor returns, and this is a very normal response.

But if I'm honest, I doubt how much PTSD and the concept of healing is truly understood by those so openly criticizing this writing choice, because that would also mean understanding that healing is not linear and it does not come magically through one sole act, deed, or loss. If the aforementioned was understood, so many people wouldn't have an issue with this connection in the first place because, symbolic as it may be, it is not fact. It is a symbol. What we did see was healing being depicted throughout the season: you work through your issues and you do better but then you can be back at square one the next day. Even if you're doing well for a period of time, the source of your PTSD can return, and your physical symptoms along with it, and of course this is normal and valid and it is wonderful to me that this was put on screen with Crosshair.

If it had been explicitly established on screen that Crosshair was magically healed because his hand's no longer there, I would have some other things to say about the matter, but again, it was not. This is something that fandom is coming up with and people are now deciding they have an issue with, because canon did not turn out to accommodate their theories and beliefs. And, even if it had been established that Crosshair fully healed from his past demons because he lost the hand that had the tremor, that wouldn't erase all the healing he had beforehand. I think it's invalidating - to the writers, to anyone with PTSD who relates to Crosshair, and to the character's phenomenal character arc - to assume that Crosshair's hand loss is the most significant part of his healing when he did so much work on himself before it.

And I would also argue that the loss of a limb is a traumatic event in itself, and I question how exactly it would be possible for one trauma piled on top of past traumatic events is supposed to heal someone.

I hate the fact that Crosshair lost his hand as something that happened to him, I hate it because it's Crosshair. Because I saw him getting hurt on screen, more than he already was. Because his whole body was trembling when it happened. Because I witnessed a man I've loved since day one, who's so kind and caring and has grown so much have to go through something so terrible. Because he had to endure pain and suffering yet again. Because I love him. Because my heart breaks for him.

As a writing choice, however, it was shocking, but it led up to a key moment between Crosshair and Hunter, and by extension, the climax of the finale. Yes, it would be significant for Crosshair's hand to have stopped shaking for him to take the clean shot, I wouldn't have objections if that had happened in canon either. But I think the power of Crosshair landing that final shot wasn't in the hand tremor. It was in losing his shooting hand, after a lifetime of equating his own worth to being a sniper, then hearing his brother Hunter, who he went through so much trouble and resentment and forgiveness with, encouraging him. Hunter really said "you can do it" and that was when Crosshair stopped thinking of himself as a sniper, and more as a brother. And he helped saved his sister. And with that, he saved all his other brothers on Tantiss. As a writing choice, Crosshair losing his hand is something that I accept and acknowledge as canon and I have processed the initial shock to the point where now I can talk about it more, and analyzing the scenes further makes it not just sensate writing, but poetic.

Back to the subject of the PTSD, Crosshair was able to rise above losing his hand in the moment on the bridge to team up with Hunter and save Omega, and that is admirable. And even if he was peaceful in the finale, one thing we can say for sure because it actually works that way in reality is that Crosshair will have to do a lot of healing and a lot of coping post losing his hand. I arrive at that conclusion quicker than I would conclude that "he's fine now" because the latter is not humanly possible. Even when people are capable of summoning the strength in the moment, there is a lot of healing and coping needed afterwards.

Being strong in the moment and mustering a smile when things turn out alright does not invalidate the struggle and effort put into getting better both before or after that moment of strength. Crosshair was so brave on Tantiss, but he's not fully healed upon returning to Pabu because no, PTSD is not stored in the hand, and I sincerely don't think that was the writers' intention on what to convey. If anything happens afterwards that we don't see on screen, I would anticipate it's the continuation of his healing process, which is not linear or constant.

And before anyone gets angry and wants to come at me with a pitchfork, let's remember Tech's wise words: Understanding you does not mean that I agree with you. While I see and understand the reasons why many people perceived this writing choice as a lazy one, I only wish to shine light on reasons that to me make this choice make sense. I've suffered PTSD from more than one traumatic event in my life, and for a total of twelve years (and counting) I have put in the work. I have had my share of non-linear healing. I have seen first hand and know this process all too well and it is yet another reason why I think Crosshair's character arc was masterfully done.

Lastly, I want to make one final call to be respectful towards the writers of The Bad Batch for how they chose to write their story. Here on tumblr, many fanfiction writers would be appalled if a reader came up to us spewing the things they hated about our story and how we should change it. I would be appalled too. That is not a cool thing to do to a writer. So let us treat other writers with the respect we want for ourselves.

May the Force be with you all ❤️ Now that the finale's done, us writers have the whole world of TBB to explore, adapt, and make into our own, and all of it will be valid and beautiful. Just be sure to always embrace others for their differences, for that makes you whole.

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

An analysis of Alhaitham's egoism in relation to Kaveh

(Update: The essay this is taken from is now uploaded! It can be accessed here and here as as a pdf <3)

Max Stirner's anarchist egoism is speculated to be the basis of Alhaitham's personal egoism, therefore I will be drawing upon Stirner's 'The Unique and Its Property' for this analysis.

Property and power are key principles within this philosophy. The egoist recognises himself as an individual, separate from the general collective of “humanity”, in which concepts such as freedom and property are governed to and over the people, for then the individual is not considered as such, rather they are a part of “humanity”, rather than a whole individual (Stirner, 170). This thinking is demonstrated within Alhaitham’s Story Quest, where he dismantles Siraj’s Hivemind by targeting individuals that compromised the Hive and reminding them of their own beliefs and preferences – the individual in themselves is a whole, and is not a “part” of a system (Stirner, 170).

In this, the egoist governs himself by what he owns and what he wants to own: “ownness is my whole essence and existence, it is myself. I am free from what I am rid of, owner of what I have in my power, what I control. I am at all times and under every circumstance my own”(Stirner, 106). This relates to the concept of freedom, which, for an egoist exists according to having the power to be free of something, for example, being freed of hunger, thirst, or societal expectations (Stirner, 105). This is reflected within Alhaitham’s description: “He lives free – free from the searching eyes of ordinary people,” but also extends to the power to own.

As power is considered something which the egoist owns, property then becomes something which the egoist exerts power over, and in this, can property be made use of by the egoist – all the while, the property remains an independent vessel (Stirner, 162). This is seen within Alhaitham’s view on his vision, in that it is “no more than a useful tool”, as it can be used to serve his own needs, and that since it in his possession, he has obtained it with his own power, it makes no difference to check on it as he continues to retain that power.

In this sense then, Alhaitham has constructed his life around this form of egoism, in that anything he wants, he has, such as his job as the Scribe, his house, the interests he pursues, the people he enjoys. In order to maintain this way of life, he will deal with, or be rid of, anything he deems as "harmful".

With this, the egoist seeks satisfaction in themselves through the satisfaction of another. Ownership, in relation to another person, can become love, which like all things the egoist has power over, is ultimately theirs – as in their love for a person (Stirner, 187), which is given willingly by the egoist, for loving a person is done for the satisfaction that love brings: “But I love them with the awareness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because love is natural to me, it pleases me,” (186).

In loving another comes sacrifice, which the egoist can give into without compromising himself, as he himself sets the “purchase price of [his love]” (187) according to the happiness attributed to the loved one, as in return, the egoist shall also receive happiness (186). To enjoy someone, in an egoist fashion, is to be able to sacrifice all possessions and ownerships without foregoing the sense of an individual, of “ownness”, as the egoist would then lose his objectivity:

“I can deny myself countless things to heighten his pleasure, and I can risk for him what would be dearest to me without him, my life, my welfare, my freedom. Indeed, it forms my pleasure and happiness to feast on his pleasure and happiness. But me, myself I do not sacrifice to him, but rather remain an egoist and—enjoy him. If I sacrifice to him everything I would keep without my love for him, that is very easy… But if I sacrifice others to one passion, I still do not…  sacrifice my particular worth, my ownness. Where this nasty incident occurs, love looks no better than any other passion that I blindly obey.” – The Unique and Its Property, 185

It is relevant to note that just as the egoist receives happiness from a loved one’s pleasure, so does an egoist suffer from a loved one’s despair. Just as the egoist would sacrifice something of their own to provide happiness for a loved one in order to exact their own happiness, so too would an egoist sacrifice something, or act, to eradicate the root problem of a loved one’s misery, as this, in turn, would then resolve their own misery:

“If I see the beloved suffering, I suffer with him, and I find no rest until I’ve tried everything to comfort and cheer him…. It doesn’t follow from this that the same thing causes suffering… his tooth gives him pain, but his pain gives me pain. But because I cannot bear the sorrowful crease on the beloved forehead, therefore, then for my sake, I kiss it away. If I didn’t love this person, he could go right on creasing his forehead, that wouldn’t trouble me; I’m only driving away my troubles. – The Unique and Its Property, 186

The phrasing of “driving away… troubles” is particular to note here, due to similar usages of language used within Alhaitham’s Character Stories, in relation to him acting in accordance with his self-governed rules and serving his own self-interest by: “[acting] on his own will and deals with anything that appears harmful in his eyes”.

Kaveh, however, interprets Alhaitham’s egoism as a detached, pragmatic view of humanity, in which the individual isolates themselves not only as a means of prioritisation, but by elevating oneself over others by refusal to intermingle and to cooperate for the benefit of others. Not only is this a harmful opposition to Kaveh’s view of individuals sharing their knowledge and talent in order to pursue a better society, but due to Kaveh’s experience of Alhaitham’s personal egoism, it is harmful to Kaveh personally. Kaveh refuses to prioritise himself over others because he has seen a negative consequence of egoism, in which he has been “cut to the quick” and it has ended one of the few stable relationships in his life.

By Kaveh seeing Alhaitham’s comment about his altruism as malicious, Alhaitham has elevated himself over Kaveh, since Alhaitham does not have the same struggles as him, and has trivialised Kaveh’s trauma. To Kaveh, Alhaitham’s prioritisation of the self actively harms others as it desensitises the self to the emotions of others. Therefore, Kaveh opposes the egoism which Alhaitham advocates for, since he interprets it through his own lived experience. Hence, by Alhaitham asserting egoism over Kaveh as a means of Kaveh prioritising himself, it only reinforces Kaveh to strive to consider the feelings of others, as well as to not prioritise his own way of thinking if it undermines someone else’s.

In actuality, Alhaitham’s frustrations with Kaveh lie in his belief that Kaveh’s talents are incongruous with his values, and that if Kaveh were to prioritise himself, he would save himself suffering and enable himself to discover his “true self”, unrestricted by others placing labels onto him.

This is a personal frustration which Alhaitham would not compromise himself to assert onto a person he was indifferent to, due to his belief of not getting involved with other’s fates. However, he has been observed to ‘subvert’ his own rules to accommodate Kaveh. Through egoism, it can be seen that rather than ‘subverting’ these rules, Alhaitham adheres to them as an egoist, since he sees Kaveh as his mirror, they offer each other a contrasting perspective he believes they need to have a complete, objective vision of the world.

This is necessary for Alhaitham to consider within his own life, and therefore has extended his house to Kaveh, in order to expand his scope of thinking, and to consider perspectives he otherwise would not entertain. Kaveh’s ideals, his beliefs, and his philosophies explicitly interest Alhaitham, in contradiction with Kaveh believing that Alhaitham is disdainful of his perspectives.

In this way, Alhaitham enjoys Kaveh. He willingly pays for some of Kaveh’s tabs; pays for crates of wine for the two of them; and goes out of his way to pursue interactions with Kaveh. Just as Alhaitham is to Kaveh, Kaveh is an old friend, as unchanged in his beliefs as he was in the past and thus is a constant: “the most unshakable part of one's past is a friend that will never change”’.

Alhaitham strives to act in accordance to his own egoism and therefore assesses what “appears harmful” to him, in relation to these rules, so as to be rid of them. This can be extended to Kaveh, as Kaveh falls under what ‘belongs’ to Alhaitham, in the sense that ownership equates to Alhaitham’s enjoyment.

Alhaitham wants to have Kaveh in his life due to the alternate perspective which Kaveh offers him, thus expanding his horizons and granting him knowledge he otherwise would not obtain. As well as this, Kaveh is seen to be considered part of Alhaitham’s way of life that he wants to protect. In line with Stirner’s egoism, it follows that as Alhaitham enjoys Kaveh, as in, ‘owns’ the contentment Kaveh elicits, he therefore is affected by Kaveh’s self-inflicted grievances. Therefore, Alhaitham sees Kaveh’s altruism at the expense of his own wellbeing as something “harmful” to be dealt with, as this not only causes Kaveh inward misery, but also detriments Kaveh finding his “true self” (Alhaitham Character Story 3), which the egoist pursues above all else.

[serialunaliver]

to be honessssst I don't relate to many posts on here trying to be progressive about mental health conditions involving antisocial behavior.

if you live experiencing limited amounts of empathy, guilt, and remorse, you're left with the part of your brain that tries to justify everything you do and there's nothing to balance it out. I went a LONG time engaging in behaviors I knew were wrong but never thought to stop because my only concern was consequences it would have for ME. then I would somehow be outraged when someone behaved the exact same way...as if I knew deep down I have no excuses but can't admit it. and if you have such issues, therapy only helps you become self aware. this is still helpful because then you can realize how ridiculous your thought patterns are and recognize harm you cause, but changing your behavior is really not a guarantee, you have to try HARD and want to, so really it's just useless to say "you're valid uwu" about everything.

it's hard for people to acknowledge the 'darker' sides of mental illness because they think they'll have to throw out their mental health support. but you don't have to. you can say "I hope this person can be helped/rehabilitated" without saying "I condone what they've done". it's not that hard.

you don't have to justify everything on the basis of mental health, and you look ridiculous describing objectively bad behaviors and claiming you're fine with them. i've also seen this type of mindset used to defend people expressing bigoted beliefs, like "what if they didn't know it was socially unacceptable because of xyz disorder" (no joke someone said this to me when I pointed out you shouldn't fandom roleplay in serious political discussions) which is ridiculous and in case you didn't know there is no mental health condition that causes a certain political belief system.

ok rant over 👍

[tanadrin]

Are you totally against the concept of evil?

In the sense that "evil" is a value judgement, being "against the concept of evil" is like being "against the concept of stinky." People have their opinions about what they think is evil and what they think is not, just like they have their opinions about what they think smells good and what they think smells bad. Indeed, in this sense "evil" is just a particularly strong condemnation of things we find morally bad.

That said, as a value judgement, I don't find it a very useful one. Even among people who profess to want to think deeply about difficult moral questions, when the word "evil" is raised, it is being used as a thought-terminating cliche, a signpost that says "I am unwilling to be challenged on this opinion further." Like, I see this a lot in rat-adj types here on tumblr who would balk at you shutting down a conversation on sexual ethics or economics or recreational drug use with a cry of "evil!" using it the exact same way when it comes to their own ethical bugbears.

And the reason that a cry of "evil!" shuts down conversations more than even other pure value judgements is that it doesn't appeal to anything, except an affective sense of ethics. If I say (for example) "legalizing weed would be bad, because of consequentialist concerns X, Y, and Z," or "foreign military intervention is bad, because we ought to adopt a strong deontological rule against violating other states' sovereignty," then you might disagree, but at least there is a conceptual basis for our disagreement. If we want to have a conversation about it, we could; it might be a frustrating conversation where neither convinces the other, but we can at least understand each other in principle, even if we continue to disagree quite strongly.

But if I say, "we cannot legalize weed, because doing drugs is evil," or "we should disband the American military, because the Pentagon is evil," what is there to discuss? We're no longer talking about beliefs about the world, just attitudes. If someone thinks I am or believe something that is evil, what am I supposed to do with that? Yelling "you are evil," or "you believe evil things" is not going to change anybody's mind. It's not going to shock them out of their moral complacency, they're not gonna think "oh, this person think I am a bad person, I should really care what they think." Of course not! They're gonna think "oh, this person is an asshole," or, even less productively, "no, you're evil!", and the traditional way of resolving those kinds of conflicts is burning an entire continent to the ground.

Nowadays, we mostly just have shitty flame wars, but those are still kind of unpleasant and I would prefer to avoid them. I can't tell you or anybody else how to use language or how to think, but if someone were asking my advice, I would say: when you have the reflexive feeling of outrage and disgust that you associate with "evil," it's worth reflecting on 1) what your actual moral objection is, and 2) the reason why someone might actually believe or do something you think is evil. And that's not "because they're evil." Again, that is a value judgement, not an explanation! No one goes around thinking to themselves, "today I shall be evil because I love evil."

I must emphasize that making value judgements is not bad. Making value judgements is a necessary component of living in the world and thinking about ethics and caring about other people. But on the basis that "evil" seems particularly prone to being reified as an objective force in the world, and a value judgement that suffices for and replaces actual understanding, I have made a self-conscious effort to exclude it from my analytical vocabulary.

[wntrsnat]

Was Natasha a kid when she met Bucky?

It’s a widespread misconception outside of winterwidow fandom that Bucky and Natasha have known each other since she was a kid. I’ve seen a handful of people object to their relationship for this reason or (sometimes in a humorous manner) comment on how weird it is. And I'd have to agree with them. Bucky dating Natasha despite having trained her since she was a child would have been utterly inappropriate, if not immoral and disgusting. However, the assumption is not only incorrect but also fundamentally impossible.

Let’s go back to the beginning to clarify why that assumption is fundamentally impossible. Different universes equal different realities, and different realities equal different characters. Sometimes characters' counterparts across multiple realities only differ in details, not the basics. MCU characters have a similar correlation with their What If counterparts but not comics’ ones, which is a grave mistake cinematic fans make. I believe that’s why we have this absurd assumption as well, from someone thinking that 616 Black Widow and Winter Soldier are the same age as their more famous counterparts.

MCU’s Natasha Romanoff was born in 1984, and Bucky – 1917. Thus, an adult-kid dynamic is plausible. If we consider cryostasis, Bucky was still pushing 30 when Natasha was born. The situation, however, is significantly different for their 616 counterparts. Let’s start with Earth 616’s Bucky Barnes, who was born in 1925, making him nearly a decade younger than the cinematic one. But that isn’t what disproves the aforementioned belief. What disproves it is that Earth 616’s Natasha Romanoff was born around 1928, making her 56 years older than her cinematic counterpart and just 3 years younger than 616 Bucky. You will find this information on the following page from Black Widow: Deadly Origin, a 2009–2010 graphic novel (which I will be using as a basis today):

This alone debunks the adult/child misconception, but I want to go one step further and discuss the timeline of Natasha's time in the Red Room and the early years of the Winter Soldier.

At the young age of 20, Bucky Barnes "died" alongside Captain America in late 1945, in last days of the war. The Russian submarine discovered Bucky's preserved body after the war while hoping to retrieve Captain America’s remains. And with that, the Winter Soldier story began, along with his role as a super soldier trainer at the Red Room for Department X.

Now, one might say, "Ana, if he was 20, Natasha was 17, which is still kind of wrong, no?". My answer is yes; it would’ve been rather inappropriate. "Would’ve been" because there’s a catch: Natasha wasn’t part of the Red Room when he joined.

I know what you’re thinking: What the fuck, wasn’t she...? Didn’t she…? So let me explain that one from the beginning.

Natasha Romanoff, then 10 years old, was brought to the Red Room in 1938 by her father figure, Ivan Petrovich (a terrible piece of shit about whom I'll write a blog), Taras Romanov, and Joseph Stalin himself. After her trainer, Wolverine, killed Taras in 1940, she let Wolverine go, fled into the woods, and was found three months later by Ivan, possibly going back under his care, which can be seen below:

She returned to the Red Room only at the age of 28, ironically enough, becauseof Ivan, which is depicted on the following page:

There, we find a collapsed building with a bleeding Ivan and a sobbing Natasha, who have been approached by …. *DRUM ROLL* ….  the Winter Soldier, who has been sent by his superiors. They were both offered the super soldier serum that would save Ivan in exchange for their newfound loyalty, which Natasha accepted despite Ivan's protests.

Here we are, then: Natasha, 28, meets the Winter Soldier, roughly 31, who’ll soon be her lover and her trainer. Two adult people who met when they were both adults. And with that, we conclude our blog, disproving the infamous “she was a kid when they met!” argument.

Thanks for reading my blog. If you have questions or have found a mistake, let me know. I'll be happy to answer and discuss <3

[ririka-ilios]

Eidolon art "blueprint"

I've been looking over Eidolons in Star Rail today and thought it'd be fun to try and figure out how exactly the art on them works (i.e. what is the principle behind it, what they have in common between different characters, that sort of stuff).

There will be 1 (ONE) 2.1 story spoiler in here, so beware!

I haven't seen anyone else discuss this, so I've taken it upon myself to write an essay on it! This is relatively small and based entirely on my observations of the art. Feel free to use this as a basis for designing eidolons for your OCs if you want.

There will be example(s) for each part to help visualise the point I'm making as well as descriptions for the ones I'll use (some of the descriptions are much more detailed than others).

Eidolon 1

Shows view of the character from the back 3/4th to the left, up to their shoulders.

Eidolon 2

A close up of either of the character's eyes, showing off the details.

Eidolon 3

The view is entirely unique: the perspective, pose, and focus of the composition is meant to showcase an aspect of the character's personality.

Examples:

● Dan Heng. Back view, focus on his earphones as well as the maple leaf in his hand;

● Silver Wolf. Front view, focus on the game console in her hands;

● Himeko. Front view, focus on her facial expression and the pen in her hand.

Eidolon 4

Gives view of the character mostly from the front (either full-on or at an angle) or with them facing the camera in some way, up to their shoulders. Often has characters establish eye contact with the camera, but not necessary. Another showcase of their personality possibly might even represent how they interact with others.

Examples:

● March 7th. Back view with her head turned to look at the camera, making a peace sign. She's the only real outlier I've found so far, but it fits her personality fully;

● Aventurine. Front facing the camera, tipping (pulling down?) his hat and hiding one eye behind his hand as a result, obscuring his face;

● Bronya. Front, turned to the right, has a serious listening expression, one hand one her chest, closer to the heart. Perhaps a show of sincerity and dedication.

Eidolon 5

A close-up of the character's neck/collarbone area (despite the popular belief, it doesn't actually focus on their chest). The angle varies, as does the amount of character's expression shown, but generally, most of it is obscured (even in fuller pictures).

Examples:

● Herta. 3/4th angle, focus on the key hanging from her choker. The only part of her expression we see is her typical smug little smile;

(This Herta is one of many puppet avatars so the key might be a play on that. She also has a keyhole on the front of her outfit, though they're different sizes. There's also a key on a book cover in her splash art. Another fun fact, her upgrade materials are "Keys" as she is one of the first Erudition characters)

● Dr. Ratio. Focus on the pendant/decoration on his collarbones (maybe the Intelligentsia Guild insignia?), he has that "lips in a thin line" sort of expression;

● Black Swan. Focus on the heart decoration on her collarbones (reference to the stained glass in her ultimate, which in itself, loosely, calls back to Fuli, the Remembrance). She has her slight enigmatic smile.

Eidolon 6

Like E3, the view is entirely unique. The only consistent thing is that it ends at about the middle of a character's chest. The character is naked, showing them at their most vulnerable.

Examples:

● Misha. View from the side, his body turned in on itself as he hugs some sort of glowing orb. As a result, he's only illuminated at the points of contact. His expression is relaxed, but there's an interesting amount of seriousness in it, as if he's soothing/protecting the object;

● Sparkle. 3/4th to the left, has her hands up to her chest, one holding onto the other. A red string is tied into a four-petal flower shape around her pinkie finger, which sticks out from the rest of her fingers. Her expression is fully relaxed, her mouth is even slightly open, but the face paint is still on, and her hair is tied up;

● Acheron. View from the front, though her body is slightly turned to the left. She's in her self-annihilator state: hair white, the red thorn-like tattoos surround her lower neck and collarbones. There are red flowers outlined in white, either blooming on or flowing near her, some on her shoulders, some covering her left eye, others flying off. Interestingly, the flowers are placed loosely on a diagonal, bottom left to top right. Her expression is fully relaxed, mouth open slightly, and her hair is flowing to the side. That, paired with the flowers, makes it seem like there's a breeze passing by.

The conclusion I came to, upon finishing this analysis, is that Eidolons can be interpreted as the layers to characters' personality. With E1 being what anyone in the crowd could see – their back, no face, nothing to truly identify them by, and E6 is them at their most relaxed, most open point.

[nonegenderleftpain]

There are few things I hate more than "Jewish ally" anti-theists and atheists that spout complete bullshit about Judaism and our supposed beliefs as though they know better than we do what we believe. When we talk about cultural xtianity, this is the kind of shit we're talking about.

"You might not believe in hell but most Jews do, my ex-xtian interpretation of your holy texts is correct despite thousands of years of information on the subject, here's a video telling you that you're wrong." Spent several posts calling non-religious people "freethinkers," and continuously dodged the question regarding the harm eliminating religion would do to so many cultures. Not to mention going from "I think the world is better without religion" to "you have an anti-xtian bias that I don't like" as though there's not a reason for that.

Ex-xtian atheists - you need to address and unlearn your xtian belief that your way is the only right way. That you are objectively correct and everyone else is just ignorant. That you know better than the religious minorities you are addressing. People like this want an excuse to talk down to religious minorities under the guise of polite language, and if you don't want to be associated with them, you have to put in the work to not be like this. I say this as an ex-Catholic, and a former anti-theist - do better.

If you are making objective assertions about someone else's religion that you have not studied and cannot answer basic questions about, you're not being critical of religion, you're being an atheist supremacist. If you pull a "gods are more harmful than helpful" like this person but cannot tell me the impact of Kali or Sàngó on their respective cultures, you are not being critical, you're ignorant and self-absorbed. If you have not studied religion, you do not know what you are talking about, and if you are only accepting xtian interpretations of other religions as true, even as a basis for hatred of religion, you're just a xtian with a new wallpaper.

If you are advocating for anti-theism, you are advocating for the cultural genocide of hundreds of different cultures around the world. If you are advocating for anti-theism, you are inherently anti-Jew. And if you are talking over Jews when they correct you on your blatant misunderstanding of our culture, only to call us *liars* when we counter your misconceptions, or call out your cherry-picked sources for why you know better than we do, you're not just an asshole, you're an Antisemite.

I took this conversation in good faith, hoping that the ignorance was born from misunderstanding instead of malice. I should not have been so kind. And if you're going to come onto this post and whine and cry about "not all atheists," or "cultural xtianity isn't real," save us both the time and block me. I'm done entertaining atheists that will not acknowledge that y'all don't know better than the religious minorities you are insulting by assuming we're all just blind sheep being lied to by some hierarchy that doesn't exist outside of certain religions. My partner is an atheist. I was for a long time, and I chose to return to religion on my own. I'm still an atheist, but I am also very religious. I'm the "smart Jew" that ex-xtians love to talk about; enlightened and no longer clinging to the supernatural. And I'm telling you that you're a fucking asshole and I associate more with the most spiritual Orthodox Jew than I ever would with someone who thinks atheism makes you superior.

[genderkoolaid]

I think people forget that atheism ≠ anti-theism. Like in the same way, say, asexuality ≠ anti-sex/sexuality. Somebody talking about how antisemitism is bad is not saying people who don't believe in god are Bad, they're saying being against religious people is bad. And for asexuality, not being sexual yourself does not automatically mean you are against people who are

From what I've seen the basis for antitheism is "religion is inherently harmful and getting rid of religion will improve the world." but the problems with that imo are:

religion is a made up concept that's almost meaningless. like its a well known issue that "religion" is such a vague concept that is deeply western which is why its often really really hard to apply it to the vast majority of human spiritual traditions. hell even "religio" in the context of roman polytheism doesn't map exactly onto the concept of "religion"! like in a lot of cases the line between "religion" and "philosophy" is blurred or nonexistent. not to mention that there are religious atheists. jewish atheists are probably the best example since judaism tends to be far more open to that kind of complexity & fosters a culture which allows people to engage with judaism in a variety of ways. but there are people who don't believe in god or jesus-as-savior but are christians for cultural or philosophical reasons. there are tons and tons of atheists buddhists because its a helpful way of engaging with life regardless of whether or not you believe in samsara literally. the idea that there is this strict binary between Religion and Atheism is, like all binaries, made up.

scapegoating religion for all of humanity's problems is just unhelpful. the idea that religion is this force will propels people to do bad things, and that without religion we wouldn't do them, ignores how humans shape religion to our benefit. there's a reason that wealthy kings who want to maintain power emphasize interpretations of the bible or quran that endorse war while downplaying the ones that endorse peace and compassion. for the same reason that people will support philosophies that view humans as inherently mean and violent and in need of control instead of ones that view us as capable of communal care and cooperation- you don't need to believe in a deity to create a reason why you need to kill another group of people and take their shit. religion is a way this happens, and its important that this is dealt with, but this is not a unique feature of religion. getting rid of religion will not fix our shitty behavior.

going off 1 and 2: trying to get rid of "religion" will inevitably mean fucking over marginalized groups who have already had their spirituality attacked and whose culture cannot be so easily separated from their spirituality. and even beyond that, antitheism is just another way of trying to force a belief onto people. believing in no god is no more objectively correct than believing in one, or any other spiritual concept. there are always going to be spiritual people. also you can say "but there are nonwhite/formerly nonchristian antitheists!!" as much as you want but that doesn't change that saying shit like "all your beliefs are childish and mentally ill, you need an educated intellectual to make you realize you are being stupid and irrational and make you think correctly" is absolutely some classic colonial white supremacist bullshit.

also trying to force atheism on people actually does not help atheists. because it in fact only makes it easier for people to stigmatize atheism as inherently destructive and hostile.

anyways now that anon can get mad for being a wretched child ranting about antitheism. now i've earned it.

[max1461]

Current debate being hosted on @triviallytrue's blog involving @metamatar and @centrally-unplanned is interesting to me on a meta-level. @metamatar, a Marxist, offers what I think would usually be called a "materialist" explanation for US support of Israel: the United States gets strategic benefits out of its relationship with Israel and thus wants to keep them as an ally. @centrally-unplanned, a rationalist-adjacent(?) liberal of some sort, offers what I think would usually be called an "idealist" explanation: the US supports Israel against its own rational self-interest for ideological and domestic political reasons. Triv, a left-liberal, takes an intermediary position.

Using the terms "materialist" and "idealist" in this way has certain Marxist undertones that I don't necessarily endorse, and is maybe not even technically accurate for one reason or another, but I just needed some quick and recognizable terms in which to frame the debate. Forgive me for this.

One way or another, I have some up-my-own-ass and navel-gazatory things to say about the discussion.

I don't know a whole lot about the US's relationship with Israel on an object level. But on the basis of my priors I lean towards the materialist explanation. I think this reflects, ironically, a kind of liberal view of human nature: I model people (and organizations) as basically self-interested and rational agents, at least to a rough approximation. But I have a fairly dim view of where this leads us. I think that rational self-interest often results in murder and plunder and cold-hearted slaughter, and indeed the notion that humans are approximately rational and self-interested agents comports well with the fact that the world today and for all of known history has been characterized by murder and plunder and cold-hearted slaughter. My default assumption is therefore that, again to a first approximation, whatever is going on between the US and Israel is another instance of this.

On the other hand, I think it's interesting that the idealist explanation is here favored by a liberal, although it suggests perhaps a less "liberal" view of human nature. Under this explanation humans are foolish, driven by irrationality, ideology, and superstition, to work against their own material interests. Ok, the putative politicians supporting Israel for domestic political reasons are acting in their own self-interest, but the voters to which they cater are evidently not! Naively this view might seem a bit at odds with a liberal political philosophy, but I don't think it really it. Especially in this case, where the belief that US support of Israel is driven by irrationality and superstition actually serves to rescue the notion of rational self-interest from what otherwise might look like a mark on its good name. It allows one to avoid the conclusion that the rational pursuit of self-interest has lead the US to complicity in a genocide, which is not a very fun conclusion to reach if you endorse a political philosophy that at some level valorizes the rational pursuit of self-interest.

All in all, what is my point? I don't really have a point. I don't think this kind of psychoanalysis of others' political opinions is a very useful endeavor. I suppose I'm saying precisely nothing: the leftists in this discussion have taken up a position that indicts rational self-interest, the liberals have taken up a position that exculpates it, the centrists have taken a middling position—everyone has behaved in exactly the way our cheap psychoanalysis of them suggests they would. Nothing has been learned about the world (in this post, I mean), because although we see that the participants in the discussion are making arguments that suit their ideologies, we cannot tell which direction the causality runs. And nothing has been learned about the participants in the discussion because this kind of psychoanalysis is a crock of shit.

Keep on posting, everybody.