saturno-sol · 6 months ago
Text
Yknow maybe it’s not a good thing to have kids with a ten year+ difference between them.
3 notes · View notes
bobbile-blog · 10 months ago
Text
Not sure if anyone’s said this yet but now that we have Laterano events plural I’m fascinated by their (imo) very deliberate choice of protagonists, and there are almost a couple of layers of narrative going on there. I struggle a little figuring out how to get this into words but specifically I think they’re chosen to be people who can carry a narrative without contradicting the orthodox morals of the church. There’s a LOT of vaguely anti-authoritarian rambling below the cut so please kindly bear with me and my English major brain.
I can’t really start there though. One of the reasons this is so brain hurty is how deeply it’s woven into the storyline, so to start, I have to verbalize how Laterano and Arknights writing more generally is different from other, similar settings. Because like, I hear the words “morally negative church in a grimdark setting” and my brain immediately shuts off. Come on, that’s so far beyond low-hanging fruit, if you’ve seen any grimdark setting ever you know exactly what that looks like. And sure, it was fine the first two or three times you saw it, depending on your tolerance for that kinda thing, but it gets boring quick and even when it was new it was kinda uninteresting story-wise. “Religion is always fake because it inspires hope which means everyone who takes meaning from it is either a corrupt grifter or naive and misled” isn’t just edgy nonsense, it’s also basically useless as an actual critique. It tells you absolutely nothing except how to tune out a particular kind of story, and a story that tries to get you to hear less is doing its job wrong.
So, Arknights does something different. Instead of denying the premise of the church entirely, it actually takes it at its word. Laterano is, in almost every definition of the word, a paradise. It is basically unmatched in terms of actual quality of life, with its only competitors being the Durin cities and maybe Aegir, and is worlds apart from now much the rest of Terra sucks. More than that, though, the paradise is specifically tailored to the worldview of a religion with a strong central authority - when I say it takes it at its word, I mean the authoritarian bits too. Laterano is a city that lives in perfect order and peace because everyone follows the law perfectly and they all understand each other and never fight. Empathy is really important for this, as it allows for a believable amount of superhuman societal order. Laterano has very little crime, political drama, or quarrels in general. It’s the promises of a strict higher authority actually taken at face value: everyone follows the rules and that means they have effectively unfettered freedom, because they don’t want to break the rules and therefore they can do anything they want.
Laterano is specifically written to be a believable paradise in a setting that has none, so that when the story then turns around and criticizes that setting, it has significantly more weight. Even when the promises of paradise are taken at face value, there are still issues that cannot be addressed because the system is inherently flawed even in the imaginary scenario where it works. Even worse, the problems that poke holes in the imaginary perfect scenario are the same problems that they face in the real world, like “how do you deal with the interpretation of scriptures” and “hey there’s this racism thing I keep hearing about should we be worried about that or what”. Because of the way this imaginary perfect system works, we then look back on our real world in a new light and understand it a little better. It’s good critique.
Okay so how did we get here and what does this have to do with the protagonists? Well, this starts with Fiametta in Guide Ahead, because she’s a really weird protagonist. This is a cold take at this point but despite being the character on the front of the box, she has very little to actually do with the central conflict of the event. Most of the conflict is handled by Ezell first and Andoain second, and Fiametta mostly putters around putting holes in people until the finale where Andoain receives the answer he’s been looking for, he turns to explain it to the world, and he runs into the only person in the whole of Laterano who does not care about his motivations or his revelation. Her role, in other words, is to replace the climax of Andoain’s story with her own, and in doing so she makes it much harder to actually get a resolution and a meaning out of the story (this should not be taken as a criticism of her character, let me cook). Guide Ahead’s ending is hazy, with only small piecemeal resolutions to its conflicts, and for the longest time that was just the way the event was written and it stood on its own.
But now, Hortus de Escapismo is out and the monkey brain see patterns. Specifically, with the choice of protagonists. Because Executor is definitely different from Fiametta as a protagonist, but there’s one particularly important connection between the two, and that’s that as I mentioned in the beginning, they allow for stories don’t contradict orthodox morality. Fiametta we went over, as she’s uninterested in any of Andoain’s morality and just wants him dead. Executor, though, is purely focused on his mission and views the world through that lens. He only wants to achieve his objective, and while helping the needy is in line with the stated objectives of the church and he does do so when able, it’s secondary to his assigned task. He does change as he gets further into the story, and we’re not gonna ignore that, but we’ll be back to it later. What I mean is more that he is designed as a person who is able to lead a story that doesn’t contradict with the morals of Laterano. He sees the injustice and suffering around him, but that’s not his job, so he doesn’t need to solve it to have a complete story with a happy ending.
This is where it really gets complicated, so I apologize if I don’t explain this very well. I see this as us dealing with multiple layers of fiction: the events of the story, the perspective of the church, and our perspective as readers. Back to the first point - authoritarian institutions almost always use stories to sell people on their brand of order. Simple stories, simple enough that even calling them myths seems like overselling it a little, your “Saint George slays a dragon” kinda thing. This is the point of the second layer, the perspective of the church. I don’t really have an in-world justification for this layer - maybe you could make the argument that it has to do with Law’s perspective on things, but I don’t totally buy that - I think it’s more in a weird narrative transition space for people who don’t read very carefully. Regardless, Fiametta and Executor’s shared indifference to the questionable circumstances surrounding them is designed to let them tell a story to prop up the existing order. Their protagonist status and their missions are specifically constructed to allow them to ignore the suffering around them, and as such ignore the larger questions that might poke holes in the larger order. They’re both playing out the story of Saint George, where they go and find a bad guy and kill them and that’s all there is to it. The story is designed and told specifically for that “that’s all there is to it”.
But, as we said earlier, this is a good critique, and as such it intentionally undercuts this story with the third layer: what we actually see as readers. We are shown the suffering and the injustice, and then get to see our protagonists ignoring that to pursue their goals. This is what gives Guide Ahead’s ending its unique texture, which sets it apart from every other event with a vaguely unresolved ending. We have seen the actual issues with Laterano, and also watched our protagonist explicitly ignore them in favor of her own story. It’s unsatisfying in a way that only really makes sense to me if we as the readers have an understanding of intentional authorship. Whether it be Yvangelista XI or Law or The Actual Real Life Pope, there are issues here that we want to see a resolution to but people are choosing not to address them. Again, it’s good critique. Not only does it push the reader to unpack and understand the actual real-world technique, but it also helps blunt it. You have just seen a plot and protagonist ring uncharacteristically hollow. You then look around to see why that is, and you realize there are many things that should have been resolved that weren’t. The next time you see a story resolve with that same hollow-ness, you know where to look. Surprise! Harry Potter was propaganda the whole time. It’s okay, it was never good, you were just twelve.
I guess the last thing is where we go from here, because Executor’s story breaks this mold somewhat. In Hortus de Escapismo, he has to deal with a mission that isn’t actually bounded by his normal rules, and because of that he actually does have leeway to help the people around him. He starts as someone who is totally mission-focused, but by the end of the event he’s done a total 180 and is blocking Oren’s attack, which makes the mission harder but helps the non-mission-critical civilians of the monastery. He breaks from the rigid thinking of “kill the bad guy and that’s all there is do it”, and gives his attention to the people he isn’t supposed to see. I think this is an indication of the direction we’re going to be headed in the future with Laterano events. The events aren’t going to get better - they’re going to keep being just as morally murky and complicated as in the past - but the characters are going to get better at handling it, and when they do, they’re going to actually start to change things for the better.
Goddamn that was a lot of writing for 1 AM. I still have a. Lot of thoughts on this event with stuff like empathy and Lemuen and Federico being an autistic icon(my beloved) but I’m going to leave things there, I think, because if I write for any longer my phone is going to crash when I try to post this. Anyway if you actually made it to the end thanks for listening to me rambling and I hope that made sense. Cheers.
336 notes · View notes
umbrify · 1 year ago
Note
hello i saw u tagged jimmy solidarity on that "free my man he did none of that. he did a bunch of other shit though" post and i am incredibly compelled by the implications here. please may i have an essay on the subject
YOU MAY.
Okay so we’re gonna be specifically talking about Empires SMP Season 2 Jimmy (henceforth, Jimmy,) and the way he conducts himself, how those actions reflect on him, versus how he sees himself (and how the fandom sees him in turn). Welcome to my Ted Talk.
The most important thing to understand about Jimmy is that he lies. He lies about everything, and convinces himself that his lie is true to the point where he really thinks it is. Take, for example, a moment in Sausage’s episode 41 [full exchange from 9:10 - 19:37] where Jimmy kills Sausage, and then when Sausage, followed by fWhip, return to Tumble Town to discuss the murder, Jimmy blatantly lies about the altercation to fWhip, claiming “[Sausage] came over, and he assaulted me, fWhip!” Jimmy insists that it was Sausage who physically started it, despite that being completely untrue. Jimmy then goes on to deny having killed Sausage Sausage at all, sounding affronted at the idea and demanding to see the player head that drops on death. fWhip asks how many levels Sausage has, which is none, and Jimmy claims that Sausage must have used all his experience. Jimmy denies and lies, and when fWhip goes looking for Sausage’s things, finding them in Jimmy’s storage, Jimmy acts shocked, saying “I think I’m being set up! […] I’m gonna leave this conversation, you do what you gotta do, but I don’t think I’m the bad guy here.” As if Jimmy didn’t explicitly kill Sausage moments ago!! As if it isn’t his fault!!!
And the problem here, the core problem, is that so many people just… believe him. They take Jimmy’s words at face value and assume that he’s always a reliable narrator in his own stories, despite the fact that it couldn’t be further from the case. The issue is less that people assign New and Different problems to Jimmy, more that they strip him of any wrongdoing at all, making him out to be some sad little pathetic wet cat who didn’t deserve it. And— don’t get me wrong, he is extremely sad, but he also did it to himself.
I think one of the more interesting ways to illustrate this, is to talk about the way Jimmy perceives himself. From the start of the season, he always insists on being called “The Sheriff.” He’s not Jimmy, he’s The Sheriff, and throughout the season, he can be seen constantly insisting upon and chasing after that title. He wants respect— or, his version of respect. What he really wants is a yes man. This difference can very clearly be seen in the way he treats the two deputies he had throughout the season.
When fWhip was the deputy, it’s because he wanted to be. He sought Jimmy out because he wanted to be Jimmy’s right hand man, and Jimmy let him. fWhip consistently referred to Jimmy as The Sheriff, upholding Jimmy’s version of the laws as best he could. And, there really is something to be said about the fact that fWhip, as a goblin, inherently didn’t understand the concept of arbitrary laws, or that sort of morality at all, and was only one, upholding it because he cared about Jimmy, but two, treating the laws as Jimmy treated them— i.e, making a shrine for that which Jimmy made a church for, but that’s a whole separate essay that I want to write at some point. Either way, he was good to Jimmy, though their time together was short. He made Jimmy a home away from home in Gobland [fWhip episode 8 timestamp 20:28] and helped Jimmy win the court trial by serving as his lawyer in the case against Joel [Trial best seen in Jimmy’s episode 10 starts at 3:03]. After fWhip was fired, he went around Tumble Town noting down a bunch of “laws” that Jimmy was breaking. I wrote a whole post about this set of interactions already [here] but the short version is this: In fWhip’s episode 12 [5:54], he goes around and marks down all the laws that he’s saying Jimmy is breaking around Tumble Town. […] Of the seven instances that fWhip writes down, SIX of them almost directly relate to Jimmy not taking good care of himself or his empire. To me, it almost reads more like he cares about Jimmy, and is worried about him.
All this to say, that fWhip didn’t Respect The Sheriff as much as he Cared About Jimmy. And that’s an important distinction— he cared about Jimmy, the person. He had this whole veneer of respecting the laws— laws that he didn’t really understand— because he cared about Jimmy. And Jimmy fired him for a prank— one that wasn’t specifically targeted or malicious— because he saw that as Disrespecting The Sheriff. He didn’t want someone who Cared About Jimmy, he wanted someone who Respected The Sheriff. And fWhip wasn’t that.
Enter Scar.
During the Hermitcraft crossover, Scar started gunning for the position as deputy because he wanted the shiny deputy badge. That was it, that was the reason, and Scar acted accordingly. Everything was about acting like he Respected The Sheriff, even when he was blatantly breaking one of the core laws, wearing another player’s hat— both the sheriff hat [Jimmy episode 19 4:07] as well as trading away a sheriff hat, and being seen wearing one of Scott’s Chromia hats [Jimmy episode 22 14:27]. In this episode, Scar backhandedly compliments Jimmy, “oh, you’re just a… cute big guy, aren’t you?” to which Jimmy seems uncertain, asking “I’m real big, right?” to which Scar says he is. Jimmy then asks him about the Chromia hat Scar wears, and Scar tells him that he traded one of the sheriff hats to Scott. Jimmy gets upset at Scar, but before he can get properly mad, Scar distracts him by showing off a new section of Tumble Town that he made. Scar wears the mask of respect for just long enough to get the badge. When Jimmy gives him the badge, he says he has something else that he wants to give Scar as well. “I have found something real special for you, real special.” Scar says “I already got something special, this badge.” Jimmy says “you mean our friendship?” Which Scar dubiously agrees to. This is the last time Jimmy sees Scar before the hermits leave— Scar got what he wanted, and that was all. And yet, Jimmy hired him, because Scar put on the show. Scar was his yes man, Scar Respected The Sheriff, even if he didn’t Care About Jimmy.
He does it to himself, Jimmy does. He pushes away anyone that tries to care about him as a person, and surrounds himself with people that will be his yes men, his little sidekicks, anyone that holds the sheriff title in high regard. It’s why he takes so well to the Old Sheriff, who treats the sheriff title with the same reverence that he does, respecting the title of sheriff without actually respecting Jimmy much at all.
The thing about Jimmy is that he causes his own problems, and they’re all his fault. Yes he is crushingly lonely, and filled with self hatred, but he actively surrounds himself with it. It’s not that people are just inherently mean to him, he is almost asking them to be, by pushing away anyone that seems to care about him as a person.
I think, as my final note here, I wanna bring up a moment from Jimmy’s finale, episode 38. He and the Old sheriff, as they’re making their way to the Nether portal, discuss how fWhip only ever referred to himself as goblin fWhip, never as king. Jimmy says “I don’t think he ever held himself to the regard of being a king, and that— d’you know what? That sucks. He was my deputy for a while, he didn’t really think much of himself, I’m not gonna lie” [9:19]. I just find it interesting, that Jimmy says that it sucks how fWhip never called himself king— a title ostensibly higher than sheriff— and that fWhip was only a deputy. As if he thinks that fWhip could’ve been king, perhaps was worthy of the title, and just never took it— that he sees the taking of a title such as that to be so important, when for fWhip, it never was. I dunno, I just think there’s something to that. I think it says something about Jimmy and about the importance he places on titles that don’t really matter.
Jimmy ran away, in the end. He and the Old Sheriff ran far away from everything they ever knew. fWhip stayed, choosing to live out his days happily in the empire he helped to found. fWhip never took the title of king. Jimmy thinks he should’ve.
Isn’t that something?
256 notes · View notes
boyfridged · 2 years ago
Text
the brilliance of jay's progression in countdown is that it gives you a promise of positive character development, and then it breaks it. and it does so intentionally, in the most diverting way, to emphasize jason's inability to escape the cycle.
or, another post breaking down the series, where i repeat myself a lot but also make a clearer argument.
there are three notable events that happen at the beginning: the subtle showcase of jay's internal conflict considering his approach toward killing (the very first encounter with duela and the monitor), jay reaching out to donna in crisis ("i guess I just wanted to be around someone else who might know how it feels…"), and finally – his helmet shattering. these scenes tell you: jason's direction as a character is changing, and it seems, for the better. he's about to abandon his trauma-based (no matter how ironic, it does remain tied to his trauma) identity, he is connecting with people, and he seems to be on a brink of understanding that his moral standing does not provide easy answers or solutions either.
and for the most part of the series, we see that narrative unfolding (even if a bit non-linear, still innocently convincing way). it is, in many ways, supported by bringing up features of his characterisation from the 80s. jason remains, of course, still unpleasant in ways typical for this era of writing, and is conflicted and disagreeable, which makes sense for his utrh/post-utrh personality. however, there are also details that bring us back to his original robin run and his cameos on ntt – we see him being responsible (e.g. #43 – suggesting to bring in other superheroes in crisis, even though he clearly is not keen on the idea of working with them), determined (#16: “isn’t that your super-power, stupid boy? too stupid to ever give up?” “maybe it is”), sensitive (half of the whole storyline, really), caring for gotham (gotham by gaslight) and people-oriented (as early as #51).
the issue that particularly signals that jason is an inherently good person and externalizes his internal conflicts regarding classic heroic vigilantism vs his cynical approach is #30, where we meet batman of earth-15 –  alt jason, whom our jason attempts to punch in the face.
and on topic of batman – jason is always gravitating towards batman. in gotham by gaslight jay looks delighted to see (the foreign) bruce and suggests checking with the local bat. then, earth-51 arc arrives.
earth-51 arc (#16 - #13) is a culmination of a promise of catharsis for jason. we have already seen him as batman, as a confirmation that a different life for him is possible. and here he has a chance to come to terms with his past and overcome it. he meets a version of bruce who has done exactly what he wanted him to do in utrh: killed the joker and the rest of the rogue gallery. what is most important – he is disappointed with this version of his father. we realise that jason, deep down, has an intimate and intuitive understanding of what batman stands for; and that he shares most of his values. this is a truth that you can't ignore especially since jay is the one to inspire this hollow, cynical version of batman to go out and fight in a seemingly lost battle.
and then batman dies. right in front of him.
this is a central moment of the narrative, for many reasons, most strikingly:
the symmetry:, a premise known from the lost days, becomes literal. this "the father had lost a son, and now the son had lost the father" is a cruel parallel to a death in the family and bruce's grief. jason's death created a gap between them that jay has been desperately trying to close, with no avail – because in bruce's mind, jason remains dead. now that jason is grieving bruce, the connection closes on both sides, and there's no way for either of them to reconcile the mourning with the reality of the other being truly alive. in this sense, the arc solidifies that jason can never come home.
no good deed goes unpunished. as i have mentioned before, so far jason is established as someone good at heart, but confused; and the reader intuitively assumes that his better, honest side will win. yet, the moment jason gives in to hope, it victimises and retraumatizes him. this event, again, brings to mind his own death, when he tried his best to save sheila and ended up paying the highest price for it. so, narrative-wise, jason is always punished for his kindness.
perhaps because of the nonchalant act that jason pulls off, many readers seem to miss that everything that happens after that arc is an upshot that follows logically from it.
jason's immediate determination to leave – and later a short period of indecision that ends up with his dramatic exit, pushing his team away, makes perfect sense when you consider what intense trauma he has just gone through. admittedly, i'm not a fan of the notion that he would give up at all (i think he's always ready to give up on himself, but not on the world), but then on the other hand, if there's anything that would cause it, narrative-wise, witnessing batman dying does sound like a good incentive for that. (it also has to be pointed out that jason seems to be confident that the rest of the team can go into the final battle without him anyway; it's not like he would go back to his earth not even knowing if said earth will exist tomorrow).
it's crucial to notice that following that crisis of faith (faith in fighting for the world) is followed by him raising up for the challenge again, but now... worse and even more confused. in the final confrontation with donna, jason antagonizes the superhero community, and when we see him at the end of the series (#1) his monologue indicates that he believes the capes to be naive. (significantly, he also focuses on bruce and offends the memory of 51 earth-bruce by calling him crazy; an action that can be seen as suppression of his own guilt and invoking, once again, a cruel symmetry considering bruce's engagement in victim-blaming after jason's death). this, once again, is consistent with the "no good deed" reading – jason diminishes superhero values because he has been continuously punished for living by them. (and unlike other superheroes, he doesn't have a support system nor skills in compartmentalization that would help him deal with this trauma) every leap of hope re-traumatised him. hence, it seems to be no surprise that jason decides to abandon the mask, and in the closing scene we see him without it. the promise of the shattered helmet is pushed to an extreme – jason does not get a new alt identity. he denounces the idea of superheroism completely.
and yet, what is ultimately subversive about the ending, is that jay is not truly a civilian and he does not abandon vigilante ways. he does the same thing. we see him without a mask, but he is clearly working a case. he might have rejected the symbolic dimension of the vigilante work, but he still carries the same delusional hope for bettering the world and protecting people that the superhero community does. only now, he is even more isolated and doesn't have any identity to go by (as he is still legally dead).
as such, the ending opens a new question regarding jason's understanding of himself and vigilantism, or rather the lack thereof. is it possible that vigilantism is really at the core of jay's trauma? and why, potentially, is it something that is so destructive for him as a character specifically? (and i have some answers for that, but i'm not going to get into it here, as it's already a very long post)
so, tldr; the genius of countdown is that it establishes jay as sensitive, determined, and fundamentally good (this is what the purpose of seeing him as batman is!), and then it brutally reminds the reader that jason’s tragedy is that on this specific earth, in this specific timeline, his love doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. the story goes on as it did; one way or another, jay is trapped in the cycle of his care ironically creating rifts between him and the others, and bringing him to his own downfall.
211 notes · View notes
sixthwater · 10 months ago
Text
Thoughts on Modern Vedic
I’m finally able to put it into words. It’s not so much the practice as it is the way it’s produced currently, in a way. I have a few people that I follow as I’ve said before that I enjoy their way of going about this system and it’s actually very interesting and they’re very intelligent as well as impressive, but the system just isn’t for me.
Unfortunately, the vast majority turns me off of that system and it’s similar to how astrologers in general can turn people off of astrology. Something that I’ve really liked with this system is the way it utilizes themes or stories? Blanking on the word- To go along with nakshatras, but it bleeds into other aspects and it treats people more like caricatures and not People. Which can circle right back into stereotyping.
Bharani people are inherently sexual so they will end up being promiscuous. I took it at face value before realizing that people started to see others through that lens and flatten them to two dimensional characteristics. Regardless of how you feel about her, let’s look at Selena Gomez because it’s the perfect example of this problem:
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
When in reality:
Tumblr media
Even if the second photo is only slightly better while still repeating the same mistake, you can’t ignore the rampant bias going on in modern Vedic. And that’s what turns me off from it. It’s supposed to be more accurate but people look at a person’s three actions and go “I just KNOW they’re Jyeshta” while forgetting they have a whole chart to break down because, what? They were inquiring about how other people view them consistently enough?
I can’t help but get frustrated that so many layers of it are being forgotten and it’s the very very intricate layers of it. There are cons to it, as well as objective issues (saying a native is born to have unsuccessful marriages or a terrible life and there’s nothing they can do about it is…something), but there’s beauty to everything.
Let’s look back at Bharani cause, I’m a Bharani Moon. As you know, I’m Asexual. That’s cuts half of this nakshatra in half. But it really doesn’t lol. I believe that sensuality is forgotten in a world that media has put sexuality on a pedestal — not in a holier than thou way but it’s made people lose touch within themselves and within intimacy between their partners. So Sensuality is important to me in a way, I love seeing that in media. I also Love media that involves themes of death/rebirth/the afterlife. Seeing transformation and metaphors for it are wonderful even if no one really dies because literal death isn’t necessary. Not a special attribute but I will be insanely protective of women even if I just met them, you have to get through me first if you wanna fuck with them. However all of those other Bharani qualities I rarely see because it hides behind whatever you can sexualize within its nakshatra which is very boring to be honest. I know that’s the point but if that’s the case…okay.
So I believe that’s my issue here. Modern explanations or configurations are so full of bias that it makes it difficult for it’s pure form to come through and it waters down so much of what it has to offer, so that by the time anyone might find a good astrologer, that have to seriously be convinced it has something more to it than anything judgmental
16 notes · View notes
bonyassfish · 1 year ago
Text
“Israel has a right to exist” first off, no states should have an inherent right to exist in my anarchist opinion, but let’s set that aside for the moment and answer this at face value. And to be clear I’m not discussing if Jewish people should live there, I’m talking about the state.
Israel’s existence and the project of Zionism are based on the idea that there should be a “Jewish state”, which is usually taken to mean a majority Jewish state. This is not possible unless the millions of Palestinians living inside the supposed borders of Israel are removed, murdered or displaced.
And there’s often this liberal Zionist ideology that a peaceful version of the Israeli state would be possible, that under the right leadership and conditions it could exist harmoniously next to a Palestinian state (which, where would that be?). The people who believe in this ideology will condemn the government and specific things like the West Bank settlements, but will stop short of condemning the state altogether. I understand this ideology, I even believed in it myself for a while. The ideology also ignores, to an extent, the violence enacted by Zionism for the last several decades. But the dream of liberal Zionists is just not possible. Not only because it’s absurd to pretend that Palestinians only come from Gaza and the West Bank, but because you cannot create a democratic state which is predicated on the privileged status of any one ethnic or religious group.
“So you don’t think Jews should have a state?” Again, I don’t think anybody should have a state, but yes. It’s not a punishment to exist as a minority in the countries we live in. I understand the fear of antisemitism, it’s very very real. But Israel doesn’t make any of us safer, it only thrusts us into militarism and violence. Our safety isn’t dependent on Palestinian genocide. It never has been, despite what Zionists will say.
And yes, by the way, this also means that antizionists living outside Israel/Palestine must take the issue of antisemitism seriously. The best defense against Zionism is to welcome and embrace Jews and assure them they have a home in diaspora.
16 notes · View notes
dufferpuffer · 3 days ago
Note
I was reading your post on hermione and her discussion of house elf rights with lupin earlier and I understand what your saying about how she is misidentifying lupin and werewolves in general as creatures and not just humans with diseases but I think I disagree that this is a real problem.
In the WW the difference between humans and non humans isn’t the same as our (assumed) understanding of the difference between humans and animals. Non humans (like vampires, goblins, elves, etc.) are sentient intelligent beings that just happen to not be human beings. So I think enforcing that divide between human/werewolves and other creatures is reductive because the issue is that all of these creatures are just as intelligent (and anything else that we would typically use to determine a species “value”) as humans but they are just being treated poorly because they are not human.
I also understand that elves are in a different situation when it comes to the oppression they face compared with werewolves (they are enslaved and werewolves are not). But what I think what hermione was getting at is that the root problem of both of their oppression is stemming from human non werewolf wizards who wield their privilege against these groups by systematically disenfranchising them.
She is mistaken in her grouping of werewolves (though it seems like their being status is constantly being switched around, so understandable) but is it really that bad that she is saying they are “non human” when the definition of “non human” doesn’t mean animal like it does to us? It’s not inherently demeaning or degrading because there are so many other beings that aren’t human who are just as capable as humans.
Elves aren’t just like dogs, they have magic, they have a language, they have a culture, they are just enslaved.
"It’s not inherently demeaning or degrading because there are so many other beings that aren’t human who are just as capable as humans", huh...
To us, and to like… logic: There is no real difference between any beings other than basic cultural and biological needs. Humans, House-Elves, Goblins, Vampires - all sentient people. Even 'beasts' such as Centaur, Acromantula, Merpeople.
But in the culture of the WW - it is ABSOLUTELY like the difference between 'humans' and other animals. Or… eugh… 'different races'… blegh… Even outside the Death Eaters the culture is HUGE on the concept of 'Purity'. Magical purity and Human purity. ...and Remus was raised not only in WW culture - but has a LOT of complex feelings on his 'purity' as a Human. He isn't the 'whole' man Tonks deserves, his 'kind' don't 'breed', etc. So just as a first thing: being compared would sting his self loathing specifically.
There are classes of things between 'human' and 'animal' (which are, lets not forget, the same thing. We have trouble conceptualizing that) + "Sentient things you probably can't get away with murdering" (Goblins, House-Elves, Muggles, Part-Humans) + "Dangerous sentient things you can probably get away with murdering" (Acromantula, Giants, Werewolves) They don't think of non-human's as animals. At least not 'Beings' But they don't think of them as people, either - and they openly degrade them and think of them as less capable.
Human Purity
Hagrid has hit pieces written about him for being a Half-Giant. He is assumed dangerous - he was so easily accused of manslaughter. He can be known for his expertise on creatures and have worked for the school for 50 bloody years... yet be considered an 'eccentric choice' of staff because of his heritage alone. Giants are almost extinct. Not in the distant past - modern genocide. Yet they can speak, can love, can have children with humans - and live with them and their child for years. Madam Maxime takes the idea of being anything other than 'big boned' as an insult - because… it basically is. She could probably lose everything because she is a Part-Human.
Or, as the more prejudice people say: a Half-Breed.
Umbridge messes with Filius for his Part-Goblin heritage, despite all his impressive Wizarding magical achievements. She calls not only Centaur Half-Breeds, which they take GREAT offense to - and also Remus. Despite both not being half anything. She represents the Ministry of Magic. The popular vote. She put forward laws to make it harder for people with Lycanthropy to get work - and it passed through. It isn't just her being a bitch.
Death Eaters - extremists, yes, but they reflect more traditional values through the WW - call werewolves 'Beasts', 'Scavengers' - their children 'cubs' despite not being werewolves themselves. Remus being a werewolf is as disgusting as if he were Muggleblorn. It doesn't matter how helpful, loyal, hardworking or useful Fenrir is - they tease him, beat him and throw him a mudblood as a treat. He can NEVER be their equal no matter his bloodline.
"is it really that bad that she is saying they (werewolves) are “non human” when the definition of “non human” doesn’t mean animal like it does to us?" Yes. ESPECIALLY for werewolves. To a Wizard that is incredibly charged and used to cause harm. Literal harm. Killing them.
Even Goblins, who are not 'enslaved' like House-Elves are… jesus christ this shit depresses me…
Goblins
Can't have wands. Excluded from Wizarding school unless they have Human blood. People who happily work alongside them, like Bill, say things like "As far as there can be friendship between wizards and goblins, I have goblin friends – or, at least, goblins I know well, and like.” (???? YUCK I am GOING TO BE SICK)
They speak about basic cultural differences like the concept of ownership as if anything that differs from British Human is wrong, like the Goblin idea of 'borrowing' what you have bought is shifty and greedy in some way instead of just… different. Alternate. (how very colonial. England give back my countries history, please - it was never yours to take. The boats, the shields, the spears, the skulls and skeletons - give them back. They belong here, home, in Australia, with their descendants.)
Worst of all: Griphook was SHOCKED that Harry Potter would BOTHER to save him from Death Eaters. Harry is a very odd wizard… for burying an Elf and saving a Goblin's life.
…This is how Wizards treat sentient creatures. Other Beings.
Now, within this culture, where even the most open-minded and loving people can be micro-aggressive, insulting, degrading and other-ing to anyone that isn't 'Human'…
The Metamorphosis
You are a Human, with a job, with a family, with a place in Wizarding society as a Wizard... And then you get sick. Nothing else has changed about you other than needing some days spent in bed, a night spent alone.
You lose your job. You lose your family. You lose your place in society. You are considered alongside Giants, alongside Trolls or Acromantula - 'Dangerous, lacking in morality - better off dead'. The best of people still don't look at you and see you as 'Human'.
You are sick, you are disabled - and that has removed some of your Humanity in the eyes of others. You are 'no longer whole' because you are no longer as healthy or stable as you once were. eugh.
Other Beings aren't considered equal to Humans - but they have other rights, other understanding, based on what they are. Their cultures, their histories, their needs… they are taken into account in some way, at least. They have safety within society as long as they act as Wizards expect. They have identity within their cultures and communities - even if they deserve more options.
Werewolves? They aren't considered equal humans - but they have no rights, no understanding… and their culture, their history, their place has been taken away from them. They are Kafka's The Metamorphosis. Dehumanized, Devalued, Dead to the world. Because one day they became sick outside of their control and needed a little support.
The very fact Werewolves are 'switched around' between Beings and Beasts is fucked. They are Humans who struggle with their health.
Hermione
She is just a teenage girl doing her best. She has a lot of feelings in her heart that are good - but no self-awareness or wisdom yet. She's about as sensitive to these topics as a sledgehammer whether she is speaking to an oppressor or the oppressed.
Hermione was talking very earnestly to Lupin about her view of elf rights. “I mean, it’s the same kind of nonsense as werewolf segregation, isn’t it? It all stems from this horrible thing wizards have of thinking they’re superior to other creatures….”
She talks about Wizards as if he isn't one. Calls him a 'creature'.
She is right - prejudice is from the same root... But 'humans tend to be uncomfortable with differences and seek comfort in similarities' is like… Obvious. The sky is blue and all the trees are green. Maybe it was a brain blast for her...
Homophobia, Transphobia, Ableism, Ageism, Racism - they all come from that same 'root'. But they are all very different issues. Different pressure points, Different causes, different oppression, different experiences, different needs, different solutions.
"Speciesism against House-Elves is the same thing as dehumanizing ableism because they are both oppression" is, at best, a useless oversimplification that's... insulting, really. It's not the 'same nonsense as werewolf segregation' at all.
Elves and Wizards have a long, interwoven history. Traditions they share and ways they conceptualize their identities around eachother. Picking apart the threads of that tapestry and finding place and sense of self without it will be a delicate procedure. Werewolves don't have any sort of tapestry to unwind. Their identities have been burned to ash, 'beast' branded into their skin… whoever they used to be has no meaning anymore. Disowned. Fenrir's efforts to make Werewolf societies is an effort to MAKE culture, to MAKE identity, when it has been stripped away from them. Reject the humanity that discarded you and embrace the wolf you have been reborn as.... sorta thing.
While earnest and well meaning - she is wrong in ways that matter. It's part of why her activism falls flat: She doesn't actually understand the issues beyond the surface-level... and she hasn't yet learned to listen rather than just go with what she thinks is right. Like making clothes for Elves holy shit Hermione don't do that that act has massive cultural significance you can't just-
With wording like 'Hermione was talking very earnestly to Lupin about her view of elf rights' I think the intended take-away is that she isn't entirely right. She means well, but she is talking to Lupin specifically about something she knows little about, thinking his lived experiences would have him agree with her, when most avoid the topic or openly disagree. "You're a minority too :^) "
I get passionate about this - thanks for giving me reason to yap <3
4 notes · View notes
thebestofoneshots · 9 months ago
Note
I’m not trying to be rude because it really isn’t just you (which is sad) but normalize saying “white-coded” reader please, it’s very tiring to read a fic then seeing something like “you blushed” “your cheeks turned pink”, if your intended is white people then clarify that please.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I appreciate your honesty and the opportunity to reflect on how my writing may unintentionally exclude certain readers.
Your point about "white-coded" language in fiction is valid, and it's something I've been reflecting on recently. While I may not have initially considered the implications of phrases like "your cheeks turned pink," I did read a post about it a few weeks past and now I think twice about the way I write things since they can inadvertently reinforce a narrow representation of beauty and emotion.
Lately, I've tried to move into things like "blood rushed to your cheeks" and, "you felt the skin of your face warm", and while in the past I might have written, "your cheeks turned pink" I have actively tried to avoid it now.
Having said that, the example that you provide, "you blushed" did jump at me a little since I have never considered blushing as an exclusively white reaction. I am not white, and I blush, so I decided to do a bit of research, since, perhaps, my idea of blushing has been wrong all along.
According to Felix I D Konotey-Ahulu (a consultant physician in General Medicine & Tropical Medicine at Cromwell Hospital in London) "blushing is far more than a mere cutaneous phenomenon" (Ahulu, 2004). He states that "not being able to ‘see’ the rush of blood does not mean it has not happened" (ibidem).
Now he does speak of a "white definition of blushing", that being that your cheeks turn pink and/or red, but blushing, really blushing, is not inherently related to the colour changes of your skin, but rather to the feeling it evokes: the embarrassment, the shame, etc. At least that's how I've always seen it.
If white-centricness has turned it into something that it isn't, the rest us shouldn't be feeling as though we cannot blush because our skin isn't pale enough to let it be evident, because then, in any case, we're just letting the white appropriation to topple over the meaning behind words.
Blushing is not exclusive to white people, and it never has been.
Implying that it is, is just falling into the same idea of otherness that whiteness has imposed over years of colonization, but we ARE all humans and WE ALL feel fundamentally the same emotions. Blushing is a reflection of emotion more than a physical (discernable or not) reaction.
I'm not saying I have never written "your cheeks turn pink," I have, and I think it's more to do with the media that I've consumed than with me wanting to exclude any skin tone from my texts, as you mentioned, I am not the only one to write like this, and it's because we are all reading the same books and unfortunately, those actually ARE very white-centric. Now it is not an excuse and I certainly should and WILL be more careful with the way I word things, but I'm STILL learning how to write.
I apologize if my writing has made you feel excluded or overlooked. That was never my intention, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to rethink my approach to things.
Moving forward, I will be even more mindful of the language I use and strive to create a more inclusive experience for all readers. Your feedback is invaluable in helping me grow as a writer, and I thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention, even if I found the manner in which you sent the comment a little confronting (and slightly upsetting), as it felt like you were making assumptions about me and my intended audience.
However, I respect your right to express your feelings and opinions, and I value the ability to have an open discussion and move forward together, even after this initial confrontation.
I'm committed to making positive changes based on your insights.
Bibliography:
Konotey Ahulu, F. (2004). Blushing in black skin. Blackwell Publishing Ltd , Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. Retrieved in: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1473-2130.2004.00040.x
15 notes · View notes
joys-of-everyday · 1 year ago
Text
Wei Wuxian and the Difficulties of Morality
Wow so I did not realise how much discourse there was around Wei Wuxian and moral greyness. Let me erm… poke around a little because that’s a hobby of mine.
Btw, I usually write about SVSSS. This won’t change. This is a one-off thing (for now).
Firstly, an Anecdote
Fun story, I watched cql and the mdzs donghua with my mum. There were many memorable things that came out of this, but one of the relevant points is an offhanded comment from my mum. She said (translated into English): ‘Wei Wuxian has no face to show Jiang Cheng, because he broke his promise to stay by his side’ (1). For context, my mum grew up in a fairly traditional Asian household. They take their declarations of loyalty seriously (or at least, that is my impression).
I find this interesting, because when it comes to moral judgement, I (who grew up in the west, with a lot of western values) get far more hung up on the things WWX did, rather than some promise he made in his adolescence. Breaking a promise is not ideal, but in my books, doesn’t really count as a huge moral failing.
The point here is not to say anything about the ethics of promise breaking, but to illustrate a point. Different people have different values. Or one person can have conflicting values. There are many scenarios where it’s not possible to say with certainty what is right or wrong. This is moral ambiguity.
(Funnily enough, the issue that my dad took with WWX was the fact he was fiddling around with dead bodies, which was like… the least of my concerns, but then I realised that bodies have a lot of religious significance.)
What even is moral greyness?
There are two possible and equally valid definitions of moral greyness.
1. Characters who are not 100% evil or 100% good
2. Characters who do not fall into the categories of ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Note that definition 2 is a strictly stronger definition than definition 1. It is not that hard to argue that WWX does not fall under definition 2, in that he is somehow overall ‘good’. (I would also argue that MXTX encourages you to not think too hard about these dichotomies, particularly via SVSSS, but that’s a rabbit hole for another day.) It is also not that hard to argue WWX does fall under definition 1. Mainly because it’s quite hard not to breathe without falling under definition 1.
The Two Kinds of Uncertainty  
When it comes to ethical questions, there are two uncertainties you naturally run into. Firstly, uncertainty of the world, which comes from having imperfect information about the situation or consequences of any given action. Secondly, uncertainty around the underlying moral question. Is it okay to sacrifice few for the sake of many? Should we place more value on those close to us in comparison to a stranger?
Humanity has not figured out morality, and certainly not for a lack of trying. Standards change over time. We look at the behaviour of our ancestors just a few hundred years ago with no small amount of repugnance. Most likely, in a few hundred years’ time our descendants will do the same. This isn’t to pass judgement on anything or anybody, but to make an observation that there is nothing you can do in the world that doesn’t inherently come with moral ambiguity, because there is always uncertainty – both of the world and the morals you are applying. And wherever there is moral ambiguity, there is moral greyness (definition 1).
That being said, ‘everything is morally grey’ is not really a helpful statement. There are things that we (society today) generally agree on e.g. ‘killing someone for no reason is bad’ or ‘being nice to people is good’. So the argument I want to posit today is that WWX’s moral greyness goes beyond this in a substantial way.
The Uncertain Character of WWX
The Fundamental Principle of MXTX is that all narrators are unreliable. At the bloodbath of the Nightless City, did WWX kill 5000? 3000? Far fewer? Had WWX acted in a different way, could JYL’s death have been avoided? We’ll never know.
To add to this complexity is subtle shifts in canon depending on the adaptation. WWX tortures Wen Chao pretty brutally in the novel (and even if you hate him, it’s a bit ick). In cql, it ‘fades to black’. In the donghua it’s a nice quick stab. Then there’s all of the fiddling around they did with JGY depending on the adaptations, giving him more or less blame for the events. I’m not sure if ‘novel is the only canon’ is the correct way to go, mainly because adaptation!WWX is interesting to analyse in itself. I won’t explore this too deeply here, but something to keep in mind.
Anyway, I want to argue that WWX is morally grey, through commentary on a few elements of his character.
1. The Horrors of War
WWX does a lot of things that are somewhat eyebrow raising. You know, killing people and stuff. Now it has been pointed out plenty of times that his situation was unusual (it was war!). The moralities surrounding warfare are in itself complicated. A pacifist might argue that war is no excuse for violence, but even without going to such extremes, these days we appreciate that there are some actions that cannot be condoned, even during times of coflict – this is the notion of war crimes.
War crimes are a surprisingly modern thing (people started to care a lot after the atrocities of WWII). Medieval warfare was brutal. Anyway, these include things like ‘torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments’ and ‘wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages’. Note that while killing large numbers of enemy soldiers doesn’t fall under war crimes (although some methods of going about this do, like biological weapons), torture does, so that’s one strike against book!WWX. Now there is subtly in these things, because if you judged people by these standards for anything more than 200 years old, basically everyone is committing war crimes without thinking too hard about it. WWX did do a lot of arguably good things in the Sunshot Campaign (whatever good means in war) – he fought against the tyranny of the Wens and was one of the key things that shifted the tides towards victory. Without him, the world might have looked a lot darker. Whether these ‘goods’ weigh over the ‘bads’ is something to think about.
On a slightly softer note, weapons of mass destructions are another cause of serious discussion. Those involved in the Manhattan Project creating the first atomic bomb weren’t exactly all war criminals (moreover, many of them genuinely believed they were doing what was right and necessary) but the consequences of their actions are what they are. So while WWX made the Yin Tiger Talley as a method of deterrence and assurance, considering the consequences of its use and the potential for future misuse, here lies another moral ambiguity.
2. Intent vs Consequences
It’s fair to say that most of the time, WWX’s intentions were good. Whether it be to protect the weak, to stand up for justice, these are all things we can get behind. The consequences of his actions? Well, JYL is dead, as well as a bunch of other people, and most the Wens didn’t survive anyway. That’s a big oof.
Now most people don’t subscribe to the strongest version of consequentialism which judges whether something is right or wrong by its consequences only. As in, for one, it’s almost impossible to apply in practice because you can’t predict the consequences of your actions at the point at which you chose to do them. Case in point, most of the consequences of WWX’s actions weren’t wholly down to WWX and it’s difficult to say if there was anything at all that he could have done to lead to a better outcome. (Arguably, WWX should have tried harder to negotiate with the rest of the cultivation world instead of being a one-man army against them, but in that case, they might have just mowed down the Wens anyway.)
Then again, I think most people do subscribe to at least a weak form of consequentialism. No matter how good the intentions, no matter how righteous and commendable… if the outcome is bad, it’s hard to label those actions as ‘good’ (play pumps is an example if you want to look into how charities can do more harm than good).
I draw no conclusions here. It’s food for thought.
3. On Conflicting Values and Lose-Lose Scenarios
A lot of the above comes from applying modern ethics to a character in a world largely based on ‘Ancient China’ (the quotation marks from the fact Ancient China is several thousands years old and changes significantly over time). We do this all the time. Hell, people are still reimagining the Three Kingdoms and making commentary on the morality of Cao Cao (155-220). MDZS makes a lot of commentary on modern social issues (the ‘mob mentality’ of MDZS feels like Weibo/twitter lol), so viewing it through a modern lens makes sense.
But let’s put that aside for a second and return to my mum’s comment about WWX’s broken promise. By traditional values, family is important. In Confucianism, the Four Virtues are ‘loyalty’, ‘filial piety’, ‘continence’, and ‘righteousness’. To illustrate just how serious family was, in the conflict between Liu Bang and Xiang Yu, Xiang Yu at some point threatened to kill Liu Bang’s father. Then Liu Bang was like ‘we’re sworn brothers, so technically he’s your father too’, and Xiang Yu didn’t kill him, because it would be unfilial to do so. All this is to say, WWX turning his back on his sect and his family was a big deal. Equally, loyalty towards a superior was valued greatly, even towards eyebrow raising superiors.
But Confucianism also teaches the importance of things like ‘righteousness’ and ‘benevolence’. Throughout many dynasties, important people have cared a lot about the grievances of the masses. Bullying the weak and hoarding power unjustly is seen as one of the ultimate evils, a big reason for a leader to lose the Mandate of Heaven, thus becoming unfit to rule. Plenty of subordinates have stood up against the tyranny of their superiors. So WWX standing up to the evils of the Jin clan is highly commendable by these standards too.
Another thing is ‘paying back your benefactors’. In the west, although we do have concepts like ‘owing a life’, I don’t think it’s as strong??? This is also serious business. In the Three Kingdoms, Cao Cao spared his enemy general Guan Yu, and later Guan Yu briefly fought for Cao Cao even though he was an enemy, in order to repay this debt. Wen Ning and Wen Qing saved WWX’s life and helped him when he was in need – WWX has a moral obligation to help them in return.
Thus we see WWX between a rock and hard place. Turn away from the Jiangs and he turns away from his family, and from someone he promised his loyalty to. But turn a blind eye to the treatment of the Wens, and he is a not only allowing evil to go unchallenged, but also abandoning his benefactors. The game is rigged. There is no right move here. Morally ambiguity -> moral greyness.
(Note: A lot of the previous two points can also be viewed from a 'traditional' lens. Mohism has been arguing about pacifism and universal love since 400BC. Taoism has many things to say about intervening in world affairs. Life has always been complicated, and while our language/framework may shift, many of the underlying questions remain.)
(Second note: my knowledge of Chinese philosophy is all the stuff I learnt in Saturday school+a few books/youtube videos aka. not a lot. Please call me out if I'm sprouting nonsense.)
Let’s wrap up
Tl;dr WWX is a morally grey character.
And I haven’t even started on what went down at the Nightless City, or how interesting (read: morally sus) his methods of murder were, or his fantastic takes on risk assessment.
Maybe he’s good overall. Maybe he’s a hero. But heroes too can be morally grey. That’s just a part of life.
1. This is really hard to translate actually, and I think the way I’ve written it makes sense but comes across stronger than it was. More literally it was ‘can’t raise his head towards’. It was sort of explaining why JC was giving WWX a lot of shit later on and WWX wasn’t arguing back, more in a sympathetic way rather than a critical way.
As usual, thank you for reading! Comments and criticism appreciated, but I may be significantly slower getting back because my brain is in svsss mode rn :)
24 notes · View notes
septicmomma · 2 years ago
Text
THE KERBLAM CONUNDRUM
The main idea behind Kerblam, other than a general condemnation of ecoterrorism is that businesses have to go beyond doing just the bare minimum to placate its workforce. Is a tool inherently evil or is it the bearers of those tools that use them that way? Almost every issue originates from a parasocial system engrained within a society of space corporatocracy, driven by an over-reliance on the system. Even going so far as giving the automated system the capacity to develop an emotional amoral compass. And thats the fundamental problem...You cant assign a moral value to a system (at least not in the way how we can emotionally convey as people), but you can assign a moral value to individuals that comprise that system. So the question becomes are people producing morals separate from greed and egoism ?, which represents one of main conflicts in the episode (Charlie vs 'the system')
Throughout Kerblam it's telling us that automation as a principle isn’t inherently malicious, so long as you don’t start treating people like left up currency, only to be used and abused.
It’s easy to say “capitalism bad” but it’s not that simple. Any system is bad if the values within it are bad Communism, socialism, none of these systems work if they have bad leadership and/or corrupt values.
If capitalist values changed and the wealth generated by it actually went back into the system to improve it. What prevents capitalism from making a good society are the values that are currently upheld. homelessness, climate change, wage gaps we could generally lead towards better lives with better values that cultivate ways to deal with all the crises we’re facing. As long as people who had the money held good intensions.
The most common criticism surrounding this episode is that 'it presents capitalistic systems of power as inherently good, and anyone critical of it or who desires to change the system, are violent and inherently irrational'.
Which is an argument has never made much sense to me. We see a clear distinction between the AI system of Kerblam and the system of Capitalism. Kerblam has a union, something the likes of Amazon doesn’t have. There's Judy's who's whole job is based around maintaining safety and worker moral. You also have Slade, noting down the numerous 'disappearances' hence his own distrust of the system.
Kerblam explores what corrupts a system, whether it's the people outside or within, or whether it's simply a result of centuries of capitalism being cemented at the core of our current climate. You the Kerblam men acting as allegories for overbearing busybodies. “grouploops" Serve as house arrest ankle monitors.
Everything wrong with Kerblam's treatment of it's workers stems from the automated system, which originates from the capitalist society on Kandoka.
The problem is the system model it follows, a system that prioritises automation In pursuance of higher profit and efficiency, lower-class workers are being phased out by robotics and A.I, over people getting jobs at the price of living. 'The system' itself isn't evil, rather it made an informed decision without concern wether the behaviour in of itself was morally inscrutable. A system that Slade and Judy intend to break away from as shown by the ending.
There are deliberate parallels drawn between Charlie and the system. Both prone to violent outbursts, share a firm belief that the ends justify the means. Those traits are habitually inhabited in response of Charlie's discourse. Ironically, this is is something he refuses to see in himself, due to his own reckless abandon, the consequential outcome resulting in the death of Kira. His motivations weren't out of trying make conditions better, it was an elaborate act of vengeance under the facade of justice, outrage for the sake of outrage, as Charlie's desire for a 'better world' was going to result in the death over a multitude of people regardless of their political affiliations. His argument on how Kerblam undervalues its workers and that the system needs less control, so people are seen with more empathy and emotion in order for things improve; Is a totally valid concern but becomes completely antithetical as he was already murdering his own co-workers prior to being discovered. Workers who very much contribute to that “90%” he claims to be so fiercely in favour of defending, hence the Kerblam AI killing Kira in order to help him feel that same empathy which the Doctor reiterates to him the pain he feels over Kira's death is the same pain those families would feel if he continues down his current trajectory. 13 tries to motivate him into refocusing his love for Kira in an attempt to show him the ramifications of his violent actions and lead him into becoming more empathetic, but he’s just too stubborn and distort to see reason. It’s a sad possibility had Kira survived Charlie may have been more subject to reason however, her death acts a breaking point as his only emotional anchor is now gone...He let his own personal vindication override his original mission statement, rather than enact any real change that would actually allow people in his position to beneficially prosper.
Although the moment where Kerblam truly muddies the waters is where it concludes with the company suspending the operations for a mere month and workers are only given 2 weeks paid leave?? as a result it leaves those aspect feeling slightly glossed over and hangs a pretty limp celebration over the episode considering multiple employees were murdered by an ecoterrorist who almost got away with even MORE murder...
Kerblam sets itself up as a criticism of late-stage capitalism but the only issue that is ultimately addressed by the ending is automation. which is a problem but it’s more so the timely result of these systems flaws and how they have historically been exploited. However, those underlying issues aren’t really dwelled upon, or at least they don’t factor in with the episode's ending discussion as we don't see what results from the proceeding fallout.
14 notes · View notes
aronarchy · 2 years ago
Text
@iris-sunflower I’ll respond to your reblog of my post here, since my OP was already very long and I don’t want its notes to be cluttered:
1) Children and everyone having a right to public, accessible education is such an important value for me. Is youthlib against the idea of funding public schools?
I’m not The Single Valid Youthlib Representative(tm). There are many different youth liberationists who don’t necessarily agree with each other on every single point. I can only give my own opinion, which I believe is the most accurate interpretation of the principle of youth liberation: Of course I agree, and I acknowledge that public schools are currently underfunded and should have more financial support. Gatekeeping from education is oppressive.
It would put all minors at a disadvantage, and we should be improving children’s education so they have a fairer prospect for their future. Being literate, understanding math especially finance, etc.
I agree it’s a problem that so many children are unable to access any education in the first place. But I would caution against taking the “less educated = less successful” at face value. The issue isn’t that being less educated automatically, inherently means one will become disadvantaged, but that capitalism creates these disadvantages for uneducated people. It’s unfair that people who haven’t had a chance to go to/remain in school are also gatekept from jobs, resources, and respect later in life. Resolving the issue (re classism and adultism) involves making it possible for children to be able to go to school instead of being unable to access it, but it also means fighting for justice for children & adults who didn’t get to go, instead of just leaving them behind in the dust now that it’s too late or whatever. It’s sad that if someone can’t understand the (overcomplicated, very bullshit, should-not-be-existing-in-the-first-place) financial system capitalism has forced onto us, then they’ll be disadvantaged in life.
And, some children/minors/adults just can’t understand math or finance or learn literacy well in the first place, regardless of how good their teachers/educational materials/settings are. It is unfair to expect that they should, or treat them as lesser, or refuse to accommodate them. Everyone, regardless of capability, should be able to expect a good future for themself, and to have the resources to live securely.
And, formal schools (both public and private) are extremely adultist and violent to children. Does that mean homeschooling is the solution? No, because family homes are also extremely adultist and violent to children. I’m frustrated at a lot of the discourse I’ve seen, where survivors of violence from schools or violence from the home have tried to discuss our traumas, only to be dismissed and told that we should just suck it up and deal with the flaws of the institution because the alternative would be “worse.” Many people have experienced immense abuse and trauma from both schools and our families. I want to think of solutions beyond just trying to pick the lesser of two evils.
(Official) schools (in their current form, at least) aren’t particularly good at teaching in the first place. They don’t teach how to really understand the concepts of “math” so much as rote memorization and computation, for example. The way subjects are taught in schools focuses more on trying to train them into good capitalist workers, not help them develop life skills for themselves or learn things they actually want to and choose to learn themselves. Meanwhile a lot of potential educational materials (paywalled academic texts, informative books in general, politically unpopular info/arguments like honest analyses about abuse dynamics/what to do in more difficult situations, niche things they don’t really care about because they’re not profitable) and sources of education (i.e. people, places from the outside) are withheld from children because of the formalized schooling system which narrows what and how they can learn, and meanwhile tries to force students to learn whatever they don’t want and don’t need to learn, and is especially hell for disabled children/minors being forced to attend and being overloaded with work when they can’t handle that, plus all the higher likelihood of bullying and abuse from authority figures they can’t escape from.
So I believe youth liberationists, and leftists in general, should be focused on both improving access to education and ensuring that people who had not been able to access education or just genuinely don’t want to or cannot are not being punished for being uneducated either. Right to learn things doesn’t mean also being okay with forcing children to learn things (which is also a major problem right now). And grassroots education outside of formal schooling hooked up to the state/capitalist systems / the nuclear family home should also be a priority. Though it would help, “reform & improve public schools” is still not a solution to the fundamental problem of enforcing a divide between “learning” and “the rest of life” / “place to learn” and “anywhere else” / monopolizing good (or as good as possible) education in the hands of authorities.
We should be making schools better for children not losing their right to an education.
(I prefer to frame children’s rights discussions as something which centers their input and their efforts; should not just be a thing “we” pass down onto “them” on their behalf instead of them being directly involved in the process.)
(Note that nowhere in the entire article I reposted was there any claim that children should “lose their right to an education.”)
2) Does losing parental rights make parental abuse obsolete as a legal protection? Confused here.
That’s not what “right” means. A right you have is something you can do, not something you have to do. “Parental rights over their children” doesn’t mean parents are being made to care for or be nonabusive to their children; “parental rights” are the mechanisms which allow parents to abuse their children because their children are viewed as their property, or to force invasive medical procedures onto/withhold needed medical care from their children because they’re viewed as having a right to make their children’s decisions for them regardless of what the children themselves feel, or to decide what their child’s future must look like because of their “right to control” them. “Parental rights” means that outsiders are barred from housing an abused/neglected child because only the parents may choose where “their” children live.
On the other hand, parental obligations (or responsibilities, or duties) are a rather different concept. For example, every person has an obligation (or responsibility) to not abuse or otherwise violate other sentient beings. Everyone also has an obligation to not hoard essential resources they won’t use themselves while others are in desperate need but can’t access them—for example, (IMO) very rich people with control over their finances are obligated to redistribute their wealth downwards ASAP, and are committing ethical violations when they do not. As for obligations specific to parents: if they have children under their care who cannot leave/acquire that care elsewhere, they have a responsibility to feed, clothe, house, and otherwise provide for their children wrt essential resources to the best of their physical and financial capability.
Parents should face consequences for abusing children, which unfortunately will happen sometimes regardless of efforts to prevent crime. Some parents are just cruel.
I like to think of this question a bit differently. The issue here is that right now, if a parent has cruel beliefs/intentions, then abuse will happen, because they have near-unchallenged power to enact their will for cruelty. Consequences for abuse which has happened are important, of course, but I’m also interested in preventing abuse from happening in the first place, instead of just keeping up the system where kids have to roll the dice and if they land on a cruel parent then that’s just what they get and having a good parents just depends on their luck. I want to work towards a world where regardless of an ideological bigot/authoritarian’s personal desire for cruelty, they will be unable to act out the abuse they want, because they no longer have the power to do so unresisted. This is also why general social justice organizing (if it’s good) doesn’t focus primarily on reforming bigots, getting them to change their beliefs/intentions, but on reclaiming power and autonomy so that despite what the bigots might still believe, they can no longer make those beliefs matter to us as easily.
Leftists and anarchists in general are often told that we are too utopian and need to understand that “violence will always happen no matter how much you make social changes.” I dislike this framing; first of all, I’m not a doomer, and I do not want to say there certainly will always be violence, because I don’t think it is possible to guess that with 100% accuracy, and I like to leave room for a little hope in the world; second of all, it’s not really a relevant objection, because we’re not about gambling on the possibility of there being no abuse, but about taking steps to reduce abuse as much as we can and make it as hard as possible for abuse to happen.
But if parents aren’t “legally responsible,” are they not also going to be found liable for abusing their children?
I’m thinking about a certain Reddit post I read a few months ago. A woman was raising an infant with her (boyfriend? husband? not exactly sure which it was). She hadn’t wanted the child, and he had. She was slowly realizing that she just couldn’t bring herself to love the kid, and the childcare work was annoying and frustrating and exhausting her. Her bf/husband really liked the kid and was enthusiastic about taking care of them and nurturing them. A lot of commenters on that thread told her that she should leave them, because she’s not suited to be a parent for the child, as they grow up they’ll be able to tell that she’s just faking her emotions and actually dislikes them/doesn’t love them, so she should halt the toxic dynamic as early as possible. That stuck with me a lot—it would’ve been so helpful to a lot of kids if it was normalized for parents who don’t like a kid to be able to give them to better-suited, more loving caretakers who do want to have a kid, because many parents are just incompatible, just aren’t fit to parent, personality-wise or otherwise. Expanding the options for everyone to have healthy relationships and get the love and nurturing they need does not mean that neglectful parents of children stuck in their abusive household are not culpable for their harms (i.e. specifically withholding resources when they were needed). And, in general, abuse is wrong when done by anybody to anyone, legal parent or not. This doesn’t change that. And, I don’t really care about the legal system much in the first place because even with laws forbidding extended kinship networks they still don’t actually do a lot about parental neglect or abuse. I’m interested in more concrete questions like “how do we help neglected children acquire the resources/care they’ve been deprived of” or “how do we get abuse victims out; how do we minimize unwanted relationships and maximize wanted relationships; which cultural norms do we need to change to facilitate this.”
3) How would we ensure that children, particularly very young, are being well cared for - diapers, feedings, etc? Currently parents are completely abandoned by the social systems in place. I actually think a reformed/socialist service like cps (unsure of a better word) should be freely provided to all parents. Social workers or volunteers can make sure a child isn’t being ISOLATED which is the biggest factor for abuse. Neighbors may not even know abusive parents have a child and that’s terrifying.
Agreed, though I’d like to point out that this isn’t just something that can only be done by a specially appointed or paid professional group; this is something anyone can do, and especially people already close by. Like, checking up on your friends if it seems like something abusive is going on. Being that person for them if they’re stuck in an abusive home. Normalizing being more attentive to children near you socially, paying more attention to people around you in general, and lending a hand, and creating more interconnected communities which make it harder to isolate someone. It’s kind of hard to imagine given our current atomized hellscape but there are & have been societies in which families weren’t just sorted into single-unit disconnected households, and it was a lot easier to notice if something was off/hold each other accountable; also people fighting for this right now—whether children/minors using the Internet to finally befriend outsiders when they never could before, or having electronic devices they hide from their abusers, or meeting/talking to a friend in secret; or the teachers, healthcare workers, classmates, anyone else seeing them and opening the pathway for questions, help where there were no other options before, etc. & preventing isolation and exploitation wholesale means targeting the root of the problem (the nuclear family’s isolation, thru various political/economic forces)—which is exactly what the article was talking about.
4 notes · View notes
roshini07062006 · 1 month ago
Text
BEING RICH DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE HAPPY
Being Rich Doesn’t Mean You Are Happy
In today's society, wealth is often seen as a universal goal. From advertisements to social media, we are constantly bombarded with messages that suggest happiness comes from material possessions, financial success, and luxury lifestyles. It’s easy to believe that once we’ve achieved a certain level of wealth, all our problems will disappear and happiness will follow. However, history, psychology, and real-life examples show that being rich doesn’t necessarily equate to being happy. True happiness comes from within, and while money can provide comfort, it cannot fulfill all the emotional and psychological needs that contribute to a fulfilling life.
Money Can’t Buy Meaningful Relationships
One of the most important aspects of happiness is the quality of relationships we have with family, friends, and loved ones. Human beings are inherently social creatures, and meaningful connections provide us with a sense of belonging, security, and emotional fulfillment. While wealth can offer opportunities for social gatherings and status, it cannot foster genuine relationships. In fact, being wealthy can sometimes strain relationships, as individuals may question whether they are valued for who they are or for their financial assets.
Many wealthy people struggle with feelings of isolation, as their wealth becomes a barrier to forming authentic relationships. Studies show that people from affluent backgrounds often experience trust issues, as they question whether new friends or partners are attracted to them for their money or their personality. This sense of doubt can erode trust and intimacy, making it difficult to experience the emotional depth that true happiness requires.
The Hedonic Treadmill Effect
A key concept in understanding why wealth doesn’t bring lasting happiness is the hedonic treadmill. This psychological phenomenon explains how individuals quickly adapt to improvements in their circumstances, including financial gains. As people accumulate wealth and acquire new material goods, their expectations rise, and the novelty wears off, leaving them no happier than before. Essentially, no matter how much wealth you acquire, you will always want more, resulting in a perpetual chase for satisfaction that is never fully achieved.
This endless pursuit of more can lead to a sense of dissatisfaction. Instead of enjoying the present moment or appreciating what they have, wealthy individuals may constantly focus on acquiring more—more money, more luxury, and more status symbols—believing that the next milestone will finally bring happiness. But in reality, this mindset traps them in a cycle of fleeting pleasure and deeper dissatisfaction.
Wealth Brings Pressure and Stress
While financial struggles can certainly cause stress, immense wealth brings its own unique set of pressures. The responsibility of managing large sums of money, making investments, and ensuring financial security can be overwhelming. Moreover, those who are wealthy often face high expectations, both from society and themselves, to maintain or increase their wealth. This can lead to anxiety, fear of failure, and the constant pressure to perform.
Additionally, wealthy individuals may face increased scrutiny from the public and media. They can become targets for criticism, envy, and unrealistic expectations, which can lead to feelings of isolation and stress. Despite the external appearance of success, many wealthy individuals suffer from mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and burnout. The pressures of wealth, combined with the fear of losing it, can make happiness even more elusive.
True Happiness Lies in Purpose and Gratitude
So, if wealth isn’t the key to happiness, what is? Research consistently shows that happiness comes from non-material aspects of life—meaningful relationships, personal growth, a sense of purpose, and gratitude. People who focus on these elements tend to be happier and more fulfilled, regardless of their financial status.
Finding purpose in life, whether through meaningful work, contributing to the community, or pursuing passions, gives individuals a sense of direction and fulfillment. Similarly, practicing gratitude—being thankful for what you have, no matter how little—helps people appreciate the present moment and feel content. These qualities foster long-lasting happiness that money alone can never provide.
Tumblr media
Conclusion
While money can offer comfort, security, and the ability to enjoy life’s pleasures, it does not guarantee happiness. True fulfillment comes from within, through meaningful relationships, personal growth, and a sense of purpose. Being rich may open doors to luxury, but without emotional and psychological well-being, it is an empty promise of happiness. Ultimately, it is the intangible aspects of life—connection, purpose, and gratitude—that bring true and lasting joy.
1 note · View note
monsterkong · 2 months ago
Text
Lessons from Rome: Economic Instability, Immigration, and the Digital Age
🕰 The Roman Empire: A Story of Rise and Fall
The Roman Empire is often hailed as one of the greatest civilizations in history. Its achievements in art, architecture, law, and governance continue to influence us today. However, just as remarkable as its rise was its eventual fall—a decline that serves as a cautionary tale for modern societies. As the saying goes, "Rome wasn’t built in a day," and neither did it fall in one. The factors that contributed to Rome’s collapse are complex and multifaceted, but they offer valuable lessons for us in the present day. 🏛️
Let’s dive into the key factors that led to the fall of Rome, focusing on economic instability, immigration, and the implications of digital currencies in our modern era. By understanding these issues, we can better navigate the challenges we face today.
💸 Economic Instability: The Silent Killer
One of the most significant factors in Rome’s decline was economic instability. As the empire grew, it became increasingly difficult to manage its vast territories and the diverse populations within them. This expansion put a strain on the Roman economy, leading to inflation and the eventual devaluation of the Roman currency.
The Roman economy was built on a foundation of hard currency—coins made of precious metals like gold and silver. However, as the government began to debase the currency to pay for its expenses, the value of Roman money began to plummet. This led to a vicious cycle of inflation, which eroded the wealth of the empire and undermined its ability to maintain its military and infrastructure. 📉
📍 Immigration: A Challenge of Integration
Immigration was another critical factor in Rome’s decline. The Roman Empire was a melting pot of cultures and peoples, but as the empire expanded, this diversity became increasingly difficult to manage. The influx of immigrants, many of whom were fleeing from invading forces in their own lands, put a strain on the empire’s resources and contributed to its economic instability.
The presence of large numbers of non-Roman peoples within the empire’s borders also created cultural tensions. As the empire became more diverse, it became harder to maintain the sense of unity that had once held it together. This fragmentation contributed to the empire’s eventual collapse. 🌍
🔐 The Digital Age: A New Kind of Economic Threat
In today’s world, we face a different kind of economic challenge: the rise of digital currencies and the potential for a cashless society. On the surface, this may seem like a leap forward, but it carries with it significant risks. The ability to control and manipulate digital currencies can give governments and corporations unprecedented power over individuals.
We’ve already seen examples of this in recent years. During the 2020-2021 period, Canadian citizens faced financial restrictions based on their political views. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of centralizing economic control. If we’re not careful, we could find ourselves in a situation where our financial freedom is severely restricted, just as it was for the citizens of Rome during its decline. 💻
📚 History’s Lessons: The Importance of Unity and Stability
The fall of Rome teaches us the importance of maintaining economic stability and national unity. In Rome’s case, the combination of economic instability and cultural fragmentation ultimately led to the empire’s collapse. Today, we must be mindful of how we manage these issues within our own borders.
This isn’t to say that immigration or digital currencies are inherently bad—far from it. But it does mean that we need to approach these issues thoughtfully, with an eye toward maintaining social cohesion and economic stability. After all, as the Roman experience shows, a nation that loses its sense of unity is a nation that is at risk of collapse. 📜
🔄 Moving Forward: The Power of Community and Communication
Despite the challenges we face, there is still reason for hope. Unlike the citizens of ancient Rome, we have the ability to communicate freely and share ideas across vast distances. This gives us a unique opportunity to learn from history and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. 🌟
By getting involved in our local communities and participating in the democratic process, we can help shape a future that is both prosperous and just. Whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or somewhere in between, your voice matters. Let’s use our voices to build a better future for all.
Conclusion: Rome’s Legacy in a Modern World
The fall of the Roman Empire offers a powerful reminder of the dangers of economic instability and cultural fragmentation. As we navigate the complexities of our modern world, it’s essential to keep these lessons in mind. By learning from the past, we can work together to build a more stable, unified, and prosperous future. 📜
1 note · View note
best-friendship-app · 2 months ago
Text
Navigating Loneliness and Anxiety: How Alyke Can Help You Build Meaningful Connections
Tumblr media
In an era where digital connectivity is at its peak, it’s paradoxical that so many people feel lonelier and more anxious than ever. Despite being constantly connected online, many still grapple with feelings of isolation and overwhelming anxiety. These emotions can be deeply distressing, but the good news is that you don’t have to face them alone. With tools like the Alyke app, finding genuine, supportive connections is within reach, helping you to combat loneliness and ease anxiety.
The Growing Epidemic of Loneliness and Anxiety
Loneliness is more than just the absence of company; it’s a pervasive sense of disconnection and isolation that can strike even when you’re surrounded by people. It’s a state of mind that can lead to serious mental health issues, including anxiety and depression.
Anxiety, on the other hand, is a feeling of unease, worry, or fear that can range from mild to severe. For some, anxiety is a fleeting emotion tied to specific situations, but for others, it can be a chronic condition that disrupts daily life. When loneliness and anxiety combine, they can create a vicious cycle that feels difficult to break.
Why Connection Matters
Human beings are inherently social creatures. We thrive on meaningful relationships, which provide us with a sense of belonging, support, and security. These connections are crucial for our mental and emotional well-being. Without them, feelings of loneliness can intensify, leading to heightened anxiety and further withdrawal from social interactions.
However, building these connections in today’s world can be challenging. This is where the Alyke app can make a significant difference.
How Alyke Can Be Your Ally
Alyke is designed to help you forge real, meaningful connections with people who share your interests and values. Unlike many social media platforms that promote superficial interactions, Alyke focuses on creating genuine relationships that can help alleviate loneliness and reduce anxiety.
Personalized Matching: Alyke uses a sophisticated algorithm to match you with individuals who share similar interests, values, and goals. Whether you’re passionate about art, fitness, music, or travel, Alyke helps you connect with people who understand and appreciate your passions. This personalized approach ensures that your interactions are meaningful and that you’re building relationships based on common ground.
A Supportive Community: Alyke fosters a positive, inclusive environment where users are encouraged to interact respectfully and supportively. For those dealing with anxiety, knowing that you’re part of a community that values kindness and empathy can be incredibly reassuring. This safe space allows you to open up, share your thoughts, and connect with others without fear of judgment.
Empowerment Through Connection: Alyke isn’t just about meeting new people; it’s about personal growth and empowerment. By connecting with others who share your interests, you can explore new hobbies, gain confidence, and develop a stronger sense of self. This empowerment can help you break free from the grip of loneliness and anxiety, leading to a more fulfilling and connected life.
Taking the First Step Towards Overcoming Loneliness and Anxiety
Overcoming loneliness and anxiety is a journey, but you don’t have to walk it alone. Alyke is here to help you find your tribe, build meaningful connections, and create a network of support that can uplift you during difficult times.
If you’re ready to take control of your social life and start building relationships that matter, download the Alyke app today. You can find Alyke on Google Play and the App Store. Don’t let loneliness and anxiety hold you back — take the first step towards a more connected, fulfilling life with Alyke.
0 notes
techtired · 3 months ago
Text
A True Relationship Is Two Imperfect People Refusi - Tymoff
Tumblr media
A True Relationship Is Two Imperfect People Refusi - Tymoff sometimes shows perfect romance, in which every difficulty is addressed easily and happily ever after is assured. When we discuss a real relationship, we are entering the deep sea of human connection. Fundamentally, a genuine partnership is not about two ideal individuals meeting. Instead, it is about two flawed people who decide to face their shortcomings together. The magic resides in the flaws and the will to keep on despite challenges. In this blog, we will discuss the quote A True Relationship Is Two Imperfect People Refusi - Tymoff. What Is A Real Relationship? Having a perfect match isn't necessary for a genuine connection. On the contrary, it's about two flawed people who decide to face their problems and shortcomings side by side. Embracing our human frailties and choosing to persevere are the critical ingredients for a genuinely magical partnership. Is Being Imperfect a Bad Thing? Having imperfections, messing up, and falling short of expectations are all signs of being imperfect. Being human involves this inherent quality. When two people in a relationship accept and love one another despite their flaws and problems, it's a healthy partnership. Embracing Imperfections Of A True Relationship Is Two Imperfect People Refusi - Tymoff Everybody has a unique set of shortcomings and faults. In a sincere relationship, couples realize that perfection is unreachable. Instead of looking for the perfect mate, they concentrate on embracing their flaws. A partnership based on mutual respect and knowledge starts with this acceptance. It's about valuing your partner's particular eccentricities and deviations, being free from criticism, and showing the same kindness to yourself. When both spouses accept their flaws, they create a safe environment in which real intimacy can bloom and vulnerability is embraced. Also read - Self-Control Is Strength. Calmness Is Mastery. You – Tymoff The Fallacy Of The Ideal Relationship Media Effect and Social Expectations Social media, TV shows, and movies all frequently present relationships as ideal—free of friction or issues. This irrational perspective can cause us to feel let down and have excessively high expectations. Genuine relationships are neither perfect nor without fluctuations. The Perils of Pursuing Perfection Aiming for a flawless relationship could make one unhappy and frustrated. It strains both parties greatly to live up to unachievable expectations. Realizing that flaws are natural in relationships helps to establish a more genuine and fulfilling connection. Development Through Difficulties Any relationship will naturally have challenges. According to A True Relationship Is Two Imperfect People Refusi - Tymoff quotation, real partners see these challenges as chances for development instead of insurmountable barriers. Every difficulty or dispute we go through together deepens our relationship. Couples that negotiate difficult circumstances grow resilient and learn more about one another. Overcoming obstacles together deepens the bond and promotes togetherness and accomplishment. Dedication Over Simplicity A True Relationship Is Two Imperfect People Refusi - Tymoff's quotation reminds us of the need for commitment in a relationship at a time when convenience sometimes rules persistence. Real love is about sticking to someone despite their imperfections rather than about looking for a perfect match. This dedication implies constant improvement of the connection, even under trying circumstances. It entails deliberately deciding to be beside each other and ride out the ups and downs of life. This relentless commitment turns a relationship from a passing love into a lifetime marriage. The Function of Communication Any decent relationship depends on open and honest communication. In arguments, couples have to communicate their emotions and pay attention to one another. Good communication enables couples to discover common ground and grasp each other's points of view. It guarantees that both spouses feel heard and appreciated and helps to avoid misinterpretation. By encouraging an open communication culture, couples can build their bond and help them gently negotiate problems. Also read - It Is Not Wisdom But Authority That Makes A Law. T – Tymoff Resolving Conflict Maintaining a good relationship depends on learning constructive dispute resolution. True partners confront problems rather than avoid or aggravate disagreements from a problem-solving perspective. Their emphasis is on fixing the problem without criticizing one another's character. This strategy not only fixes the current issue but also, over time, develops respect and trust. By means of conflict, couples can become more solid and cohesive. The Authority of Restitution Everyone makes mistakes; clinging to grudges can sour ties. Maintaining a solid link depends on forgiveness in a significant part. It entails releasing past hurts and concentrating on the present and future. Couples who forgive one another's mistakes can go forward free from bitterness. This grace helps the relationship to heal and flourish and supports the dedication to each other. Creating a Content Life Together A True Relationship Is Two Imperfect People Refusi - Tymoff is not about only romantic gestures. This covers dreams, helping each other toward goals, and building everyday experiences. It's about supporting one another through the highs and lows and basking in the road forward. A happy relationship is one in which both parties value, support, and treasure. The Fun of Common Experiences The glue-binding partnerships together is a shared experience. Whether on the trip, in pursuit of interests, or just for quality time, these events build lifelong memories and strengthen the bond between spouses. Essential for a successful and fulfilling relationship, shared activities offer chances for pleasure, humor, and closeness. The Importance of Trust Any excellent connection starts with trust. It entails being with each other truthful, honest, and consistent. Though it takes effort to develop, trust can be readily undermined. True partners are constant in their behavior and uphold their promises, therefore preserving confidence. Trust-based relationships are strong and can weather adversity. Here are some top quotes by Tymoff that reflect on relationships, personal growth, and life: - "A true relationship is two imperfect people refusing to give up on each other." - "The beauty of life lies in its imperfections." - "Growth begins at the end of your comfort zone." - "Strength is not about perfection, but perseverance." - "Happiness is found when you stop comparing yourself to others." - "Love yourself enough to set boundaries." - "Every day is a new opportunity to be better than yesterday." - "Life is a journey, not a destination; cherish every step." - "True happiness comes from within, not from external validation." - "Embrace the struggles; they make you stronger and wiser." Conclusion We have looked at the great truth—that a genuine partnership is based on the acceptance of imperfection, the accepting of one's defects, and the will to negotiate life's difficulties together—over this conversation. True love has proved itself to be more about the refusal to give up on each other among these flaws than about their absence. Couples who embrace each other's shortcomings, learn the art of compromise and see mistakes as chances for development will create a strong bond marked by resilience, understanding, and great mutual respect. When we consider the dynamics of authentic relationships, it is evident that the road of love and dedication is about laying a basis of trust, empathy, and unwavering support that lets love blossom in its most natural form rather than merely weathering storms together. This research emphasizes the need to continuously develop and comprehend, as well as the need to accept flaws in creating a solid relationship. Two flawed people can definitely produce a relationship that is both long-lasting and very satisfying by staying dedicated to the road of love. FAQs What does "relationship" refer to? In the context of two or more people, a relationship is their interaction or link. This can show itself as a personal link, like that between family members or love partners, or as a professional dynamic, like the relationships among colleagues. In the framework of life, what would describe a relationship? In life, a relationship is any sort of link between two people that could be either favourable or harmful. This covers many kinds of ties, including those to family, friends, or acquaintances. How, then, do connections come to be? Relationships could start in closeness, physical attraction, perceived benefits, similarities or differences, or personal disclosure. Usually, deepening via the sharing of personal information and fostering mutual trust, they can come to an end from separation or another kind of breakup. Read the full article
0 notes
somecunt · 11 months ago
Text
I’ve dissembled my lesbophobia, my misogyny, and my femmephobia.
I’ve carried a fear of being attracted to women, for a long time. I have a lot of anxiety surrounding attraction to women. Whenever I’d see a nude woman in a sexual context I’d become disgusted. This is partially due to it being very normalized for gay cis men to find women’s bodies, and objects associated with women’s bodies repulsive.
I’m working on it definitely. I didn’t value the relationships of wlw or wlnb/nblw or lesbians,sapphics and related attractions.
I used to have a, “not like other girls” mindset, yeah sure I’m ftm and I was in fact “not like other girls” but I leaned into misogyny heavily to distance myself for girls/women, and femininity in girls/women. some of my hatred of female bodies may also come from my need to not be in association with girls/women.
This could be misinterpreted for me as an trans male coming in to scold cis gay males for their “inherent attraction to male bodies and repugnance towards female bodies”, being a gay man isn’t synonymous with hating vaginas, breasts, and loving dick. I’m firmly attracted to nonwomen, and I like breasts, and vaginas, I like penis as well, but in terms of men I do have a preference toward vaginas, nonbinary people, no preference.
In the way I interpret sexuality, what I believe determines it is what are you thinking behind it. regardless of your partner if you’re intimate with them because you’re perceiving their body within womanhood, then you’re probably attracted to women, if you’re partner doesn’t perceive themselves that way, that’s an issue. there’s other things that affect this, like are you forcing yourself to perceive their body in some sort of way to prevent you from facing the reality that you’re one way. I think forcing, and widening your perspective is different.
We’ve been taught that penises, are male genitalia, they’re don’t have to be, they’re penises at their core, and they’re attached to many types of people, trans/cis men, fem/masc/neutral aligned people, trans/cis women. It’s understandable that you categorize penises as male because you were raised in a society where that’s the norm. Seeing more women and non-men with penises while genuinely recognizing them as women, and nonbinary can aid in expanding that view. You don’t need to sleep with anyone you don’t want to, but placing their body into a category of disgust is wrong.
Women’s bodies are beautiful, although I’m not attracted to them sexually, aesthetically all bodies carry their own intense beauty.
Some people don’t even weigh gender presentation, gender identity, or genitalia in their attraction to people, which I guess would be called pansexuality, although plenty of bisexual people also feel this way about their attraction. This doesn’t mean pansexual people can’t have these same issues of perceiving all bodies afab as women’s bodies, and all bodies amab as men’s bodies.
0 notes