#what does it mean in a secular context

[shredsandpatches]

saw a post just now that had these two paragraphs in it (quite far apart; emphasis added)

purity culture is being told to forgive your abuser, rapist, or even just people who have slighted and hurt you or else you will never fully heal, or that it makes you in someway bad too, or even just as bad as them

...

purity culture is doing something bad, and when you try to seek atonement or correct the mistake, that it is unforgivable and will alway be a blight on you, even if others can "learn to look past it"

and the dissonance is kinda making me feel off and wrong, is that also purity culture or what

[rearranging-deck-chairs]

sorta metal

[mareastrorum]

There is a very binary view that in, like, genre fiction that people tend to take of [characters] where they go, like, "Is this character redeemable or not? If they're not, I'm going to cheer while their head gets squashed, and if they are, then every bad thing they did is forgiven and they're my best friend now." And that is a wildly binary way to think about how people get to where they are, the complexities of human behavior, and all that stuff. One of the biggest takeaways I have from, like, uh, studying ethical philosophy was the idea of, like, what is redeemability in theory and what is it in practice? And the idea that a character, and in fact, like, that a person, can be theoretically redeemable-- by the way, what does redemption mean outside of a religious context? I don't know. Like, "redeemable" when you're talking about, like, secular ethics is a way murkier conversation than when you're talking about a literal religious concept of redemption. That being said, like, a person can be "theoretically redeemable" in the way that, theoretically, I can take a hammer and smash a mountain into gravel. Like, I'm going to be alive for another 70 years, I'll find a small mountain made of weak stone, and I have a hammer, so I'll just break it apart with the hammer. Theoretically, you could smash that mountain apart with a hammer. Is that gonna happen? Is that gonna happen? [...] In any case, my point around conversations about the redeemability of characters is certain things can be theoretically true but still never gonna happen. Like, when you're thinking about human beings, it's like: does every human being have the capacity to change? Sure. Are they going to? Do you know how to change them? Could you go up to the bad, bad man and say the perfect thing to make the man not bad anymore? If it's theoretically possible to say something that changes someone's mind, does that mean someone's actually going to say it and that it's gonna happen? Is it gonna happen in five minutes? Or is it gonna take five years? Or fifty? So there's a lot of ways in which-- all of this is to say that the conversations around whether characters are good or bad, and by extension, whether people are good or bad, get boiled down in a way that underlines how easy people would like the conversation to be and that there is a deep ethical desire for simplicity that I fundamentally disagree with on that level.

- Brennan Lee Mulligan, in the Adventuring Party for episode 15 of The Unsleeping City: Chapter II, at 49:18.

Zac Oyama: Well, if you were Naruto, you could've.

[blondeboyfriend]

𝐂𝐔𝐏𝐈𝐎 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐕𝐈 (𝟏𝟖+)

𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐎𝐑𝐒 𝐃𝐍𝐈

[ PAIRING ] Zeke Yeager x f!reader [ AUTHOR'S NOTE ] Cupio dissolvi means "I wish to be dissolved" and it's typically used in a religious context, but I'm using it in the secular sense to express "such concepts as the rejection of existence and the masochistic desire for self-destruction." You can thank Wikipedia for that last bit. Enjoy the pwp. Don't fuck your psychiatrist. [ SYNOPSIS ] You reluctantly decide to tackle your personal issues and end up in the clutches of a psychiatrist with questionable methods. [ WORD COUNT ] 3.8k [ CONTENT ] Modern AU, dubcon, power imbalance, sadomasochism, dacryphilia, impact play/spanking, some very brief phone sex, size kink (Zeke is bigger than you, calls you little), praise, a little predator/prey but it's mostly in the mc's head, dumbification, facial.

“Welcome. I’m Dr. Zeke Yeager. It’s nice to meet you.”

You didn’t shake his extended hand as you crossed the threshold into his office. You practically sprinted to sit down in a plush chair. You gazed straight ahead, looking past the psychiatrist. He was rendered a formless smudge, a figure unworthy of focus, as he took a seat. The wall behind him was painted a faded pink, a pathetic attempt to subdue. It reminded you of an abandoned Barbie dreamhouse.

“Thanks for taking the time to see me,” you said, words glazed with malaise.

This was the last place you wanted to be, but the only person you could blame was yourself. A brief moment of supposed clarity overwhelmed your self-destructive nature, and you made an appointment to see a psychiatrist.

“What are you hoping to get out of these sessions?” he asked.

You allowed your eyes to focus and droned, “Uhhhhhhh. Well, Dr. Yea—”

“Call me Zeke. There’s no need to be formal.”

Zeke was younger than you expected. He looked more like a high school history teacher, the kind that lets kids hang out in his classroom after school. His wavy blond hair was in perfect disarray; it was clear he put a lot of effort into looking effortless. He wore a button down shirt with the sleeves rolled up. It fit perfectly, subtly showing off his muscled arms. He looked heavenly, like a bearded angel or Jesus himself.

Your heart was in your throat. You were always a sucker for blondes.

“I just want to feel… better?” you said cautiously, hoping you answered the question correctly.

“What does better mean to you?”

You exhaled sharply. “Less neurotic?”

“I see.”

You could tell he wasn’t satisfied with your answer. You decided to put forth a little effort.

“Less edgy? Maybe less…” You sighed. “I feel like I’m too aware of everything. It feels like everything is happening to me all at the same time. It’s overwhelming.”

“That sounds exhausting. Tell me about a time where you felt like that.”

His tone was warm though it lacked a certain sincerity. It was clear it was a practiced action. You hoped for an individualized approach, or maybe a psychiatrist that was better at acting. It was hard not to imagine yourself on an assembly line.

“Sometimes when I’m on the bus I’ll see people running to catch it, like just going as fast as they can. And then they miss it. Seeing that will ruin my day.”

“You must be a very empathetic person.”

You shook your head. “I just hate seeing someone try so hard and fail. It makes me uncomfortable. It’s so embarrassing for them.” You paused. “I guess what really bothers me is that I let something so stupid and insignificant affect me when it has nothing to do with me. I hate that I notice that stuff. I feel like I am noticing everything against my will.”

“You poor thing.”

“And sometimes I just want to explode. Like everything becomes too much and I want to burn it all down.”

He started writing stuff down in his notebook. You wanted to kick yourself for being so honest. It was almost like you were taking it seriously.

“But I’m still a good person, you know? I just think the world is constantly trying to terrorize me so I’m always alert? It’s hard to explain.”

He put down his notebook. “I never said you weren’t a good person. Do you have a boyfriend? A partner?”

He changed the subject with a smoothness you could only describe as magnificent. If any other man had pulled that on you, you would have walked out with zero hesitation. But Zeke transfixed you.

“No. I… I’m not really into all of that.”

“Not really into all of that? Interesting. Can I ask why?”

“It’s too much pressure. No one’s expectations ever line up.”

He chuckled. “People can be very opaque about what they’re seeking. Tinder’s the worst for it.”

It was hard to imagine him on any sort of dating app. He had the face of a guy that hunts his prey in the wild. You imagined him skulking around bars, watching his potential conquests drink themselves placid. It isn’t a traditional pursuit. He just watches and waits until they’re tired and slurring every sentence and struggling to use a rideshare app. That’s when he pounces.

“I’ve heard Tinder isn’t great,” you said, shaking off your weird fantasy.

“It’s only good for hookups.”

His frankness seemed unprofessional, but this was your first appointment with a psychiatrist so what the hell did you know. Maybe things were more casual, a little looser. Maybe discussing hookups was the norm. You fought off the urge to imagine what a night with him entailed, but it haunted you. Tangled sheets. His rough hands holding you down. Your knees pressing against your shoulders as he splits you in two.

You laughed nervously. “Yeah.”

“Sorry, let’s get back to business.” He adjusted his glasses, the frames gold and intricate. “It sounds like you may be experiencing hypervigilance.”

“Huh?”

“You’re always on the lookout for potential threats. You are essentially a prey animal.”

You were almost convinced he could read your mind. You never considered yourself prey, but it was clear that he did. Your toes curled. The discomfort was of an unusual flavor. Nauseating yet gratifying.

“How’s your sleep?

“Awful, I guess.”

“You guess,” he murmured. “Why is that?”

His questions felt endless, like the appointment was going to eat up the entirety of your life.

“I can’t shut my brain off.”

He sank down into his chair and spread his legs.

“How do you cope with that?”

“I really don’t… Unless weeping counts.”

“Do you feel… relieved when you cry?” he asked, staring intently at your lips.

“Kind of.”

“How often do you cry?”

He seemed too eager as he awaited your answer.

“I don’t keep track. Should I?”

“I doubt it would help,” he confessed. “What else do you do to relieve yourself?”

You glanced down at his crotch and noticed a bulge fighting against the thin fabric of his chinos. The air was sucked out of the room. His cock lured you in, demanding you to witness its growing glory.

“I don’t know,” you confessed. “Sorry.”

“I see. You seem a little combative,” he teased.

You weren’t being combative. You just couldn’t answer his questions thoughtfully on the spot. You weren’t prepared. You hadn’t planned on taking the appointment seriously. Time was needed to manifest something meaningful.

“You seem,”—you coughed nervously—“accusatory.”

He smirked. “Normally I’d refer someone like you to a therapist, but I can’t think of one equipped to deal with you.”

“I’m flattered.”

“Don’t be. After some consideration I’ve decided my counseling would be beneficial. I’m going to send you off with some homework.”

You assumed your days of homework were far behind you.

“Do you masturbate?”

“I do not feel comfortable answering that.”

“It’s a simple question. You either do or you don’t.”

“What does this have to do with anything?”

“Just trust me.”

“Give me a reason.”

“Fine. We talked about what you do to relieve yourself, right?” You went to answer but he cut you off. “I think masturbating will provide immense relief.”

“Well… I do already,” you huffed. “So I don’t think it’s helping much.”

He looked at you like you were the dumbest creature he had ever seen.

“You need to masturbate with intention.”

“What does that mean?”

“It’s hard to explain without me knowing what you’re doing wrong, which is why I need you to record yourself.”

A wet spot bloomed in your underwear.

“A voice recording is fine,” he acquiesced.

“Yeah, sure, okay. I’ll get right on that,” you said getting up.

You turned your back to him and quickly made your way to the door. The sound of his feet hitting the ground startled you as you went to turn the knob. Your brief moment of hesitation gave him enough time to grab you by the shoulder. The weight of his hand was disarming.

“I want to see you again next week, same time,” he said as he turned you around, your back against the door.

Your face was hot. “I’m not—”

“I promise I’m not taking advantage of you. My methods are proven to work,” he said, slipping his business card into your back pocket.

“So you pull this with all the girls?” you spat.

“The boys too.”

His conviction stirred up the whispers of ardor you tried to keep buried. His breath was clouded by a nauseating combination of espresso and tobacco, though the grime began to entice. You could feel the heat of his body against yours. You wanted to pull him closer so you could melt away into his warm embrace, but you couldn’t initiate something so brazen. You never had the guts for forwardness. And you liked to pretend you knew better.

“How progressive,” you finally choked out.

“I realize that this seems unorthodox and I don’t blame you for resisting.” He played with a piece of your hair. “If you value your mental health, you’ll trust me. Do I look like someone that would lead you astray?”

Kind of, you thought to yourself.

Your hesitation was palpable. He looked like he could practically taste it. He softened his gaze. It could have been a guilt trip, or just a half-assed attempt to assure you he had your best interests in mind.

“What if I don’t want to do it this way?”

“Then I might not be the right person to help you.”

You sighed. His methods did not seem trustworthy; they seemed like something ripped from a gross subreddit. HOT DOCTOR TRICKS DUMB BITCH PATIENT INTO PHONE SEX. You struggled to fully divorce the degradation from the situation. Being that dumb bitch patient was growing on you. It wove itself into your skin, becoming a part of you.

“Fine,” you replied. “But I’m not recording myself.”

“What if you call me?”

“In the middle of it?”

“Yes.”

“I…”

“C’mon. It’s not like I’m a predator. I’m your doctor.”

You wanted to trust him, but you thought about how easy it would be to use as leverage against you. A three hour deep dive video about revenge porn echoed through your mind. Opening yourself up to potential humiliation made you ill.

“I’ll call you. Maybe. I don’t know,” you mumbled.

He backed away. “Even if you don’t, try not to miss next week’s appointment. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t worried about you."

You laughed, but failed to say anything. You slipped out the door and tried to convince yourself to give up working on yourself. Maybe you could get by living in a state of constant hypervigilance.

That night you crawled into bed, vibrator in hand. A life filled with hypervigilance sounded atrocious.

You stared up at the ceiling, your toy vibrating against your thigh on the lowest setting. It felt late, but you couldn’t check the time. You made a conscious effort to put your phone far away from your bed. You decided to humor Zeke, but you weren’t allowing yourself to call him in the midst of touching yourself.

You sighed and gripped your vibrator. You spread your legs and began to graze the inside of your labia with the tip. Normally you’d pull up Twitter and scroll mindlessly until a video of a hairy guy violently fucking a girl half his size popped up, but that wasn’t an option. You tried to imagine someone crawling between your legs, eyes dripping with lust as they work their fingers between your folds. You kept having to start over because your fantasy was plagued with your bearded fixation. The constant interruptions did little to entice you.

You pressed your vibrator against your clit. You fiddled with the settings until it was a series of long, hard pulses. You rutted up against it trying to unwind and give into pleasure. But you kept fighting off visions of Zeke rolling his tongue against your cunt. You wondered what his beard would feel like between your thighs. You wanted to know if he kept his glasses on because it seemed like leaving them on would be hotter.

You let out a dejected “fuck.”

You rolled over onto your side and stared at your phone. You wanted it to invoke disgust, disdain, but all it did was lure you out of bed. You rifled through your hamper to find your jeans. You fished his card out of your pocket. It had a goofy head shot of him and the number for his office which frustrated you to no end. You flipped it over and saw another number hastily scrawled on the back. You sighed in relief and called him.

“Yeah?” he croaked.

“Uh, sorry. I didn’t mean to wake you.”

“Oh. Hello.” His voice was still tinged with sleep, but much warmer. “You don’t need to apologize. I’m happy you called. How are things going?”

“They’re… not. I can’t get in the mood.”

“Hm. You didn’t mention struggling with that during your appointment.”

“I usually don’t,” you grumbled.

He laughed. “How are you struggling? Lead me through your process.”

You swallowed hard. “I, you know, try to… imagine something, but I keep thinking about things… I don’t, um, want to think about.”

“Like what? Violence? Your family? Animals?”

“What? No! A man! A human man.”

“Your father is a human man presumably.”

“I’m not thinking about my dad!”

“It’s more common than you think.”

You were starting to regret calling him. “It’s you. I can’t stop thinking about you.”

“Really?” The word dripped with amusement. “I can’t imagine why that’s a problem.”

“Well, it is.”

“Jeez, what did I ever do to you?” he snickered.

“I didn’t call you to get teased.”

He coughed nervously. “I’m sorry. I can’t help myself when I’m dealing with someone as precious as you, but that’s my problem. Not yours.”

“You think I’m cute?”

You weren’t surprised by this revelation, but wanted to draw out more praise.

“I do. You’re so adorable I can’t stand it.”

“You can’t stand it?”

“Uh huh,” he replied. “I hear that sweet voice of yours and all I can think about is fucking you so hard you cry. Would you like that?”

His words knocked the wind out of you. He said it so casually, like he was talking about the weather or what he ate for dinner.

“Or I could fuck you so hard you stop thinking. I’ll just have you be my adorable idiot I take care of.” He paused. “Come to think of it, that might help with the hypervigilance.”

He said it so thoughtfully it was almost kind of sweet. You were at a loss for words.

“Say something. Anything.”

“I would like that. Both. Uh. Both would be great.”

You smacked yourself in the forehead for being so unsexy.

“You sound nervous.”

“I am, but I think I like it.”

“Oh good,”—he sighed in relief—“because my cock is so hard right now and I’d feel like a pervert if you weren’t into this.”

“You’re still a pervert,” you said, putting your phone on speaker.

“Why don’t you tell this pervert what you’d want him to do to you?”

You flopped back down on your bed, resting your phone on your pillow, and patted around for your vibrator. You wracked your brain, desperate to think of something sufficiently sexy to say.

“I want,”—you hesitated—“I want you to ruin me. For other people. I want you to do something so disgusting to me that no one else will want to touch me.”

“Is that so?” he purred. “Tell me more, cutie pie.”

“I like it when it hurts.” You winced. You were never great at dirty talk, but Zeke seemed to enjoy it. You heard him let out a pleased groan. “A lot,” you added.

“Do you want me to hurt you, my little masochist?” he asked, voice catching in his throat.

“Yes,” you said as your fingers grazed your cunt.

You heard him try to stifle a moan before going silent.

“I have a feeling I’m going to regret asking this,” he finally said.

You held the vibrator against your clit. Each pulse permeated your body. “What?”

“Where do you live? We can worry about masturbating later. I need to fuck you.”

You sat up. “I don’t think that’s a great idea.”

“Sex brings people together. It’ll make it easier to open up to me.”

He was just finding ways to rationalize his desires. You never expected him to want you so desperately, especially if this was something he pulled often. That should have turned you off, but all it did was make you want him more. It was borderline idiotic to invite a strange man into your home. But there was no better feeling than the ecstasy of self destruction. You relished his red flags.

“Come on. I need to taste your pussy. I’m starving.”

“Alright. I’ll give you my address, but you have to send me a picture of your dick first.”

Zeke hung up immediately. A minute later he texted you a dick pick. You stared at the screen, bewitched by his cock. It was thick and long, almost beastly. The foreskin was pulled back revealing a pink tip, shiny with precum. You sent him your address without a second thought.

I live 10 mins away from you. How perfect, he replied.

Those ten minutes took their sweet time. You stood there, staring at the door. It was as if you were in a trance. You couldn’t wait for him to walk through your door and your heart sang when he finally knocked.

“Hi,” you said, eyes full of stars.

He smirked. “Hey, cutie pie.”

He wore a fitted t-shirt and a pair of sweatpants that failed to hide his semi-hard cock. A cigarette dangled from his lips.

“I’m assuming I can’t smoke inside.”

“I, uh, I guess it’s fine.”

He dropped his cigarette on the ground and carefully extinguished the cherry with his foot. He patted your head as he glided through the door. He didn’t seem nervous at all. His motions were relaxed, fluid, effortless. Twinges of jealousy pricked your skin. You still wanted him, still elated that he was standing in your home. But your brain started moving a thousand miles a second.

Was your place sufficiently clean? Did he bring condoms? Did you want him to wear one? Was he using you? Did he need you as bad as he was acting? Were you just a convenience? Did your room smell nice? Should you light a candle? What if you lit a candle and something caught fire while you’re fucking? Would you stop? What if you kept fucking and burned to death? Isn’t there something sexy about letting it all turn to ash? Could this be why orgasms are called little deaths? Did you remember to take your birth control? What if he has lung cancer and then breathes cancer into your mouth?

“Cancer’s not contagious,” you whispered to yourself.

“What was that?”

“Nothing!” you chirped, quickly stripping yourself naked before following after him.

You found him undressing in your room. You could barely contain yourself when he pulled his shirt over his head. His body was toned, but soft. He caught you staring and smiled awkwardly. It quelled the thoughts racing around your brain.

He got on your bed, resting on his knees. His eyes went to your vibrator.

“Aw, you really were trying,” he teased and patted the bed. “Come here. Ass up.”

You wasted no time getting into position and arched your back. He slipped his fingers into your cunt all the way up to his knuckles. He slowly pulled them out and let out a delighted hum.

He leaned over you, his beard tickling your ear. “Fucking incredible,” he murmured. “You’re going to be the one that gets me in trouble. I know it.”

He slid his cock into your cunt. You dug your fingers into the mattress as he pushed it further in. He took his time, making sure you felt every single inch of him filling you. Normally penetration didn’t do much for you. All it did was stress you out. You’d tense up and render yourself unfuckable. But Zeke was different.

He cared about you.

He had concerns regarding your mental health.

His dick was huge.

He didn’t show you any mercy. Each thrust drove his cock against your cervix. Waves of pain washed over you, the anguish further obscuring your issues. The relief was a welcomed affliction. You dug your fingers deeper into the mattress and gritted your teeth.

“You said you like it when it hurts, right?”

“Ye—yeah,” you stuttered as he continued to plunge his cock in your cunt.

He slapped your ass. The pain shot through you and you moaned. Just as soon as the sting subsided, he slapped you again. It made your heart swell. You felt like it was creeping up your throat. Tears welled up in your eyes as your ecstatic moans swelled.

He grabbed a fistful of your hair, forcing you to crane your neck back.

“I knew you’d be a pretty crier.”

His praise made you ecstatic. “Make me cry more.”

He pushed your head down into the mattress and fucked you harder. You went limp. All you could do was whimper and let your orgasm overtake you. Your entire body was throbbing, singing with agony and exaltation. When he pulled out, his cock was slick with your fluids.

“Roll over.”

“Huh?”

He laughed and flipped you over with ease. You stared up at him in a daze. The world was still spinning around you. He started to stroke himself, his breathing labored and depraved.

“Close your eyes and open your mouth,” he choked out.

You shut your eyes and stuck out your tongue, eager to drink in every drop of his cum. His desperate groans made your clit throb. You were burning up, the anticipation coursing through your veins.

“Fuck!” he rasped as cum splattered on your face.

You opened your eyes as he rubbed the tip of his cock on your tongue. You felt so small in his shadow, his body looming over yours. He stared down at you, his expression a little cold, a little clinical.

“So how do you feel?” he asked, his voice hoarse.

“I… Fine, I guess.”

“You guess?”

“I don’t know. Good. I just—I can’t really talk right now.”

You were inarticulate in the shadow of your orgasm. Your brain existed elsewhere.

He frowned. “Alright. I have a lot of questions for you in the morning. I know you haven’t been in treatment long but I think we’re close to a breakthrough.”

[jewishvitya]

@turgidturnip I hope you don't mind me replying to this on a different post.

This is about "from the river to the sea" and the claim that it's an antisemitic rallying cry, calling to ethnically cleanse Palestine from Jews.

There's a misconception that this slogan comes from the Hamas charter, but it predates Hamas by, I think, a couple of decades. It's been used this way by more militant groups, and by Iraqi leadership at some point, but before that it's been used to call for a democratic secular nation state.

The reason you see these claims of antisemitism from Jewish people online is that this is the context where most of them will have seen it. Both because it is part of the history, and because that's how antisemites use it against Jews.

Both "Free Palestine" and "from the river to the sea" are thrown at random Jewish people, who are completely unrelated to Israel, to tell them essentially "You're not wanted anywhere and we want you gone."

This abuses the cause of the Palestinian people to weaponize against Jews. It's wrong and violent, but doesn't make the desire to be free in their homeland into something genocidal. And I'm not willing to just give antisemites this, but even if I was, I'm not Palestinian and giving up on a slogan because antisemites are abusing it is not my call to make. It's pretty obvious Palestinians don't want to put it away. Any slogans Palestinians might create can be used this way against Jews, because antisemites will always look for ways to be hateful towards us. But it doesn't make the antisemitism inherent in the desire for freedom.

Recognize where it's used in an antisemitic way from context: if someone uses those slogans to throw at a random Jewish person, or if it's used to disrupt a conversation about antisemitism, that's a misuse of it that does a disservice to Palestinians in favor of harming Jews. That's when it has genocidal intent applied to it.

Otherwise, don't let antisemites steal a slogan of a group of people who have been facing ethnic cleansing for over seventy years. Their real ethnic cleansing takes priority over the hypothetical one we're supposedly threatened with.

I'm not trying to tell other people what their liberation should look like. But when I talk to Palestinians, so far what I heard was a desire for one state that isn't an ethnostate. A civic state that tries to be safe for all the people within its borders. As far as I could see, Palestinians have been saying for a while that what they mean by this, is a state that will be free and equal to everyone.

The assumption that Palestinians will pull some sort of reverse ethnic cleansing against us is racist. And this assumption is the reason Israelis feel comfortable calling the carpet bombing of a civilian population "self defense." Killing them based on this is not self defense, it's a racially motivated crime against humanity.

Gaza is experiencing a genocide. This is because Israel wants the land - without the people. The manufactured Jewish majority can't be sustained if they're made equal citizens. Palestinians are risking the ethnostate by being alive.

So far Israel is the one practicing the genocidal interpretation of "from the river to the sea."

Palestinians deserve to be free on every single part of this land.

[frownyalfred]

(I apologize in advance about the numbers of questions… I really hope u don’t mind lol)

Did Martha practice her religion? Was she more observant or secular? Was she Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform? Which Jewish groups was she part of: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, or maybe a mix? How did her family feel about her marriage to Thomas? Were they religious too, perhaps a bit stricter?

What about the Waynes (Thomas) being Christians? Were they religious as well? I've read that Thomas is sometimes described as Episcopalian and other times as Catholic. Martha is even considered Christian in some versions.

Do you think that despite their religious differences, they still celebrated Christmas and Hanukkah together? And after their deaths, do you think Bruce continues to celebrate those holidays?

Finally, when asked about his religion, what do you think Bruce would answer? Was he agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Christian? What does he consider himself to be?

Again I’m so sorry for asking so many questions, but I'm genuinely really curious about your take <3

Rapid-fire thoughts below, with the caveat that 1) I am just one Jew 2) we are famous for disagreeing and having wildly different takes on the same things 3) just because I'm hc'ing it this way doesn't mean you have to, too.

Did Martha practice her religion? Define "practice" -- Judaism is an ethnoreligious group. It also doesn't require explicit belief in God to practice certain traditions, which may be viewed as secular or observant depending on the context. I.e., is observing Shabbat by baking challah every week an example of her being observant? Good question.

Was she more observant or secular? Probably more secular, going off of her social class. But again, that's a loaded term in this community.

Was she Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform? Strict Reform or Conservative, in my mind.

Which Jewish groups was she part of: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, or maybe a mix? Ashkenazi, going off of 1) Jewish immigration trends in the 19th and 20th centuries and 2) her family's history in Gotham.

How did her family feel about her marriage to Thomas? If they were more observant, they probably weren't pleased she wasn't marrying someone who was also Jewish. But her kids would be Jewish regardless of who she married, so that helps a little.

Were they religious too, perhaps a bit stricter? Probably. It again kind of depends on how you define "religious" and "stricter." It's different for Judaism than it is for Christians.

What about the Waynes (Thomas) being Christians? Very likely.

Were they religious as well? I've read that Thomas is sometimes described as Episcopalian and other times as Catholic. Martha is even considered Christian in some versions. Again, going off social class of the Wayne family, probably no more or less religious than their cohort.

Do you think that despite their religious differences, they still celebrated Christmas and Hanukkah together? I think this question is a very common (but understandable) misconception about blended interfaith families. The big Jewish holidays that might still be celebrated next to Christian ones are Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Passover. Hanukkah, while delightful and often in winter near Christmas, is a minor festival in comparison. The better question is, did they do holidays from both religions at all? Did they only celebrate the major Christian ones? If they did add in 1-2 Jewish ones, which ones did Martha fight for?

And after their deaths, do you think Bruce continues to celebrate those holidays? No, I think they're too painful and probably get in the way of his belief system(s). This changes when he has kids in the Manor.

Finally, when asked about his religion, what do you think Bruce would answer? What does he consider himself to be? Was he agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Christian? None of the above. Probably cautiously agnostic if you press. But he would be considered halachically Jewish regardless of what he answered (unless he got baptized etc) so that's tricky.

[rinbylin]

friendships as marital ties (and other notes on relational ties) in mlc

this is sort of a third installment in the series of meta on 'mlc as an exemplar of constructing queer narratives out of chinese ideological frameworks' (1. jianghu as queer space and 2. how it manifests in li xiangyi) - focusing on the nature of relationships in it. (which I've briefly mentioned in the first one and finally actually getting to it!!)

-

I would like to first call attention to chinese ideological frameworks as a premise of queer reading in mlc. the goal of chinese philosophy is to explore the becoming of human, taking two broad paths of the (mainstream) secular vs. escaping the secular. (these two paths are not a strict dichotomy, and rather, are ever in flux and in conversation with each other.) as said by @markiafc too, chineseness is so much about the rigidity of structures, and in equal part, a desire to break out of them. thus, chinese ideological frameworks can very much offer a rich reading of queerness - that mlc, a story very deliberately structured based on chinese ideologies (more accurately, with good reasons for me to believe that it is as such), has managed to materialise.

if the conceptualisation of queerness is premised on a defiance against mainstream norms, then a reliable way to read queerness in chinese ideological frameworks can be to deconstruct it by the mainstream confucian frameworks.

in mlc, this is implicitly set up with its stage of wulin/martial jianghu. then it is further broken down by asking, hey wulin jianghu is still closely related to the hegemonic values and the mainstream structure of authority (historically, 侠 xia being politically involved says a lot about this), so what is the true meaning of jianghu? what does it then really take for jianghu to be a queer space offering comfort and freedom to those who have escaped to it - to be the space that allow the transcendence of rigid roles and labels? mlc took a step further to resist the proxy to mainstream values that wulin jianghu has become.

this is why there can be a very strong buddhism reading of mlc (suggested here, expounded in the A+++ meta by @markiafc here and here, and also what I've seen discussed by cnet as well), given that buddhism is one of the 'extra-secular' ideologies, alongside (philosophical) taoism. I've also touched on a taoist angle in this meta. both schools are articulated in different sets of languages, but ultimately convey a same ideal of what it means to be human and how to live well - that is, to resist the roles and labels defined by the norms.

so, back to confucian frameworks.

a lot can be discussed about mlc with it. but in the context of this meta about relationships in mlc, it's specifically drawing on how confucianism conceptualises social relationships with familial ties as a cornerstone, and how these relational ties are inextricable from the conceptualisation of the 'self'.

as such, one of the things about mlc that has fascinated me is how deliberately it seems to ignore and reject the conventional familial ties (the kind by blood and marital ties). I've joked about how it is a miracle for me to love mlc as much as I do, as a prime dysfunctional family story enjoyer, despite none of its main characters struggling with any complicated feelings about their (biological) parents. but on closer examination, mlc is also making a comment on the model of familial-based relationships that dominates mainstream society - but through the absence of it.

with this, I want to talk about 1) how mlc rejects the conventional ties; and then 2) how it repurposes these ties in its own ways.

-

the five relational ties in confucianism:

father and son 父子有亲 - (natural) affection between father and son

ruler and subject 君臣有义 - righteous relationship between ruler and subject

older and younger brothers 兄弟 (长幼有序) - this is actually about seniority within the family; the order between older vs younger family members

husband and wife 夫妇有别 - differentiation between husband and wife (demarcated by the 内外 spectrum of gendered inner-external spheres)

friends 朋友有信 - trust between friends

logically inferred, all these ties are hierarchical and familial-based except for the last one: friends. ruler-subject is sort of an extension of the natural familial ties, while friendship is the inverse space of 1-4 (ie. you fall back on 5 to define a social relationship outside of the familial sphere that cannot be qualified as 1-4). while all are premised on mutuality, it is only no. 5 that is defined by a sense of choice and equality.

on the surface, 1-4 don't quite exist in mlc in particularly meaningful ways to the narrative or are even outright overlooked, and friendship is the relational tie most valued by mlc. we can tell it's true just by looking at the most meaningful relationships in mlc of difanghua. but at the same time, it is more nuanced. we can take a closer look at how the story plays around with most of the ties as part of a broader queer narrative.

-

1) how mlc rejects the conventional ties

mlc's rejection of mainstream relational ties can be best seen in fdb escaping from marriage. and it was not just any engagement with anybody but an engagement with the imperial family. he struggles with the prospect of being married to princess zhaoling, but generally, it's about the idea of complying to mainstream conventions and expectations that includes compulsory heterosexuality. all these point not only to a defiance against amatonormativity - the resistance of the traditional husband-wife tie, but also an irreverence for the ties of ruler-subject (the engagement being an imperial decree) and father-son (matters of marriage being sole decisions made by parents).

of course this is on top of how fdb's own biological father is a p-o-s, and the narrative gives fdb minimal struggles in this aspect, allowing him to sever this tie without looking back (I love it, yeap). along the same line is how lxy is an orphan, who came to gain important relationships that are built on natural compassion among people rather than innate, blood-based ties - even as llh. the sense of defiance from the narrative is especially stark to me considering that he could have a completely different familial-based life - as a son, brother, and ruler, if his biological family was still around. the narrative also deliberately treats his biological brother as a phantom, replaced with an older brother who he was bonded with neither by blood nor marital ties. on dfs's front, absolutely nothing is to be known about his biological family. his childhood history with the toxic patriarch of his life - who is not even his biological father - was afforded a clean break and closure.

we can keep going on, but that's pretty much the point.

ritualisation is one of the most important things of the confucianism school, especially to the honoring of these social relationships (and the officiating of social roles). the one ceremony/ritual we saw in mlc involving the main characters - or more accurately speaking, came closest to seeing - was the imminent wedding ceremony of dfs and jlq. even in that case, it was premised on non-mutuality with dfs being the unwilling, passive party. (fem-coded dfs? 25 marks.)

and that brings us to the next part.

-

2) how mlc repurposes these ties

that particular wedding ceremony gets hijacked by dfs and lxy/llh, and gets turned into an important milestone in their relationship. they consummate - what is on text - their friendship after a long time being more enemies and rivals than friends. it is a clear establishment of the trust they have for each other. and here it is where I circle back to the subject of this post: friendships as marital ties.

in this article, as a part of a feminist, egalitarian reframing of confucianism, there is a proposal for spousal relationships to be reframed as a friendship tie. (this aligns with the interrelatedness of the five ties eg. the ruler-subject mirrors father-son dynamic, with the confucian belief that rulers have an obligation to their subjects alike parents to their own children.) by doing so, it removes the functional, gendered differentiation assigned to marital ties, and shifts it to something equal, and independent of gender. you exalt the value of trust between spouses, instead of basing marital relationships on gendered roles. as such, spouses become more like friends, and conversely, friends can also become more like spouses. (romance not a prerequisite. it has never been about romance anyway.)

given that mlc has repeatedly applied marital motifs to llh and dfs's characters in their joint narratives, this opens up a reading friendships as a marital tie. seeing marriage as a bridge for strangers to become family, marriage in mlc becomes a metaphor for the chosen commitment and mutual trust put in by strangers/friends (non-familial ties) into the becoming of family. the blurring of lines between marital ties and friendship encourages a genuine space of queer experience that goes beyond any pressure for strict labels - of sexuality, and relationships as romantic, sexual, etc etc.

(note: despite the borrowing of a feminist concept, I strongly hesitate to call mlc a feminist story. it's a whole discussion - or debate - on its own. nevertheless, it is definitely a gender-conscious story that lays foundation for a strong queer and egalitarian reading.)

-

it is to be noted that it is intended - and also beneficial to take the confucian framework of relational ties beyond face value. the framework offers what it believed to be the most fundamental social relationship dynamics, and sees room for extension and matching to other kinds of relationships (all if not, most). a relationship such as teacher-student, which is outside of the five ties stated, can also mirror the affection of father-son ties, albeit not in a literal and identical way.

speaking of which. fdb and lxy/llh.

indeed they're known by others to be good friends. fdb thinks they're good friends too - insists on it, and puts his best efforts in keeping it that way. but does it really go both ways? if it does not, then can it really still be friendship? my humble take is that, ultimately - weighing in with llh's perspective - this is a relationship that is not so much based on trust, and rather, based on an innate affection that is only unique to family. (in this case, not blood/marital-based but one that was chosen and built aka lxy's relationship with sgd.) in other words, less of a friendship, more of a familial one.

it is a lot clearer considering their relationship from llh's point of view: some brat you never wanted in your life came barging in, and whether he was going to bring any positive effect to your life was secondary to the tranquility - which you have carved for yourself in the past decade - that is so integral to your personhood. no way. but the moment you hear that he's family? well, that changes the game completely. even before learning about fdb being sgd's son (then beginning to take initiative in showing greater acceptance), it is apparent in llh that there was an instinctive resonance with fdb as his shixiong's nephew. (eg. he remarked to his shifu's grave about how alike fdb is to himself.) this is unlike with dfs whom he had taken a much longer time to build trust with. you do not apply trust - aka the quality of friendships - to family. family is something deeper, more instinctive than that. if fdb was never family, I find it hard to imagine given llh's personality, that he would have let some brazen, bratty stranger intrude for that long. (boy invited himself to llh's home, sat himself down eating the owner's dinner and nosing in his cooking abilities!!! ily bb but that was uncalled for 😭)

of course there are many more layers in their relationship. there is a substantial degree of their history as (unwitting) teacher-disciple: fdb is still healthy and alive all thanks to the existence of lxy as a spiritual teacher role model in his life, regardless it being one-sided or not. there is also indeed some part of friendship in it, especially from fdb's point of view. he sees llh as a kindred spirit who he could enjoy a life of freedom with for life. but llh never reciprocates. he knew this was short-lived. and so ultimately, the hierarchical layer of their relationship overpowers the equal one, where llh's treatment of fdb as a nephew/小辈 younger family member and a disciple is the one that sealed the fate of their relationship.

if (blood-based) familial ties are irrelevant in jianghu, then the closest proxy to a father-son relationship in the martial world would be a teacher-disciple relationship. lxy and his shifu are a clear, indisputable example. for fdb and llh, their teacher-disciple tie is murkier and not consistently applied. they were also never ritualised as teacher-disciple, and thus are not teacher-disciple in any official capacity as far as confucian ideas are concerned. yet in crucial moments, it is invoked by llh as a card of authority over fdb to get out of sticky situations with fdb. and there was their final scene together: in a moment of sincerity, llh gives the approval to fdb as his disciple - then entrusting fdb with the secret manual of his techniques, up until his final letter in which fdb was recommended to dfs as a successor to his martial abilities.

in an imperial setting, this would have been the relationship of an emperor and his crown prince that straddles both ruler-subject and father-son ties aka a tag-team of disaster. the teacher has an obligation to nurture his disciple as a successor to himself, and love him like a son too. on the flipside, he holds the final power in their relationship - withholding knowledge and feelings from the younger one. they are only equals in a way a parent-child can be. they are only equals as much as the parent allows. and this is how fdb got left behind in the dust of llh's departure. he was the child treating his parent like a friend, supporting him emotionally and begging to be loved back the same way he loves his parent - but the parent had a lifetime way ahead of him and stayed out of his reach, physically and emotionally.

llh and fdb operate with the trapping of a friendship but have always been family in the core. llh had known that way before fdb did, just like everything else he had known and put out of fdb's reach. because. fdb did not have to know. fdb is different and will forge his own path. and that's a kind of love llh has for him that nobody understands (in fact not even fdb himself) - one that is on a different plane from friendships.

by repurposing the framework of relational ties, mlc showed that the essence of familial relationships aka its intimacy and closeness can be independent from biology and formalised rituals. and it is important to myself for stories to say that people can build close ties and deeply meaningful relationships even without being born or ritualised into any.

-

then back to how these relational ties are inextricable from the conceptualisation of the 'self' in confucian worldview: the roles you play in these relationships are intended to define you. there is no 'self' independent from it. while the concept of a social, relational self is fully rooted in reality, being locked into social roles can be a painful way to live - a way that llh has experienced as lxy the sigu sect leader. so, in order for lxy/llh to realise a sense of self that exists outside the norms, it inevitably points to another way that requires a cut from these relationships. that is then the buddhist (or taoist) answer of looking past attachments to the world such as the confucian idea of relationships defining your being. only with a dissolution of a sense of 'self', can there be true liberation.

[determinate-negation]

hello! one thing i have seen is the neutrality stance is that innocent civilians have been getting killed on both sides and that being pro-palestine means that you are “okay” with innocent civilians in isra*l dying as well. i was having a convo with a friend and they basically said i am disgusting for not acknowledging that however i do but how does one discuss that without appearing to be a zionist ? like i know that innocent civilians dying is terrible but when people bring that up as a way to support isr*el i am left confused on what to say as i don’t believe innocent people should die but ik it’s “different”? do u have any resources or response to help with this dilemma?

i think it is totally possible to acknowledge israeli civilians who died and recognize on an interpersonal level peoples grief, and say that the situation israel has created in gaza since the blockade, and in general since 1948 is the driver of violence. if there was no israel there would be no hamas, and they purposefully supported them to detract from support secular communist palestinian movements. you cant talk about this without discussing the larger historic context and if you do then youre not addressing the full picture. on one level this is an argument between ideologies, liberalism and radicalism, and idk how much you can actually convince someone lol. you cant condemn violence on two sides without looking at whos been instigating the violence, and also historically preventing and punishing peaceful protest and literally everything else they could do. a colonial situation is generally marked by violence. its upheld by the presence of the army and their ability to kill indigenous people with impunity, and regardless of how sad it might be to civilian victims families, frequently marked by clashes between settlers and indigenous people. idk if this can directly help you lol but the book black skin white masks by frantz fanon really influenced how i think about this. and how is supporting palestine equivalent to being ok with civilian deaths when a lot of the relatives of people killed in the attack and held hostage have said they dont want the israeli government using this to kill palestinians and justify war. but the israeli government has ignored them and gone ahead with their explicit desire to destroy gaza and complete the nakba, as many of them have said word for word. this article Meet the Hamas Massacre Survivors Opposing Israeli Brutality in Gaza has a bunch of their testimonies. israel is also indiscriminately bombing gaza, where the hostages are, and already have killed a few of them

[nothingiswrongwithyourarmrests]

@prismatic-bell made a wonderful well thought-out post about cultural christianity.

I think the phrasing of cultural christianity is not ideal, but the concept it's imperfectly describing can probably not be described perfectly.

In my opinion it's more accurate to speak of christian hegemony or christian culture. I live in a christian culture. The christian culture around me affects me and everyone else in my country, because it is so hard to draw a line between culture and religion because Germany was Christian for a much longer time than it has been German.

Participating in german culture means participating in a christian culture, even if we have gotten more laicistic(in the sense of strict religious neutrality) and atheist in practice in the last 40 years. The effects of christian hegemony and christian culture will affect everyone and give everyone a degree of "cultural christianity". Yes, even the members of minority religions.

The prevalence of the USAmerican Film and Television industry is giving a lot of countries "cultural americanism". I am myself participating in cultural americanism at this moment because I am writing about a concept that has been mostly defined in the USAmerican cultural context in my second language.

The Atheist movement today is being dominated by USAmericans, so the Atheist movement defines itself against the cultural context of american majority culture, which is a christian culture. It is also dominated by people who escaped religious abuse and religious trauma, usually from USAmerican christianity. The reactivity of that trauma has become part of Atheist culture, even for those who did not experience religious trauma personally. It's a major problem for the movement that a lot of people counting themselves among it do so out of disgust for religion instead of taking joy in secular and atheist values, and a lot of people that are vocal have not finished truly excavating and examining their own (cultural) biases.

Seriously following a religion (including secular atheism as a set of beliefs) often involves analysing and understanding it and the culture you are practicing it in, but secularly/laxly/culturally following the religion you happen to be born into or ignoring it does not require the same level of thought and scrutiny and intellectual honesty.

Learning about the history of philosophy has helped me grasp the interconnectedness of culture and religion, and having mandatory religious education (education about religions, not religious indoctrination) in school was a major part of becoming more culturally literate. Whether someone has examined or corrected the biases they absorbed from christian culture /christian hegemony is not determined by their religious affiliation.

I do not want to be cultural christian and would put that label to people who do easter, christmas, confirmation and church weddings without belief. What I am is continuously affected by christian hegemony and living in a christian culture, and I won't be getting rid of all the biases and blind spots of that for a long time, possibly my lifetime.

[dxxtruction]

Something to just consider is that Armand is a collectivist. Culturally I think this makes sense, considering he would've been raised in his foundational years in that sort of culture that values collectivism over individualism. He's also had to live in several high control environments afterwards, which demanded servitude, where putting himself first would've led to trouble, up to and including death. In the Children of Darkness, for example, the very idea of seeking pleasure at all is against the commandments, and since he is forced to lead this group (under careful surveillance), he can not therefore show if he even wishes to seek pleasure, because this would disrupt the collective thought, and further, place a level of threat upon himself for disobeying the laws he's meant to be upholding. He's at threat that he can be killed for it, because that's how such laws are handled. So he necessarily can not hold an individualistic, self serving, opinion, and hope to live, and lived in that kind of envoirment for centuries. Even the TdV carries on the same sort of traditions to less strict, more secular, degrees. Seeking pleasure in TdV is rewarded, even exhaulted, but the great laws are still imposed to the level of threat which is death, and everyone is always surveilling each other on this matter. He's a collectivist, especially in situations which impose certain, or uncertain threat of violence, for going against the group, or person, as in such a situation being individualistic is perhaps the last thing you may get to ever do. Nothing personally driven, therefore, seems that worth it provided the risk.

Whether he remembers this earliest period of childhood, or not, those sorts of values (likely positive then as things like sharing, community building, reaching mutually beneficial decisions, aid, and consideration of others feelings). Ingrained into his personality, and he doesn't have the kind of amnesia where it appears his personality was fundamentally changed by it. Rather, that since it's more of a dissociative amnesia barrier protecting him from traumas, that his personality would rather be fragmented, as opposed to altered. (Meaning such values are still there, but are now also acting alongside various further alteration to what is means to be in collective. And that if such amnesiac parts ever do surface, it is only reacting as if it is re-experiencing, and in the same context to the trauma. Depending on how complex this part is it could take on further environmental inputs while in this state, developing or simply having, essentially, its own personality... but I digress).

He does things for the group, which can at times only be one person, more-so than he serves himself. Placing what serves situation and context more highly that individual personal traits and feelings. But, by thinking he has no self, he naturally falls to self justifying everything wrongful he personally does, as for the benefit of the group. It's a cognitive distortion which doesn't recognize it's own selfishness because it sees itself as being selfless regardless of actual outcome. Further, this makes it so he takes no responsibility for others actions he may have caused, or to how a situation came about because of himself, if he doesn't then apply having any self to that situation. He'll bend to opinion even if its false, and create or even take on an entire role of falsehood, if he believes it serves a mutual benefit.

He uses this as a kind of shield against the world he must fundamentally view as threatening, and imposing, with very limited spaces of safety. But doesn't impose himself in healthy ways, therefore becomes an enabler of certain toxic behaviors getting out of hand, and creating unsafe environments. Desiring such places being controlled, and predictable, environments, but not fostering what's needed for that, and certainly not in a healthy way. Rather lending to manipulating others, or using threats, or force, to make it so he's secure in this. Again, self justifying that it's for a collectivist benefit. If he does at all recognize his own selfishness it's due to how he's able to come out of his own cognitive distortions, and dissonance, and admit faults and failings. Seeing that hiding his own faults and failings from others is something selfish, and therefore that he does indeed have a self there. In doing so, developing an understanding that he acts as a self in all things, and therefore understanding the effects of his actions are actually his. (Or else falling right back into the distortions). He has to be selfish, in a way, to ever be truly selfless. If that's really his goal.

To want something for itself, as opposed to some other means. To want good, love, and safety, for itself as opposed to what it does. He has to develop a sense of his own idea of these things, in order to form a consistent and more secure identity, not founded or attached to a group or person. And further needs whatever self that is, to be embraced, by himself, and not insecure in how others would react to it. To not be afraid of this self expression and personal desire, thought, opinion, feeling, and so on. By developing his own person he'd be able to better embrace his own bad qualities, even change them. As he then feels he has such agency, and isn't just simply reacting and serving to the world around him. I think there's something in how he changes Daniel which says he is moving in sort of this direction, there's something in how it appears he's roaming around on his own right now that suggests he is on a journey of this sort. I'm not expecting greatness out of it, but I am thinking there will be progress for present day Armand in future seasons. I think he is capable of change, and is not fundamentally as he appears. (And this would align to his narrative arc in the books anyway.)

And just also like I don’t think he knows entirely where the boundaries of anything really are or should be. Between himself and others or like where right begins and wrong ends and so forth. Not a moment in his memorable life, mortal or immortal, hasn't been without the presence of vampires, and therefore conditioned more under vampiric understandings as opposed to human ones. And because he's disconsidering of self, and hasn’t exactly been modeled what these should be, he's not able to function sanely in his environment. He's not sane I think I can say. But I do think he’s someone who learns experientially, and can do that on his own, so where those must lie he’s not in total lack of awareness either.

[mariacallous]

A Nepalese historian once told me a story. On a plane to Kathmandu, he was sitting next to an American legal expert who had been called in to help design Nepal’s first-ever republican constitution. But after sparking a conversation about Nepal’s history and its diverse peoples, the historian was shocked at the expert’s lack of knowledge about the country. The American was quick to explain that this ignorance was deliberate, and that he had no desire to learn about Nepal. “You see, good constitutional law is good regardless of the context,” the expert said. “I make a point of not learning details about a country, because they are irrelevant to constitutional design.”

This case might be extreme, or perhaps embellished in the retelling, but something about it feels terribly familiar in regard to the Middle East. Americans debating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often resort to simple categories and narratives, seeking to impose them without regard to context. One such narrative ignores the history of nationalism and the national right to self-determination. Israel, by this account, is uniquely evil because it is an ethno-nationalist state, and thus the only acceptable solution is for all the land between the (Jordan) river and the (Mediterranean) sea to be part of “one secular democratic state,” presumably without an ethno-national reference, similar to the United States.

I’ll say at the outset that many reasonable debates can be had about the nature of both Israel as a Jewish state and any possible solution to its conflict with the Palestinians. Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, have long contested what exactly it means for a state to be Jewish, or for Israel to be “a state of all its citizens.” Many Israelis and Palestinians have made eloquent cases for various forms of a one-state solution, as is their prerogative.

My problem isn’t with raising these questions, but with having prepackaged answers to them based on facile categories. In a view common on the American left, ethno-nationalism is no different from racism, and for Israel to be a Jewish state is comparable to the United States wanting to be a white state. Many American proponents of the one-state solution use a similar logic. When he abandoned his long-held liberal Zionism in 2020, the journalist Peter Beinart claimed that he had embraced a vision of one state for all in the name of opposing “Jewish-Palestinian separation” and condoning “equality.” The strong implication is that a two-state solution would not bring genuine equality.

Many in this crowd take support for what liberal proponents of Israel have long called a “Jewish and democratic state” to be a demand for ethno-supremacy. A recent letter that calls for “Palestinian liberation,” signed by a number of eminent scholars, such as Étienne Balibar, Judith Butler, and Angela Davis, condemns Israel for having been “an ethno-supremacist state” since its foundation in 1948. By this logic, anyone who supports a two-state solution, which stipulates that a state of Israel exist alongside a state of Palestine, must be racist and ethno-supremacist. For this reason, even Representative Ilhan Omar, of Minnesota, was once attacked as defending “pure racism” due to her support for the two-state solution.

Progressives have many good reasons for treating nationalism with skepticism. But proponents of Palestine seem to miss the irony that, even as they disavow any idea of Jewish nationalism as verboten ethno-supremacy, they are asserting a rival form of nationalism—Palestinian nationalism, which comes with its own rich traditions and history. The Palestinian flag they wave at demonstrations isn’t a random symbol of liberal secular democracy but one based on pan-Arab national colors. In other words, it is very much an ethno-nationalist flag.

Does that mean the Palestinian flag is one of Arab supremacy? Of course not. Like other nationalisms, Palestinian nationalism can have many variants with different degrees of inclusivity. The Palestinian National Charter, written in the 1960s, called Palestine “an indivisible part of the Arab homeland,” entitled to all the land between the river and the sea, and asserted that the majority of Israeli Jews had no place in a liberated Palestine. The charter also asserted that Jews were not “one people with an independent personality” (in the 1964 version) or “a single nation with an identity of its own” (in the 1968 version). But many Palestinians have long contested this exclusionary version of nationalism. Palestinian thinkers and scholars, such as Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and Mahmoud Darwish, came to recognize the reality of Israeli nationhood. So did the leadership of the Palestinian national movement, which, in 1996, amended the charter to make recognition of the state of Israel possible.

Jewish nationalism, or Zionism, also has many variants. Under its right-wing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has become more and more discriminatory toward its non-Jewish citizens, as evidenced by the 2018 passage of the Nation-State Law, which demoted the status of the Arabic language. Things got much worse last year, when Netanyahu invited outright anti-Arab and Jewish-supremacist fascists into his government. But many in Israeli society and politics, including many Zionists in the political class, heavily oppose this government and its discriminatory legislation. Millions of citizens fight for a more equal vision of Israel even as they defend its existence as a national state.

These values are reconcilable because the core idea of nationalism is not the supremacy of one ethnic group over the other, but the right of a nation to self-determination. The right to self-determination has long been central to progressive politics, among both liberals and socialists. The world of empires crumbled in the First World War, and in its aftermath, postwar leaders, including Woodrow Wilson and Vladimir Lenin, championed this right (at least in rhetoric, if not always in practice), as did their ideological descendants. The world of empires was thus turned into a world of nations, with nationalism a cornerstone of the modern global order (it’s called the United Nations for a reason).

Of course, like all political movements, nationalism has its share of contradictions, not to mention a gory track record. The demographic and geographic boundaries of nations, and the status of minorities within them, have occasioned no end of contestation and conflict. Zionism, in fact, was born from this contestation, as Jews found themselves excluded from most forms of nationalism in the places where they lived. Additionally, as the political scientist Joseph Huddleston has argued, international law has long struggled to find a balance between the national right to self-determination and the right of states to their territorial integrity.

National boundaries are everywhere soaked in blood. Ultranationalist governments have helped kill millions of people, in atrocities such as the Holocaust in the 20th century, and in campaigns of ethnic cleansing in both the last century and the present one. The creation of Israel was followed by a war that displaced an estimated 750,000 Palestinians; Arab states subsequently drove out hundreds of thousands of their own Jewish citizens. India and Pakistan were co-created in an orgy of violence that killed up to 2 million people. Millions of ethnic Turks, Greeks, Germans, Poles, Hungarians, and Russians were driven out of their ancestral lands.

Yet, terrible as nationalist history is, national identities can’t be reduced to exclusion and bloodshed. These identities have endured precisely because they have demonstrated the power to connect millions of people together into meaningful communities. The historian Benedict Anderson is known for his critical take on nationalism. But he also appreciated its integrative qualities and noted that “regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.”

Both Israelis and Palestinians have shown deep attachments not just to their shared homeland but to their own nations, in precisely this form of “horizontal comradeship.” Edward Said, who remained devoted to his Palestinian identity through long years of exile, is known today for advocating a one-state solution. What’s often missed is that he believed in a binational version of such a state that would recognize the national rights of both communities in Israel/Palestine: Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. He also acknowledged the necessity of starting with a two-state solution before such state unity could take place.

This strong sense of national belonging explains why the idea of sharing one united and democratic state usually doesn’t poll very well among either Israelis or Palestinians. Not a single political force in either Israel or Palestine supports it. This despite the fact that Israel’s intransigent and brutal occupation of Palestinian territories and its expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank have made many lose hope in the feasibility of a Palestinian state. Whenever such feasibility improves, so too might enthusiasm for a two-state solution, which even now enjoys a plurality of support in both communities in most polls.

The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can simply give up their respective national identities and merge into one peaceful democratic nation-state doesn’t seem to have much basis in history. Nations in the modern era have almost never decided to willingly dissolve themselves into a single state, and even confederations are quite rare, although laudable when they do happen.

The hubris of outsiders in ignoring the national realities of Israel/Palestine resonates eerily with American attitudes of an earlier era. After 9/11, many liberals and neoconservatives seemed to bank on fantasy visions of the Middle East, thinking that the region could be forcibly rightsized to match such projections. Then as now, many didn’t take the Middle East and its actually existing nations seriously, even as they cheered on the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Beinart was one such liberal. He realized his mistake, writing a few years later that he was wrong to be “willing to gamble,” because, as he wrote, “I wasn’t gambling with my own life.” Yet a similar attitude underlies his endorsement of turning Israel/Palestine into a federation like Belgium without following the lead of people who actually live there and have no lives to gamble with but their own. Last year, hundreds of thousands of Israelis came out to protest Netanyahu’s government, and Beinart dismissed them as offering merely “a polite brand of ethnonationalism.” They received a similarly cold shoulder from most of the American left. The attitude of Palestinian citizens of Israel could hardly be more different. Ayman Odeh, a popular left-wing member of the Knesset in Israel, greeted the demonstrators as “my future partners in creating a better life for this country.”

Today Odeh calls for a cease-fire in Gaza but remains clear-eyed about what will be necessary to secure a future of peace and coexistence: “The only way we can fulfill our responsibility to the nation of our youngest ones—and to ourselves—is to recognize the nation of Palestine and the nation of Israel, and to establish a state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel,” he wrote in The New York Times.

Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are going anywhere, and neither will give up their national identity. Those who truly want peace and justice in the Holy Land should start by recognizing this reality. Israel can and must be pushed to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories and stop the obstruction of Palestinian sovereignty. But neither it nor Palestine can be pushed to commit ethno-national suicide.

[dandelion-wings]

On thing about Mondstadt’s government that bothers me is that everybody boils it down to just the Knights on one side, and the Church on the other. Which, sure, they’re what we know the most about…

But it completely ignores the ‘Community Representative’. Considering their signature is one of three needed to (legally) make use of the Holy Lyre, alongside the Grandmaster and the Seneschal, they must be pretty damn important. So assuming they have equal power to those positions, which are at the head of the Knights and the Church respectively, what actually is that power? Presumably it’s an elected position (the title is that of a ‘representative’, plus I would be severely disappointed if there wasn’t even a hint of democracy in the Nation of Freedom), but is there a structure under it similar to the Knights and Church? Is there a completely separate civilian, secular government that for some reason just barely comes up? If it is elected, how is that handled? If both Grandmaster Varka and the Seneschal are on expedition, does that mean they hold more authority than Acting Grandmaster Jean and whoever is Acting Seneschal (assuming an acting-title’s authority, though still above everything else below the proper-title, is still considered secondary to that of said proper-title)? But if so, why hasn’t it come up? Or is it just some guy elected to act as a more expedient alternative to something like a full referendum?

God, I have an education in history and political science that is just begging for some damn answers!

I mean, I don't have an education in those things and am not real good at working those things out myself, so I don't know that I can provide you too much useful commentary here. XD;; But while I'd love if Mondstadt did have some democracy, I... am pretty convinced that it's a theocracy, actually. The Knights and the Church (which tbh seems to exist under the overall umbrella of the Ordo, given that Jean says in her voiceline about Barbara that "the order also manages the Church") fulfill pretty much all the governmental functions we actually see happening at all, including the whole thing in Jean's quest where Charles expects tax forms from her.

I'll admit I also lean that way because I read into Mondstadt as a whole (its history but also our introduction to it, where Amber initially nabs us for unauthorized entry and then there's a whole early section about gliding regulations) a theme of humans repeatedly being given freedom, and gradually rebuilding restrictions upon themselves. Which I don't think is entirely a bad thing, in that I do think communities generally function better with organization and administration and such, but, like, Mondstadt has gone all the way into tyranny before and could again. Mondstadt building itself an increasingly restrictive theocracy feeds into the theme I like drawing from it, so of course that's the reading I tend towards! But, still, that's where I'm at about it.

(I draw a lot of my read of this national theme from the line, "Mondstadt is the City of Freedom, but unchecked freedom without any kind of rules only invites chaos and anxiety," in Jean's character details, and I haven't seen anyone else talk about it, ever, so it's entirely possible this is actually character brainrot I'm projecting onto the city as a whole. I'm fine with that.)

Presumably there is a further government apparatus, but I tend to believe it's probably under the higher authority of the Ordo. Maybe with checks and balances, maybe not (exactly how I arrange the setup for fic where it's needed is specific to individual fic, because the openness of canon leaves the kind of room that makes it easiest to go with what works for the plot). "Community Representative" on its own is very vague; looking at the line where it actually appears, it's talking about the Holy Lyre in the context of the Ludi Harpastrum, so it could even be a role specific to the yearly organization of that particular festival! That said, it does sound a bit more like it's a regular thing, and given my presumption of theocracy above, I think this:

Or is it just some guy elected to act as a more expedient alternative to something like a full referendum?

honestly is the most likely possibility. It would make sense given Mondstadt's ethos and history--you have a representative of the community to sign off on certain decisions (hopefully elected, as you said, but who knows exactly how it happens), like that one about the Lyre, to show that the people agree. Possibly it's a triangle with the Grand Master at the top and the Seneschal (given the above "manages the Church" line) and Community Representative as equals who have input but not ultimate power on the next level down, possibly they both exist largely to rubberstamp the Grand Master and Seneshal's decisions, possibly it's an area-of-authority divide. Regardless of the exact divisions, Jean does seem to have some fairly unilateral powers in the areas of domestic defense and peacekeeping, but that's... something you do want the head of your military-and-police order to have, generally, so who knows how broad her powers actually are to act without the Seneschal and Representative's approval in other areas. The game is, as always, frustratingly uninformative.

Anyway, tl;dr: my personal reading of Mondstadt tends to render the Community Representative as relatively unimportant, despite the equal billing in that quest, because over and over again in quests and lore and voicelines we don't see anything but "the Ordo handles things," and Mondstadt honestly makes most sense to me as a theocratic city-state. I think they're more likely a representative "voice" in the government than a significant power, and I don't think they represent any significant "third branch" other than possibly, given Mondstadt's history, a symbolic reminder that its people have toppled tyrants before and can do so again.

[manda-kat]

Have you considered that many people are not deciding that God is inconsistent or has gone back on His word, but rather that our interpretation of how to best live in accordance with God’s will has changed depending on our context? New interpretation of God’s Word and presence in our world is a constant thing. People have been striving for thousands of years to worship God in their unique context; we all have an understanding that the context in which God was first revealed to us is quite different from our own, and we have to reconcile this with our belief in an infallible and immutable Creator. Every Christian community since the inception of our religious tradition has made interpretive decisions of how to best honor God in their thoughts, words, and actions— these decisions have changed over time, and led to the diversity of Christian expression in our world today. Religion does and must change. God does not.

I totally get your point and it's a good one, especially when it comes to less important things that change with time and culture. It definitely didn't go over my head.

But my point still stands- it isn't culture, traditions or norms that are the issue, but morality as a whole. We shouldn't change how we interpret God's law because He always had an intended purpose for that law and the things He has called good and holy hold up even today- regardless of a secular world's acceptance of them.

So yeah, I agree with you that we should worship in a way that makes sense for the context we live in, but my original point is to be careful not to discard real laws and truth for a desire to fit in with others. Many parts of the church- particularly in America- has been ignoring God's teaching in favor of sticking with popular ideals and they've done this with many topics and sins.

For example, I don't think it's right to sing songs praising America in church because the context of a hymn in church is worship, so to use those songs in church is to worship our country. Some people may say this doesn't constitute as idolatry and that we should adapt to fit the patriotic culture, but God very clearly told us not to worship anything above him, so we should keep our love of America out of church hymns when the goal should be to sing praises to the Lord.

Obviously there are some more hot-ticket items that the church has been pushing that people have stronger opinions over, but we all know what those are. Anything contrary to God's word and law should be discarded regardless of the culture you find yourself in. Not all cultures are morally sound and it is our job as the church to stand apart from the sinful world.

So while I definitely believe in the importance of context (in fact many acts from the Bible could be seen as sinful if taken out of the context they are found in) we need to be wary of how much we stray in the name of personal interpretation. At the end of the day, none of this is about us- it's about Him. So we need to think first about what He wants and expects from us. If you truly belive God approves of your lifestyle and that you are honoring His law, then by all means serve Him thusly.

[spurgie-cousin]

So far I’m seeing a 50/50 split on the reactions to Brianne (based on the rod reddit alone)

50% “this poor girl has no chance with Jill as a MIL and Sam as a husband; she has 2 college degrees…what happened in her life to throw her this hard into the fundie life?”

And 50% “this 25 year old raised-secular woman has 2 college degrees and is going after a 20 year old fundie homeschool graduate, if the roles were reversed we’d be raking the man over the coals; it’s an act and she’s either about to take Jill on the ride of her life by deconstructing Sam after the wedding, or she’s going to divorce Sam when her married life dreams don’t match her reality”

Jill is sooooo goddamn stupid for dropping that girls full name like that. Or mean.

It feels like a lot of the stuff reddit "knows" about her is speculation rn, especially the whole "she's a converted fundie!!!1!" stuff. Not to mention that everything I've seen dug up about her can be consistent with a conservative Christian upbringing:

IFB/IBLP are very small groups in the conservative Christian world, there are actually many denominations that allow dancing, esp traditional/folk dancing like it appears she does. It's also not that weird that she has degrees, again the conservative Christian world is not exclusively made of IBLP-level fundies, there are some denominations where college isn't unheard of at all. I feel like it's extremely possible she grew up hella Christian, and maybe chose a slightly more conservative church in her adulthood without it being that big of a transition for her.

As far as 25 vs 20 🙄🙄🙄🙄 I mean....... that happens ALL the time with these bozos. The argument on reddit is "if the genders are reversed we'd be upset!!" and like yea idk, maybe I guess it'd just depend, but the gender dynamics in this belief system make such a big difference......Sam will still be the leader of the house and final decision maker regardless of this woman's age, he doesn't have to drop his entire life to bend to the will of this girl like she might have to for him, y'know? In the context of fundies it feels like comparing apples and oranges.

[a-bit-lonely]

Ive discovered that doodling my blorbo from my games talking about what im studying as i study helps quite a bit actually.

So heres some of my doodles of Mirage Ultrakill having sociology opinions with explanations of the sociology stuff under the cut.

Doodle 1

Doodle 2

Doodle 3

doodle 4

Doodle 1

Secularization theory is a sociological theory which was originally thought up by Emile Durkheim. It basically says that as a society gets more modern, the religiosity of the people in that society declines, eventually leading to the complete disappearance of religion.

This theory was based on several inaccurate assumptions. Namely: people are less religious now than they were in the past, and scientific thought will inevitably lead to a decline in religious belief. As it turns out, neither of these assumptions are accurate...

But because this theory was introduced in the early days of sociology, it was just kind of accepted as fact even though there was no data to really support it.

Over time sociologists began doing studies on religiosity and found some major flaws in secularization theory. There wasn't evidence to support its conclusions despite decades of study, new religious movements continued to emerge in societies which were supposedly secularized, and religion remained an important influence in politics globally.

Anyways, Mirage Ultrakill strikes me as the kind of person who would hear about secularization theory and get excited because she's a bit of an asshole who thinks that religious belief is a comfort blanket shielding people from reality. Basically: Mirage Ultrakill strikes me as a reddit atheist.

Doodle 2

This doodle is right next to my notes on a concept coined by Thomas Luckmann called "invisible religion".

Don't get me wrong, Luckmann has made great contributions to sociology. He wrote The Social Construction of Reality which was hugely influential and also good shit. But... invisible religion does not make sense to me.

Rather than using a more accepted definition of religion, Luckmann made his own which asserted that religion is thought or action above an animal level. So, dear reader, if you are transcending your biological nature, then you are doing a religion. Eating with a fork? That's religion. Reading words? Religion.

To be fair to Luckmann, he was writing Invisible Religion at a time when Secularization theory was still widely accepted. At the time it was also believed that religion acted as the social glue that held society together, so Luckmann was trying to explain why society wouldn't fall apart as religion disappeared. And his explanation was that actually being human is religion.

But yeah, I reckon Mirage Ultrakill would be mean to him.

Doodle 3

This doodle is next to my notes on pluralism (pretty much just multiple religions existing in the same time/place). Specifically next to a section referring to pluralism as a "marketplace of ideas" which is a phrase I've heard far far too many libertarians throw around.

So basically, this doodle was a visceral reaction to seeing the phrase "marketplace of ideas". Honestly, it makes sense as a metaphor in this context as long as it isn't extended to far.

Doodle 4

This doodle was next to my notes on a section of my textbook that was talking about medieval monks (honestly why it was talking about that isn't too important, it was just some stuff about discrediting secularization theory). Anyway, did you know that a lot of Monasteries also brew a lot of beer and have done so since the Middle Ages? I think that's cool.

Anyway, this doodle happened because I was bored and Mirage Ultrakill strikes me as an underage drinker (which you minors out there should not be doing btw, it doesn't end well).

[rinbylin]

galaxy-brained mlc take of the day: mlc is wuxia, yes and maybeee not exactly? it very much is a wuxia aesthetically, but it's actually - conceptually - xianxia story in the core. (this is different from suggesting that it is a xianxia show.) however xianxia can (or should) be considered a subgenre of wuxia, not its own separate distinct genre despite the idea of 仙 xian being fundamentally at odds with the idea of 侠 xia, because they both stem from the same belief. (as seen in mlc, it works with the conventions of traditional wuxia aka li xiangyi the sigu sect leader, to get to the real bits of xianxia concept aka li lianhua's story.) so, mlc is wuxia through and through, inside out. send tweet 🫡👍

-

ok wait I can explain

so, this must be premised on the understanding that any discussion of "仙 xian/deities" in this context is only as its abstract idea of living a life distanced, detached from worldly, human woes instead of the possibility of immortality existing in mlcverse. (if you think about the deities in xianxia stories being basically human beings who have cultivated themselves into immortality.)

this is the explanation of xianxia as a wuxia subgenre (古仙武侠) in the baidu article of wuxia genre:

武侠中的侠，是脱胎于墨家“以天下为己任”的使命感；而仙侠的侠，通常是传达着“能力越大，责任也就越大”的朴素精神。侠乃入世，仙为出世，道教阴阳的无情大道（无情指寻求自我的不断体悟，以达精神的成仙，非没有感情之意）与武侠江湖的有情众生，即是矛盾也是循环，象征着太极之道，这也就是为何古仙武侠也属于正统仙侠流派的原因。

rough tl:

the xia of wuxia is born from the mohist ideal of bearing a sense of responsibility for the world

while the xia in xianxia focuses on the idea of "with great power comes great responsibility"

the idea of 侠 xia is secular. the idea of 仙 xian is beyond the secular - it is to pursue a life of suppressing/taming your own emotions (it does not mean to be completely removed of the ability to feel. it's a pursuit of self-realisation that makes one attain the status of a "deity" spiritually.) 仙 xian is then inherently at odds with wuxia jianghu's deep empathy and connection with the secular world, but it's also connected back to it. this is why 古仙武侠 is considered to be a part of the wuxia genre.

the relationship between xian and xia is conflicting because the former is all about distancing yourself from worldly issues while the latter necessitates an active effort to do something about them.

but it also means that both wuxia and xianxia acknowledge this weight of human emotions and connection to the world. it's just their respective responses and the outcomes they want that they differ in. what is the ideal person? wuxia says it's to be someone who can propagate and execute the ideal of doing something about this weight of your connection to the world, while xianxia says it's to learn to be at peace with that connection, and it's ok to not do anything about it actually - which might even be harder than trying to do something. (and focusing on your own cultivation can be a good thing for the world, in fact.)

with this, I hope it sounds less absurd that I'm connecting mlc's story to the concept of xianxia. lxy's life was a traditional wuxia archetype. (I've already harped on enough about how he fits into the quintessential mohist model of a xia leader.) what happens after, aka his journey as li lianhua, is the real story of mlc. it's a breakdown of that quintessential wuxia hero. it is a story in which the main conflict faced by the protagonist is to struggle with all the worldly woes including his own past and the cases' victims, in defense of the serenity he has found in the past 9 years. it is a natural battle to fight for someone such as llh because as long as you're still human, you will face the implications of human connections and the innate feeling of compassion and urge to do something about it (part of this, I guess, manifests physically in bicha breaking him down and the resistance to cure).

and relating that to an excerpt from an article discussing xianxia in relation to wuxia:

武侠剧的精神内核也是仙侠剧的精神内核，而“仙”实际上是实现新形式的“侠”的手段，由此扩展了“侠”的深度和其实施的时空范围。武侠之中的侠义精神，可以强调其自在，更强调其是自为的，前者是需要逐渐成长和觉醒的。然而对于高于人的仙而言，作为上位者的“侠”之精神，则应该是内在自觉且自为的。

rough tl:

the spirit of wuxia dramas should also be the spirit of xianxia dramas. xian should in fact be another way to bring out and explore the idea of xia.

the spirit of xia in wuxia can be an emphasis on the spirit of freedom, and even more so, the idea of agency and autonomy. the former is gained through growth and awareness. but for xian aka people who occupy a realm above the people on the ground, the xia spirit they embody should manifest in their inner awakening and agency.

it goes without saying that nobody is a deity in this show, and never will be. only in ep 40.5 it came so close to possessing that otherworldly, surreal edge, but that's all to it. deities do not exist in the mlcverse.

but but. it's interesting to point out in the ep 3 flashback when lxy walked through town in the aftermath of the sigu sect vs jym battle, commoners were heard describing it as 神仙打架 百姓遭殃 when immortals fight, commoners suffer. of course they didn't mean it literally but figuratively, that those people of wulin jianghu are high above, detached from the people on the ground. which is. contradictory to the idea of 侠 xia to begin with. so... it could even be interpreted that li lianhua living the spiritually "immortal" life embodied the xia spirit even more deeply than he did as li xiangyi the sigu sect leader, the "immortal" in the eyes of the commoners. actual immortals do not have any real attachment to the people, but a cultivated "immortal" does and is destined to feel and learn to deal with it over and over like llh did. it all comes back in a circle indeed.