#i also dont think peoples belief is what is making them stupid

[corneille-moisie]

isnt it ironic how holier than thou some atheist are 🤔

[brucequeensteen]

all r-dfem blogs on here are always posting 3 things: a) most vitriolic disgusting display of shaming people for how they look which almost always implicitly or explicitly aligns with some kind of eugenics or racism, b) how everyone who isnt them or disagrees with them is stupid or misguided or has no hope left for them, and c) how lonely and isolated they feel all the time . I wonder when they will join the dots

[snekdood]

why do ppl call shark3ozero a debate bro when like. I hardly ever see him actually debate anyone..? usually he’s just talking about current events?? is talking to vaush like twice really enough for ppls black and white thinking to be triggered about ppl????

[ghstmsk]

filled this out the other day for these two cause idk felt like it. I referred to them as just friends with benefits but theyre in a weird spot where they might actually be dating but no ones sure not even them. I think maybe i don't work with these sorts of templates cause I feel the need to explain a lot i'm very prone to infodumping about my ocs

[crypt2niite]

i think this recent chapter of one piece really made it click in alot of peoples minds that coby is a marine. a true, dedicated marine who believes wholeheartedly in the marine cause.

mild spoilers for one piece 1122.

this chapter and specifically yhis panel

really solidifies that coby is a marine. coby is wholeheartedly a marine who wholeheartedly believes being a marine is the right thing, and that makes him one of three things.

1.) a cruel facist wannabe who idiolizes what the marines are right now and everything they represent

2.) a complacent idiot who, in blind and naive stupidity has allowed himself to be used by facists to enforce their regime unknowingly

3.) a even more naive idiot who genuinely believes one person has the ability to tear down a hundreds of years old dictatorship and the instutional police planet that has been built apoj those foundations from the inside without piggybacking off of the work, blood, death and tears of the rioters, revolutionaries and inssurectionists who are ripping down and fighting against the marines and world goverment in a immediately impactful way

coby is a true marine and what that means is blind faith in the marines no matter what that means for you, blind faith in your version of the marines, in the pipe dream that ‘you’re helping!’ that ‘its not perfect but i can make it better! i can change it from the inside im a true hero!!! i can do this thr right way. no awful unrulyness or law breaking. because the system itself is good, its just the bad people in charge 🥺’

coby is a true marine in the way garp is a true marine because they both are so close to being good people but will never be one and never had the potential to be ones, because of them being marines to their very core. no matter what.

coby is garps apprentice and it shows. garp is willing to throw away any attatchments he has, to watch young boys he promised to care for die because they contridict his belief in the marines, just as coby is willing to discard the one person who gave him a chance to be *anything* because that person contradicts his belief in the marines

the ‘good marines’. coby, garp, smoker, fujitora, ectect are some of my absolute favorite flavour of characters in one piece, they all have some way of burying their head in the sand, either via naivete, willful ignorance or what may be. theyre all absolutely awful, so easy to love and so hard to hate but so easy to dislike, its so easy to want them to just. fix it. become a pirate or fix the marines or do something to make them compatable with luffy, with freedom but they wont be. they never will be unless they can cast aside some of the very fundamentals of their psyche becase in the end, they are using their abilities to defend and aid the goals and wishes of a dictatorship, to defend the proprieters of slavery and cruelty.

also please dont take this as me hating coby or garp or saying u cant love them! i really like coby and think garp is funny atleast, and fujitora, one of the aformentioned so called ‘good’ marines is one of my favourite characters, period! he is so facinating in how he balances believing himself to be a good person while also actively supporting atrocities i love him sooo much

[hostilecandle]

Okay fellow fic writers, we need to have a little chat. I really need yall to understand that Ao3 is not a social media site, it is an archive. And because of that there are 2 big things I am begging you to grasp

1) You do NOT control who reads your fics. It is getting increasingly often I'm seeing "minors dni" and "proship dni" on fics on the archive. Yall... that is not. how. archives. work. You don't get to choose that. The second you consent to your fic being posted in an archive you have consented to anyone reading it. That is how an archive functions. If that is a problem or sticking point for you or makes you uncomfortable, don't post there. It's simple. There are basic and common sense rules that apply when using an archive, and the ability for anyone to read what's posted to archival site is one of them. Imagine if you went through a physical archive in a library or at a college or wherever and they had signs saying "X do not read/interact" yall would recognize that as wrong and stupid. Recognize it in yourself as well

2) I need yall to understand what tags are actually for. They're not for triggers, contrary to popular belief and discourse. Though can be used as a very helpful tool for it. They're there, and im sure I'm beating a dead horse saying this again, BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING ARCHIVE. Do yall not understand how those work? Tags are for filtering so people can find. what. they're. looking. for. This is why it's important to tag things like blood, gore, mcd, fluff, cheating, marriage, whump, happy endings etc. It's why its a bullshit argument to say "I don't want to spoil it" (apart for the massive ethics problem that is you weirdos) that's not what an archive is for. Post it here, or wattpad, fanfic or live journal (if theyre still functioning) or in a long af threadfic on twitter. Hell, post it on fb or insta for all I give a shit. But if you want to play by social media rules, post it on a social media not an archival site.

And I've seen the argument that "published works aren't held to this standard" and 1) you're work isn't a published book and 2) YES THEY ARE. When a published work is added to an archive, they also have to be properly labeled. Why the fuck do yall think they dont??? Sure if your fic was on a Barnes and noble shelf, you wouldn't have to say or "spoil" it. You don't even have to do it here on Tumblr, though I frankly think it's an absolute dickhead move. But anything in an archive is labeled or "tagged". Otherwise it's just a mess of words that no one can seperate from each other. You'd be creating a library of babel without it.

So tldr: learn what an archive actually is, stop putting '___ dni' on your ao3 fics, and tag. your. fics. and stop complaining about it in said tags for fucks sake 😭😭😭

[redscreendarkwin]

People being stupid (again, what a surprise)

Saw someone say that people who have "limiting beliefs" such as believing race changing and aging yourself down to date minors is wrong will keep you from shifting. Bitch, explain all the other shifters who have shifted (including myself through minishifts) with said "limited beliefs". Actually, explain anti-shifters who got into shifting because they didn't believe it wasn't real until they shifted.

You could literally claim ANYTHING is a "limited belief". Like for example, murder. I along with other shifters believe that murder is wrong. Does it mean I'm not gonna shift because of that? NO. Just because murder drs exist doesn't mean you should go to them just like how people who are not a certain race shouldn't shift to be another. Or like how if you're an adult, you should leave minors ALONE and not shift for them. Because that's stupid as fuck and I don't know about the rest of you people who claim anything is a "limited belief" but I have morals.

Like, you realize those people who murder innocent people in their drs could literally claim if you’re against it that that’s a limiting a belief. Some of yall don’t even think your arguments through and it SHOWS.

Do you see how your argument makes no logical sense?

This app has genuinely shown me that the majority of y'all are chronically online. Jumping through hoops to make it seem like you're not attracted to children or gaslighting minorities into thinking that race changing is ok just because you have a few Uncle Tom's backing you up.

"Well, I'm already that age in my dr so why does it matter?" why are you attracted to that child in the first place that you want to shift for them? Answer that, diddy. You're telling me that you see it as perfectly ok for 30 year old shifters to age themselves down to date someone who's 12 or even younger?

"B-b-b-but I'm already that race in my dr so why is it bad?" Maybe it's the fact you're purely using it for aesthetics/fetishization? If you're white, don't argue with me. I am never gonna look at your opinion as valid so you can stop typing on your keyboard now. Go outside.

I'm also so tired of people saying "It's not your dr, why should you care?" As if it's not human to care when people are culturally appropriating my or other people's culture for aesthetics/fetishizations or being pedophilic. Y'all care when people literally MURDER innocent people in other drs, why is it so different with this? Using your logic, we shouldn't care because it's not our dr.

And it’s so ironic that shiftblr proclaims itself as people who don’t spread false information when one of the biggest shiftblr blogs (this is targeting a specific person) is spreading false information like “if you don’t believe ____ you won’t shift.” You are quite literally doing the very thing you hate on shiftok for doing..

This app is FUCKED.

And dont try to debunk my post if you aren’t even gonna read my post in its entirety. Hint hint, you know who you are 😉

[stealingyourbones]

You know, the civilian Bruce au is so funny to me, just because of the whole situation with Talia.

Like can you imagine:

Bruce: *acts like a himbo*

Talia: Well I can't just not fuck him now can I?

I think Damian was created by taking Bruce's DNA?

Ra's: Who's DNA did you take to make this baby?

Talia:...

Ra's: WHOSE DNA-

Just imagine Damian leaving to go live with his father and expecting him to be this powerful warrior or something and instead getting this rich himbo.

Damian: I'm the blood son, so I will be the one to inherit his legacy!

Tim...you wanna be a doctor that bad?

Damian: What

Like, his father doesn't know about his children's vigilantism, he doesn't even know that Talia was an assassin from the league, he doesn't even know what the league is. Mother why?

If he wants to be a vigilante as well he has to listen to his adoptive brothers, which really grates him. He also has to keep it from Bruce, which he really doesn't get.

Bruce just keeps accidentally guilt tripping Damian into a normal child.

Bruce: I'm just so glad our family is getting along. I just don't what I would do if you didn't like your brothers 🥹

Damian, who is definitely not getting along with his brothers:...yeah...

Do you think he'd inherit his mother's taste in men?

Jon: *does something stupid*

Damian, near tears: I think I get it now mother, I'm sorry I kink shamed you.

Okokok I getchu, but I also need to add here that Bruce’s parents were certainly not normal and He certainly isnt normal. His parents read motherfuckin The Veldt by Ray Bradbury to him as a BEDTIME STORY!!

The Story in Summary: the Hadley family, two kids and their mom and dad, live in this automated home that can do anything for them. It can cook, clean, wash the kids, put them to bed, anything household work like you can imagine, it can do.

Kids have a VR Room called The Nursery. The Nursery is stuck visually showing an African landscape (w/ lions eating dead carcasses in the background and people screaming). They call a Psychologist for answers of this landscape. Psychologist tells them to turn off the house. The Hadley’s agree. They doubt their parenting abilities but this guy helped reassure them that doing this will help their issues. The kids protest heavily but the parents’s resolve is firm. They tell their kids they can visit The Nursery one last time.

The parents talk about the kids a bit more before going into The Nursery to collect the kids. They are met with a pride of lions. The screams they heard in The Nursery before is reminiscent as the ones they are currently making as the Lions tear into them.

The psychologist goes to check on the kids. They are in the Nursery having tea. It’s still the African Savanna. Lions are feasting on two bodies far in the distance.

The psychologist realizes what has been done. A child offers him tea like nothing is wrong.

That’s the story. Its a very shitty summary but its the best I could do with my current brain functionality. But can you imagine why I think that’s a Not Normal Parenting Tactic for the average child?

I have the personal belief that Bruce’s parents were quite eccentric and a tad on the strange side. You dont grow up stewing in your own grief and then decide to become a vigilante crime fighter after a traumatic event with a regular upbringing.

All I’m saying is that if you’re going the Civilian!Bruce route, he’s absolutely protective of his kids, but his personality would still have some similarities to the OG Bruce Wayne. Still enjoys working out and maybe this time he actually gets those copious amounts of injuries doing eccentric Rich people sports and getting hurt from trying to pull off wild as hell stunts.

He isn’t a man who doesn’t do anything when he’s in the line of fire. He still has learned self defense and knows damn well how to fight and fight back, just not to the degree of a vigilante.

I’m unsure how to fully characterize a Bruce who his parent’s death never consumed his entire being and made him into Batman but this man certainly will pretend to be a himbo in front of the press. He might not have that playboy guise anymore because normally its a way to hide his Batman identity. He certainly doesn’t have the Batcave but you bet your ass that this man HAS tried to go spelunking in the caves below his house.

Idk that’s all I got for this but its just me adding on with my thoughts. Bruce unknowingly keeping the boys grounded in normal life actives in a way that means more for the boys than Bruce would ever understand or realize is some good shit.

[pawberri]

ok, so i just saw an anti-dni post talking about how having a dni list in bio is purposeless and annoying since it is like a 'holding a sign saying "do not kick me." ' now, i find that perspective objectionable (since obtaining a block list might be what is desired anyways and not all dni reasons have to be extremely polarizing, e.g., i dont think a minors dni will suddenly make a billion minors annoyed, making them interact w/ you immediatly) and i have a slight feeling that you disagree with that point of view too because uhhhhh.

so what i wanted to know was whether you share the same reasons to oppose that perspective, and, if not, then, what are they?

I have been getting really annoyed with the backlash to dnis... I think it's goofy when some person has a dni with a million things, but it feels reactionary to me to say "it makes no sense for you to put your boundaries and expect people to follow them." There's especially this vibe with people who post more extreme content getting mad at dnis. I think that's weird. Partially, people seem to take them as like... a sign of moral superiority or hatred... rather than just a little bit of clarity on boundaries. These people talk about "curating your online space" but have to make these posts ranting about people who do it in a way they dislike. I especially think it's dumb to say, "Just block me, why do I have to not interact with you?" because... I mean, you can't block someone you don't know exists. It's meant to be a preemptive expression of boundaries, so the other party has the chance to block you and / or just not interact.

I know that, in practice, some people have really silly, long dnis that are linked on some weird carrd that takes forever to read. I don't think it's fair to strawman the concept of expressing some of your boundaries online in a digestible format as being stupid because of that, though. Especially when a lot of the people with silly dnis are teenagers just trying to figure their life out. They'll grow out of it. It's fine.

I also think it's weird and victim blame-y to say people will naturally be harassed if they give any kind of indication of their boundaries. I sometimes get mean anons, but for the most part, my experience online is way better because I am upfront about things. I don't get too personal or say things I'm uncomfortable sharing, but I make my boundaries clear. Even when I was a teenager and getting harassed by redditors, I never had stuff I asked to be trigger tagged used against me like people fearmonger about. (I'm sure it can happen, but I think that for most people, it just results in their social circle tagging stuff for them.) Even if that did happen, I think it would cruel to say that it was my fault for daring to express a boundary. If you kick the guy who says "do not kick me", you're still being bully and a contrarian asshole. Even if I didn't express a boundary, people like that would likely harass me. If I don't express a boundary for the sake of avoiding harassment, I get in exchange an audience that will constantly be shocked and fight with me about my beliefs when they show. Then, that creates either an unpredictable level of harassment or the feeling of being harassed because I'm constantly in discourse with my followers. At best I feel miserable and hate interacting with my followers.

I think this partially comes from people who are afraid to express their boundaries for fear of backlash (ie they want to make extreme content but fear saying so will make their followers mad), but honestly I think being straight forward makes your audience more curated. The people I see who post extreme content and are clear about it seem to have an easier time than people who build an audience of a bunch of unsuspecting people and then slowly introduce untagged incest kink or something. Not saying it's a guaranteed anti-harassment tool, but I don't understand the impulse to warn for nothing and have no clear boundaries with your audience, then get mad you curated the audience you curated. I hope it doesn't come across as me victim-blaming in the opposite direction, I don't think anyone deserves harassment regardless of if I disagree with what they post online. I kind of just mean to illustrate a counter example to the idea of the dni-haver making themself a target or inherently Being A Harasser.

[twistedastrology]

you cannot run a subreddit like a fucking dictatorship.

----------------------------------------------------------

im pissed as hell rn so im gonna bitch abt this real quick bc im a gemini and bitching is my specialty- and i cant do a workout yet so 😵‍💫

recently I've been very active in the r/astrology subreddit, primarily answering people's questions bc it's my favorite thing to do

I answered one person's question about the difference between the ascendant, chiron and north node, i was incredibly happy to answer bc i love helping people, especially with "easier" questions like that- (i use quotes to be respectful bc i am of the belief that no question is a stupid question)

i will give the mods one thing, they DID have a rule about self promotion even if the thing you're promoting is free- that one was my bad (i offered to look at someone's chart) and i will (and did) own up to it.

the one i will NOT own up to is the one that was not written in the fucking rules goddamn anywhere.

for reference, this was my comment that they took out back and shot:

just from this shit alone i was fucking pissed off because no goddamn way you're gonna sit here and tell me "degree theory has absolutely no basis" DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OF ASTROLOGY AS A WHOLE IS JUST THEORIES AND INTERPRETATION.

there's a reason astrology and astronomy are separate. one is based off of actual, provable mathematical equations, and the other is INTERPRETATION.

i replied, and then they did too:

"we caJT pUt eVery PoSsIblE tHiNg iN tHe RulEs" YOU HAVE 6 FUCKINH RULES. YOU CAN ADD ONE ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE SO PISSY ABOUT IT. what are you allergic to the number SEVEN???? is it because it's a LIBRA DEGREE? $! #?? #? #

and the fucking "and I'd encourage you to study them" id encourage you to study my fucking ass while i fart in your face motherfucker u wanna find out how korn got their fucking band name? $! #? #? #? #?

you dont believe in degree theory??? Fun fact: your north node of destiny is in 26° MY ASS and your mercury is in 3° BULLSHIT- and your ass and my foot are in a 0° orbit conjunction 🥳🥳🥳

motherfucker degree theory is a T H E O R Y. you can't just remove someone's fucking comment yapping about it because you think it has no "basis in real astrology"- way to promote critical thinking, asshole!!!!!! you would burn the library of alexandria if you didn't agree with one fucking book in it.

this is why i was kind of afraid to go on reddit because people are so high and mighty with their astrology there that they are just about allergic to any other interpretations- and the r/astrology subreddit, at least some of the mods, seem to be exactly like that

like im sorry but my mercury in an aries degree of gemini makes perfect fucking sense to me- and the only other thing i have in aries is my venus which ISNT EVEN IN ORBIT TO MAKE A SEXTILE!!!! and these people definitely dont believe in cranking the orbits so i cant even say that 😒

not to mention dodecatemoria and decans are Technically degree theory- not in the sense of 1 degree = aries, but in the sense of "section of degrees = sign", especially dodecatemoria which is literally 0 - 29° of any sign

here's a chart in case anyone's interested:

dodecatemoria is also literally BABYLONIAN. that shit is OLD. granted egyptian decans and such are older, but that's still DECANS. AND DE GR E E S.

im not coming for everyone on the subreddit as a whole, just whoever appointed this dumbass fucking rule- why have an astrology subreddit when you can't even talk about certain astrology topics. fucking shit yourself loser i hope you burn.

to the people that dont know me that well btw i am not actually actively wishing harm on anyone- i just get very dramatic when im pissy 😒 anyway ill probably do a post on how i use degree theory soon in spite of this so keep an eye out!!! 🥳🥳

[transmutationisms]

been thinking it for a while but it is both an interesting and frightening thing to see more and more people in their 20s who are usually self-professed hard-leftist progressives get more and more into emotionally-driven, kneejerk 'takes' about how everything new to them is bad and evil and 'this generation' (usually people younger than them who they seem to base all their opinions on from some teens dumb tiktoks they see) is stupid and doomed and the world/'our culture' is constantly degenerating, etc. many of the people who think of themselves as radical leftists are coming out with more and more barely-formed, incoherent and emotionally-driven reactionary ideas, and respond to any criticism of these ideas with defensive appeals to disgust or a general sense of 'everyone just knows this is bad!', bypassing needing to think over their own ideas or articulate the reasons they hold them entirely in favor of reactive outrage.

it feels to me like were watching in real-time how many of us will progressively turn into reactionary liberals or right-wingers - something many of these people have observed in older people, in their parents, but believe will simply not happen to them on account of having good intentions and progressive views, which they think means they dont need to watch themselves for impulsive, reactionary thinking, and even that their kneejerk reaction to anything is automatically the correct one because they themselves are already inherently good. of course it starts with generally inconsequential takes, its not like saying 'the tiles are ugly' automatically makes you a right-winger, but i reckon the festering of such modes of thinking shows the cracks in the foundation of many peoples professed political and social beliefs.

point being, i think there certainly are discussions to be had about the ways architecture - both as a tool that serves a material need and a form of art - changes, and what we may be losing to capitalist priorities on that front, but if the only argument people are making are "its ugly and degenerates our once beautiful culture" and their defense to anyone addressing how that sounds ends at "well its still ugly!", im thinking that kind of reactionary opinion-forming is going to seep into other, more important matters sooner than they may think. sorry for the long ask!

yeah i mean i definitely don't think this is a new problem or a generational one, it's just liberal idealism, but yes this is exactly why this type of aesthetic discourse irritates me so much lol. like i've said this before in regards to clothing but aesthetic signifiers gain their meaning in a social context and conditionally. if your analysis is "it's ugly and therefore bad" you're not only attenuating an actual read of what's being signified and why, you're also just veering directly into the most boring ass "everything is worse now and change threatens me" conservatism. the idea that ugliness and beauty are not transhistorical or transcendental truths should ideally be like, a starting point to both questioning other socially mediated constructs and to then moving toward a theory of asethetics as products of social discourses and economic conditions but instead people just cannot ever fucking resist yelling about how much beige or concrete or whatever the fuck is "soulless" or "lacks artistry" agabshxhsg it's so fucking cornball. get over yourself

[anonzentimes]

abt your previous ask!! i agree that komahina gets hate sometimes in 2024 but also remember that kmhn is debatably the most popular ship of the FRANCHISE lmao?? imo to take the “kmhn is toxic” argument to so much heart is a nothing burger… search hinata’s or komaeda’s character tag and its like 99% kmhn art. i genuinely dont think its an issue of homophobia or stupidity or anything i think it just comes down to hinata being a Player Surrogate and komaeda being the antag thats constantly in your face and mocking you. people think the ship is toxic because their player experience w komaeda is toxic that’s it 😭 the malice you’re seeking isn’t there. no hate to you or the OG asker ofc but this is a very niche problem in current year to be so haunted by… kmhn isn’t going anywhere trust me

Anon with all due respect, one part of it it is people who have had a bad experience with komaeda or don't understand him, one part of it is people being homophobic, and the biggest part that's more common in this day and age is undermining Komahina due to shipping wars. Just because it's not a major thing there are still people who exist who think and say things against it. There are still people who misunderstand it or deny it for any of those reasons. I feel like you're denying the fact that these are collective issues that happen that result in the same conclusion that's misunderstanding the text. The text is something I care about dearly and I was asked about it. Komahina isn't going anywhere just as the people who perceive fiction differently aren't going anywhere. Whether or not you see these instances as a major issue that hinders the entirety of being able to enjoy the ship itself easily or not these people who misunderstand it do exist as long as the text does. That's just the nature of quite literally Everything SUBJECTIVE. As long as people exist who can interpret it in a way that misunderstands the text, have beliefs against the core aspects of the concept, and have interpretations that impact their views due to preferences there will be instances where it's frustrating for people like me. You can say it's a nothing issue all you want but that doesn't mean it will ever stop happening just as people like me won't ever stop loving it. You're coming into MY HOUSE and MOCKINGLY claiming that it really isn't such a big deal when this whole blog is about my special interests, of course I'm passionate about these instances that are frustrating. Not only that but I was ASKED about it, ASKED. I'm allowed to complain about people who frustrate me when they misunderstand or deny the text that I love regardless if it makes it physically impossible to enjoy it.

Just because I can enjoy my apples doesn't mean I can't complain about the people who are hating on my fruits, even if they can't force my fruit to rot I can still feel frustrated at them for not getting it like I do, denying it's existence, or simply hating on it. You're coming into my garden where the other gardeners are having a shared emotion of frustration. Like, that maybe a silly example but does that get the point across enough for you? You're coming into the territory of people who care and probably see it more because it's such a big thing in our lives. Like, Yeah, I know they can't make my fruit rot, that doesn't mean I can't express discontent over those who don't get it, misunderstand, or most of all are outwardly hating on what I love. By your definition of Niche this is literally the corner of that niche, we are the ones who still see it sometimes because that's how invested we are. Again, it's subjective, we're allowed to express disagreement and discontent with what those people say. And again, this is about one of my SPECIAL INTERESTS, Literal definition that makes it hard for me to comprehend how people see something that is so special to me in such a different and even negative way is hard for me to comprehend sometimes. I'll express that emotion caused by that, and proven by it being an ask I'm not alone in, as much as I want. I'm not harming anybody when I express my emotions between people who agree.

You say you have no malice and I'm sure you may have not intended it that way but you came up to the people who care and said in a mocking tone, "it's not that big of a deal why even care, the only thing that happens in 2024 is people misunderstanding them due to their writing roles," Like, seriously? How rude of you Honestly. And the cherry on top that's the worst of all, in the process you display that you misunderstand their characters. Nagito is just an annoying mocking antagonist to you? Are you SERIOUS? Hajime is half of a player surrogate but you're making the wrong conclusion about it, he's meant to be relatable but he isn't a complete self insert. We're meant to be able to put ourselves in his shoes and understand his relatable experiences, he's not a complete player surrogate though? You're saying people say it's toxic because, "We are Hinata and Komaeda is the mocking annoyance to us," WHAT??????? Before you try to say something like this again go understand their characters better by, perhaps, quite literally READING MY ANALYTICAL POSTS??? I'm certain they'd be helpful because you clearly need them, I'm not writing an entire essay right here and now just so You can understand them I make them for myself and answer questions I want to. If you have questions that you can word in a more respectful tone I can help you understand that way too.

I would have tried to make my words a little kinder but the way you come up to MY Blog with your false claims, misunderstandings, and disrespectful tone pisses me off. You went anonymous not because you might be a bit embarrassed about your interests like most of the questions I get, no, you went anonymous because you didn't want yourself to be known because you Know you were being Blunt with your Disrespectful tone. You have the luxury of the fact you said this anonymous, and I have the luxury of being as blunt and uncaring about your feelings with my response as I want. Kindly, once again, do more research on these characters and develop more media literacy before sending me something in such an inconsiderate tone again.

[rubiehart]

omggg! congrats on 1K your whole account is like such a safe place and you so deserve evrything!! 🩷💘 🫂; 𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 : i like shopping (it's like a addiction), pink!!!, movies but like super cute girly rom-com ones, being spoiled with like expensive gifts and i love love love getting my nails done and my hair done too. my personality is like very talkative but bratty i guess idk tbh 😭, i get like babied a lot icl which i honestly dont mind cause than i just do whatever without worrying since people are trying to shelter me and i'm also super bratty if i don't get my way with like anything especially when shopping, but im super girly and a girls girl for sure !! (i just realised i'm probably a kook now reflecting and i feel bad now cause is that a good thing??😭)

a safe place?? 🥹🥹 don’t even i’ll cry your the sweetest!!

honestly i think you’d be with rafe because you’re very kook coded (which is a good thing i am too!!) but i don’t write for him sooo..

you’re most compatible with jj!!

even though he can’t afford a lot, he tries his best with what he can scrape together from work and gets you cute little beach necklace and maybe a matching shark tooth necklace with a pink string instead!!

he’d also pay for your nails and hair whenever he can because he likes spoiling his girl and it makes him feel like shit when he can’t!! but you’re always reassuring him that he’s enough and that you’d love him the same if he could afford it all the time

(as a fellow brat) he’d love a bratty girl, contrary to popular belief (lol) he wouldn’t be a dick to you and talk to you like you’re stupid but he’d low-key be scared of you because he’s a loser at heart so a pretty girl who’s a brat is his ideal women because he’d turn into your bitch🙈

you drag him around the mall and give him little fashion shows in the fitting rooms as he gets bricked up at the skimpy stuff so he’s slipping your little thong to the side n fuckin’ you quick against the mirror🤭 also the detention of ‘wear what you want i can fight’ he loves your skimpy outfits, he loves showing you off because he still can’t believe he pulled you

also he’d watch all your girly movies with you and pretend not to enjoy them but he gets so invested and asks to watch them again and then scurries off when you tease him for liking them

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

(I’m popping a extra disclaimer here because I don’t know if I worded this very well, and I understand if this isnt the kind if question you feel comfortable answering, but this is a genuine question made in good faith. I also apologise if this sounds really stupid)

I read one of your recent asks about inclusivism and it reminded me of something that always sat in the back of my mind with this train of thought.

If we say that everyone regardless of religion, or absence of it, gets into heaven, doesn’t that seem disrespectful to their faith. By saying that people of other religions get into christian heaven, is that not inadvertently telling them that their religion or their gods are fake, and that when they die it’ll be okay because they’ll learn the real truth? I hope this doesn’t come across as blunt or disrespectful to anyone, I’ve just never be able to come to a conclusion that isn’t exclusive (which is kind of a depressing thought), but is also respectful. Because it’s a beautiful idea that god loves us all regardless of who we are or what we believe, but what about people who have the kind of faith we do in a completely different god, or multiple gods, do they have the same thoughts about us? that their god loves us even though we dont believe?

I feel like I’m asking questions I’m not supposed to but I’m just really curious about your perspective if this is something you’re comfortable answering.

Hey anon, this is an important question, so thanks for asking it! You don't sound "stupid"; you're thinking like a theologian :) I'm probably not going to do it justice, I'm afraid, but maybe folks will hop on with more ideas or resources?

This got really long, so the TL;DR: I agree with you, and so do a lot of theologians and other thinkers!

In a religiously diverse world, it makes sense that people of various religions ponder where people outside their religions "fit" in their understanding of both the present world and whatever form of afterlife they have.

If someone has a firm personal belief in certain things taking place after death (from heaven to reincarnation), I don't think it's inherently wrong to imagine all kinds of people joining them in that experience, when it points to how that person recognizes the inherent holiness and value of all kinds of people, and shows that they long for continued community with & flourishing for those people.

However, this contemplation should be done with great care — especially when your religion is the dominant one in your culture; especially if your religion has a long history (and/or present) of colonialism and coerced conversions.

Ultimately, humility and openness are key! It's fine to have your own beliefs about humanity's place in this life and after death, but make yourself mindful of your own limited perspective. Accept you might be wrong in part or in whole! And be open to learning from others' ideas, and truly listening to them if they say something in your ideas has caused them or their community tangible harm.

In the rest of this post, I'll focus on a Christian perspective and keep grappling with how to consider these questions while honoring both one's personal faith and people all religions...without coming to any solid conclusions (sorry, but I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all or fully satisfying answer!).

I'll talk a bit about inclusivism and how it fails pretty miserably in this regard, and point towards religious pluralism as a possibly better (tho still imperfect) option.

And as usual I'll say I highly recommend Barbara Brown Taylor's book Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others to any Christians / cultural Christians who want to learn more about entering into mutual relationship with people of other religions.

In previous posts, I brought up the concepts of exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism without digging into their academic definitions and histories — partially because it's A Lot for a tumblr post, but also because it's by no means in my sphere of expertise. I worried about misrepresenting any viewpoint if I tried to get all academic, so I just stuck to my own personal opinions instead — but looking back at some posts, I see I didn't do a great job of clarifying that's what I was doing!

So now I'll go into what scholars mean when talking about these different viewpoints, with a huge caveat that I'm not an expert; I'm just drawing from notes and foggy memories from old seminary classes + this article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), and anyone interested in learning more should find scholarly articles or books rather than relying on some guy on tumblr!

Defining exclusivism, inclusivism, & religious pluralism

When we encounter traditions that offer differing and often conflicting "accounts of the nature of both mundane and supramundane reality, of the ultimate ends of human beings, and of the ways to achieve those ends" (IEP), how do we respond? Do we focus on difference and reject any truth in their views that conflicts with our views? Do we avoid looking too closely at the places we differ? try to find common ground? try to make their views fit ours?

Exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism are three categories into which we can place various responses to the reality of religious diversity.

It's important to note that this is only one categorization system one can use, and that these categories were developed within a Western, Christian context (by a guy named Alan Race in 1983). They are meant to be usable by persons of any religion — all sorts of people ask these questions about how their beliefs relate to others' beliefs — but largely do skew towards a Western, Christian way of understanding religion. (For one thing, there's a strong focus on salvation / afterlife and not all religions emphasize that stuff very much, if at all!)

Drawing primarily from this article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), here are basic definitions of each:

Exclusivist positions maintain that "only one set of belief claims or practices can ultimately be true or correct (in most cases, those of the one holding the position). A Christian exclusivist would therefore hold that the beliefs of non-Christians (and perhaps even Christians of other denominations) are in some way flawed, if not wholly false..." . (From my old class notes — Exclusivist Christians believe 3 things are non-negotiable: the unique authority of Jesus Christ as the apex of revelation; Jesus as normative; salvation exclusively through repentance and faith in Christ's work on the cross. Some will allow that God does provide some truths about Godself and humanity through general revelation, including truths found in other religious traditions, but the Biggest most Important revelation is still Jesus.) .

Inclusivist positions "recognize the possibility that more than one religious tradition can contain elements that are true or efficacious, while at the same time hold that only one tradition expresses ultimate religious truth most completely." . Christian inclusivists tend to focus on salvation, claiming that non-Christians can still achieve salvation — still through Jesus Christ. Sometimes they hold that any non-Christian whose life happens to fit Jesus's call to love God and neighbor, etc., will be saved. Other times they hold that only non-Christians who never had the chance to learn about Jesus can be saved; if you know about Christianity and reject it, it doesn't matter how "good"you are, you're doomed. .

Pluralist positions hold that "more than one set of beliefs or practices can be, at least partially and perhaps wholly, true or correct simultaneously." For Christian pluralists, that means believing that Jesus is not the one Way to God / to heaven/salvation; Christianity is one way of many, usually conceived of as all being on equal footing, to connect to the Divine. .

(These three categories are not all encompassing; the IEP article also brings up relativism and skepticism.)

Issues with Exclusivism & Inclusivism

I hope the issues with exclusivism are clear, but to name a few:

Christians who are taught that all non-Christians (or even the "wrong kind" of Christians) are doomed to hell are taught to see those people as Projects more than people — there's a perceived urgent need to convert them asap in order to "save them." The only kind of relationship you'd form with one of them is centered in efforts to convert them, rather than to live and learn alongside them as they are.

Doesn't matter if they are already happily committed to a different religion. In your eyes, they're wrong about feeling fulfilled and connected to the Divine.

Doesn't matter if you have to resort to violent and coercive practices like wiping out all signs of non-Christian culture or kidnapping non-Christian children to raise Christian — the ends justify the means because you're looking out for their "immortal souls."

...But what about inclusivism? If you're a Christian inclusivist, you aren't forcing anyone to convert to Christianity right now! You acknowledge that non-Christians can live holy and fulfilling lives! You even acknowledge that there's scraps of value in their valid-but-not-as-valid-as-Christianity religions! So what's the problem?

Turns out that this is a major case of one's good intentions not being nearly as important as one's impact.

You may be pushing back against exclusivism's outright refusal that non-Christians have any connection to the divine at all, which is nice and all — but by saying that non-Christians will basically become Christian after they die, you are still perpetuating our long history of coercive conversions.

There's a reason some scholars argue that inclusivism isn't actually a separate category from, but a sub-category of, exclusivism: you're still saying everyone has to be Christian, "so luckily you'll See The Light and become Christian after you die :)"

This is very reasonably offensive to many non-Christians. If nothing else, it's ludicrously smug and paternalistic! I won't get into it here but it only gets worse when some inclusivist positions try to get all Darwinian and start arranging religions from lower to higher, with Christianity as the "evolutionary" apex of religion ://

For now, I'll only go into detail about Catholic Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner's particular version of inclusivism, because it's quite common and really highlights the paternalism:

Rahner's Anonymous Christians:

A question that Catholics and other Christians struggled with in the 20th century was this: If non-Christians cannot be saved (because they held firm in believing that salvation must be in and through Christ), what happens if someone never even had the chance to learn about Christianity? Surely a loving God wouldn't write them an automatic ticket to hell when they're non-Christian through no fault of their own, right?

German Jesuit Karl Rahner's response was to conceive of a sort of abstract version of Christianity for non-Christians who lived good, faithful lives outside of official (what he called "constituted") Christianity:

"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity. ...Let us say, a Buddhist monk…who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity." - Karl Rahner in Dialogue (1986), p. 135.

So someone who has intentionally devoted themselves to another religion, someone who does good work in that religion's name, is...secretly, unbeknownst to them, actually Christian?

I hope the offensiveness of that is clear — the condescension in implying these people are ignorant of what religion they "really" belong to! the assumption that Good deeds & virtues are always inherently Christian deeds & virtues! the arrogance of being so sure your own religion is The One Right Way that you have to construct a "back door" (as Hans Küng describes it) into it to shove in all these poor people who for whatever reason can't or don't choose to join it!

One theologian who criticized the paternalism of "anonymous Christianity" is John Hick, who was one of the big advocates for religious pluralism as a more respectful way of understanding non-Christian religions. So let's finally talk some more about pluralism!

Religious Pluralism!

As defined earlier, religious pluralist positions hold that there are many paths to the divine, and that all religions have access to some truths about the divine.

For Christians, this means rejecting those 3 non-negotiables of exclusionists about Christianity being the one true religion and Jesus being the one path to salvation. Instead of claiming that Christianity is the "most advanced" religion, pluralism claims that Christianity is just one religion among many, with no unique claim on the truth.

Some other pluralist points:

Pluralism resists antisemitic claims that Christianity is the "fulfillment" of (or that it "supercedes") Judaism.

Various religions provide independent access to salvation rather than everyone's salvation relying on Christ. (Note the still very Christian-skewed lens here in emphasizing salvation at all though!)

When we notice how different religions' truth claims conflict with one another, pluralists reconcile this by talking about how one's experience of truth is subjective.

Pluralism tends to give more authority to human experience than sacred texts

John Hicks' pluralist position

I mentioned before that Hicks is one of the big names in the religious pluralism scene. The IEP article I drew from earlier goes into much greater detail about his views and responses to it in the section titled "c. John Hick: the Pluralistic Hypothesis," but for a brief overview:

His central claim is that "diverse religious traditions have emerged as various finite, historical responses to a single transcendent, ultimate, divine reality. The diversity of traditions (and the belief claims they contain) is a product of the diversity of religious experiences among individuals and groups throughout history, and the various interpretations given to these experiences."

"As for the content of particular belief claims, Hick understands the personal deities of those traditions that posit them...as personae of the Real, explicitly invoking the connotation of a theatrical mask in the Latin word persona."

"Hick claims that all religious understandings of the Real are on equal footing insofar as they can only offer limited, phenomenal representations of transcendent truth."

We must accept that world religions are fundamentally different from each other, rather than falling into platitudes about how "we're all the same deep down"

Each religion has its own particular and comprehensive framework for understanding the world and human experience (i.e. we shouldn't use the normative Christian framework to describe other faiths)

Another angle: hospitality

As various philosophers and theologians have responded to and expanded upon pluralist frameworks, one big concept that some emphasize is hospitality: that all of us regardless of religion have an obligation to welcome others to all that is ours, if and when they have need of it — especially when they are of different cultures or religions from us.

Hospitality requires respect for those under our care, honoring and protecting their differences.

When we are the ones in need of hospitality, we should be able to expect the same.

Hospitality implies being able to anticipate our guest's needs, but we need to accept the impossibility of being able to guess every need, so communication is key!

Liberation theology & Pluralism

I also appreciate what liberation theologians have brought into the discussion. Here's from the IEP article:

"Liberation theology, which advocates a religious duty to aid those who are poor or suffering other forms of inequality and oppression, has had a significant influence on recent discussions of pluralism. The struggle against oppression can be seen as providing an enterprise in which members of diverse religious traditions can come together in solidarity.

"Paul F. Knitter, whose work serves as a prominent theological synthesis of liberation and pluralist perspectives, argues that engaging in interreligious dialogue is part and parcel of the ethical responsibility at the heart of liberation theology. He maintains not only that any liberation theology ought to be pluralistic, but also that any adequate theory of religious pluralism ought to include an ethical dimension oriented toward the goal of resisting injustice and oppression.

"Knitter claims that, if members of diverse religions are interested (as they should be) in encountering each other in dialogue and resolving their conflicts, this can only be done on the basis of some common ground. ..."

Knitter sees suffering as that common ground: "Suffering provides a common cause with which diverse religious traditions are concerned and towards which they can come together to craft a common agenda. Particular instances of suffering will, of course, differ from each other in their causes and effects; likewise, the practical details of work to alleviate suffering will almost necessarily be fleshed out differently by different religions, at different times and in different places. Nevertheless, Knitter maintains that suffering itself is a cross-cultural and universal phenomenon and should thus serve as the reference point for a practical religious pluralism. Confronting suffering will naturally give rise to solidarity, and pluralist respect and understanding can emerge from there."

Knitter also sees the planet as a source of literal common ground for us all: "Earth not only serves as a common physical location for all religious traditions, but it also provides these traditions with what Knitter calls a 'common cosmological story' (1995, p. 119). ...Knitter makes a case that different religious traditions share an ecological responsibility and that awareness of this shared responsibility, as it continues to emerge, can also serve as a basis for mutual understanding."

When Knitter and other liberation theologians speak of suffering or earth care as rallying points for interreligious solidarity, it's important to point out that such solidarity doesn't happen automatically: it is something we have to choose to commit to. We have to be courageous about challenging those who would pin suffering on another religious or cultural group. We have to be courageous about having difficult conversations, again and again. We have to learn how to work together for common goals even while accepting where we differ.

How to end this long ass post?

My hope is that as you read (or skimmed) all this, you were thinking about your own personal beliefs: where, if anywhere, do they fit among all these ideas? where would you like them to fit?

And, in the end, did I really address anon's question about whether it's disrespectful to people of other religions to assert that everyone is loved by God, or gets into heaven? Not really, because I don't know. I think it probably depends on context, and how one puts it, and how certain one acts about their ideas about God and heaven.

For me, it always comes down to humility about my own limited perspective, even while asserting that we all have a right to our personal beliefs, including ideas about what comes after this life.

When I imagine all human beings together in whatever comes next, I hope I do so not out of a desire for assimilation into my religion, but a desire to continue to learn from and alongside all kinds of people and beliefs. I hope I remain open to learning about how other people envision both what comes after death, and more importantly, what they think about life here and now. What can I learn from them about truth, kindness, justice? How can we work together to achieve those things for all creation, despite and in and through our differences?

I'll end with Eboo Patel's description of religious pluralism, which sums up much of how I feel, from his memoir Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim:

"Religious pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus. It is a form of proactive cooperation that affirms the identities of the constituent communities while emphasizing that the wellbeing of each and all depends on the health of the whole. It is the belief that the common good is best served when each community has a chance to make its unique contribution."

___

Further resources:

Explore my #religious pluralism tag for more thoughts and quotes

You might also enjoy wandering through my #interfaith tag

Two podcast episodes that draw from Eboo Patel, Barbara Brown Taylor, and other wonderful people: "No One Owns God: Readying yourself for respectful interfaith encounters" and "It's good to have wings, but you have to have roots too: Cultivating your own faith while embracing religious pluralism"

My tag with excerpts from Holy Envy

Post that includes links to various questions about heaven

Here’s a post where I talk about why I don’t believe in hell

My evangelism tag (tl;dr: I’m staunchly against prosletyzing to anyone who doesn’t explicitly request more info about Christianity)

[is-this-really--life]

I don't call myself a TERF. I think that term is stupid, quite frankly. I do actually think trans people are oppressed by patriarchy and it's strict enforcement of gender roles. I am not a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Other people gave me that label.

I am a gender critical feminist. Also known as critical of gender: the system of roles and stereotypes that differentiate how we treat men and women. I think cis people uphold the gender system even more than trans people do in some ways. And I hate that they do.

I don't think trans women are more likely to be perverts or predators than cis men. I do think policies that try to get rid of sex as a protected class in favor of gender identity allow predators the *access* to be predatory. Ex. trans women in female prisons leading to cases such as Karen White, Janiah Monroe, Isla Bryson, Katie Dolatowski...

I also hate men. I hate the fact that I have to fear them and can never trust them and the fact that so many dehumanize women. Often for their sexual pleasure, but also in other ways. The female sex has been left out of power and recognition and respect in every field and nearly every hobby for centuries. We are raped and abused at higher rates in almost every culture. I dont believe the patriarchy victimizes men the same as women. Men benefit from the patriarchy, and they uphold it. Poor and oppressed men also uphold the patriarchy. Ask any poor & oppressed woman her experiences with her male peers.

This is feminism from a systemic lens. That is where my belief system is rooted.

For this belief system, I am told I am a "TERF." Because I am called "TERF," it is okay to call me a fascist, a nazi that deserves to be assaulted, raped, killed, pissed on, violated, hated, hated, hated.

This is *wrong*. This belief system is not what is harming trans people. Right wing enforcement of gender roles is. Hatred for gender nonconformity is. Lack of access to mental health resources is. Social norms are. Radical feminists are not your enemy until you make us your enemy. You have to stop hating people blindly.

[gorebek]

Bro you should def infodump e v e r y t h i n g about your Torbek swap au

only if you wanna of course 👉👈

Its hard to do literally everything because im stupid and cant put thoughts to paper but i can talk about a lot of stuff i have in my head

big disorganized yap session below cut

I plan on drawing a ref EVENTUALLY but some of the core stuff i want to add is gorebek being younger and shorter because he got the operation done a couple years before torbek

and he gets it done willingly so its less of a botch job like toebek the pipes that go through his body are more neat i guess is the best word they look cooler and he has actual clothes that are also adapted for his new additions

im thinking hunter fit like torbek but also idk... I still want to incorporate the suit but idk how i hate designing clothes

For how they met they never had any pre operation interaction like no working at the carnival but he was released post operation like hey go hunt people trying to fuck with us and given the carnivals whereabouts or something idk and when he gets to the inn and threatens them and powers up torbek fronts and just immediately starts crying and hides gricko is the first to reach out and realize hey this dude is pretty chill and then they take care of torbek until gorebek fronts again

Gorebek in this is probably like early ouaw torbek whos very new to things and the world torbek is that but way worse they both only know operations and experiments and whatever they were told without really experiencing the outside world while gorebek socialized torbek literally never has in his existence (himself, probably has cofronted and seen gorebek talk but its different)

idk how exactly this would go but i feel like he would follow them at first after the fight being like yess yes evil secret intel and slowly get accepted into the found family realizing they actually care for him and dont treat him like a creature to test on unlike insert evil people (release the duke backstory after hiatus so i can make this more accurate pls ouaw)

i think this process would be WAY way longer for gorebek then it is for torbek torbek probably fronts more often and connects with everyone while gorebek rarely lets himself get the chance to bond with anyone

in this i dont think gorbek is like explicitly evil i think he is acting on his beliefs and can be more connected to the carnival then canon gore

but i think that connection will be very co dependent after being held for so long and being told he was a tool he would probably crave that feeling of being needed again even if its warped and fucked up and probably act out but also crave love and the acceptance like torbek gets so gorebeks relationships would all be extremely hot and cold and constantly changing while torbek is just chilling (mostly)

Gorebek is also very self destructive i can see a shit ton of stuff they do being fucked up because gorbeks ego takes over or he just doesnt care what happens to him or those around him and when torbek is fronting for quests hes just clumsy and still very unaware and fucks it up like that

In canon ouaw torbek gets smarter and more leader-y even if the group doesnt wanna go with what he says and i think gorebek would try to be like this but fail he would definitely get smarter and learn a lot but leader-y not so much i dont think he would plan anything and fail because of it

Talking about reverse gorebek makes me want to talk about canon gorebek parallels and how i think canon gorebek plans everything meticulously and is an extremely good leader because hes given the skills to because he doesn't front he controls the witchlight while reverse was thrown to the wolves without developing skills because he cant harvest it like torbek can but torbek was given up on like canon torbek and just kinda tossed out as well idk idk

I did not reread any of this sorry if theres a bunch of mistakes im just ranting