#why am I debating my existence to people for educational purposes… that’s not my place? i just want to learn

[meatcatt]

Hey I just want to say sorry for the lack of art. I’m not doing so hot rn, hoping to come back after the semester ends which is soon ^^;

Thank you all for being patient and still enjoying the stuff I’ve already made!

[circulars-reasoning]

Nobody Is Inherently Evil

While this post is tagged syscourse, that does not mean I am looking for an argument. This post can be reblogged by anyone, and is open for debate and educational discussions. It is directed at the community at large as more and more persecutor content comes into play (and as we see the term malicitor being used again).

TL;DR: There is no such thing as a malicitor. There is no such thing an an inherently evil persecutor. Persecutors are part of you, and pretending otherwise is making things worse.

TW: sui ideation, intrusive thoughts, depression, food poisoning and vomit mentions

Let’s begin with this idea of “malicitors.” Simply put, they are alters who “only exist to be hurtful, both to the body and to others.” This, frankly, is bullshit. The idea here is that they have no redeeming value, or that they are inherently just evil for the sake of being evil.

Nobody is inherently evil. That’s not a thing. There is always a reason why someone is shitty. That reason may be related to upbringing, trauma, health - a whole slew of thing could make someone a shitty person. But that doesn’t mean just labeling someone as a shitty person - particularly in the case of an alter - is the right step towards healing.

Alters are you. I’m DID/OSDD, your alters are pieces of you. If you have a seemingly “evil” alter, than the first thing you have to acknowledge is that calling them evil means calling yourself evil. Why would you be doing that? What about their actions is evil?

The claim I see the most is “my persecutors are harming those I love.” And. Yeah? That. Makes perfect sense. Let me tell you about our persecutor, Debra, to shed some light on that.

Debra started out in an odd way. I introjected this idea my friend had started me on: “personify your depression and talk to it.” At first, that’s all it was. But as my depression got worse, and I started realizing I was suicidal, Debra formed. And she was a persecutor through and through.

She told me daily how worthless I was. How useless. How I was just a sick girl pretending to be special so I could feel something, and how the world would be better without me. She purposely did things to make my abusive situation worse. She would purposely do things that would upset my parents, which made the abuse I was facing worse. She pushed away my friends, because “you don’t deserve good people in your life. You’re too worthless to deserve nice things.”

When confronted about why she did this, she always said “You made me. You wanted this. I want this, because I think it’s funny. All I want is for you to die.” And well. On the surface, that sounds like a malicitor, or an “evil persecutor,” right? She just had so much fun being a shitty person that she couldn’t stop.

She’s now reformed. Now, the process in which she became reformed is a lengthy one, involving more things that have gotten me fakeclaimed than I can count. But let’s sum it up here with: there was a lot of symbolic bullshit, she went into dormancy for a few years, ALL my alters went dormant for a few years, and then she came back in college, full force.

But once I was in college, I wasn’t alone anymore. I had a very stubborn friend who dedicated too much time to me and sacrificed her own mental health to get me in a better place. Without her, I don’t think I ever would’ve survived college, and I am eternally grateful for everything she ever did for me. One of the biggest things she did was change Debbie.

Debra continued her normal bullshit - keeping me unstable, making me want to kill myself even more, trying to damage my friendships. But now, she had someone constantly pushing back against her. And here’s the thing. This might not work for every system, but you know what worked for us?

Calling her out on her bullshit.

I am NEVER suggesting that you need to be gentle with your persecutors. Quite the opposite, in fact - sometimes, I believe getting on their level and being a bitch right back is the best method. That’s how it worked for Debra. After Debra lied to my friend specifically to try and get her to hate us, said friend cornered her in a room and forced her to sit through a conversation about respecting our system while Debbie was going through food poisoning. She had to keep running to the bathroom to vomit, before marching herself straight back to my friend for “and another thing, why are you such a bitch?”

It was sheer torture for Debra. She had never had anyone speak to her like that. She had never had anyone turn her words back on her. After all, Debra was perfect, right? But she wasn’t. She never was. Because she was just a part of me that hated myself. And if she was part of me, that just meant… she hated herself too.

After that, things started to turn around. I’m not saying it was perfect - but now, the system as a whole understood what was happening. Anytime she insulted us, we turned around and said “you really feel that way about yourself?” And she would get so mad, because CLEARLY she was talking about us. But she’s part of this system too!! Eventually, she even caused us to split a new alter due to her ramping up her abuse of us. And, well… he went immediately dormant, because she was so horrible.

That really made her realize how horrible she was being, and why. She DID hate herself - she was lashing out and pushing people away because she was scared of confronting that feeling. If she used me (Rice) as her punching bag, then she wasn’t beating up on herself. But now, she could see just how badly she was damaging the system - damaging herself.

She sees us now as a support system. All of us are supporting each other, and that’s so incredible. What she saw as my weaknesses before, she now sees are signs of my strength. The cracks in this support beam show how much work I’ve put in, and she reminds me often how “you’d be an idiot to think you’re weak, stop being an idiot and admit how strong you are.” Notice how she’s still insulting? That’s okay. That’s our dynamic now, and I’ve found that’s what helps me. And if it becomes too much, Numb (our protector) comes in and tells her to cool it. AND SHE LISTENS!

Because now, we’ve recognized she’s a part of us, just as much as she’s recognized we’re part of her. And that’s the kicker; she really changed when she was accepted. No, we didn’t accept her behavior - we just showed her that, regardless of her actions, she’s part of us, and we love ourselves, so she, too, is loved unconditionally. Once she saw that, and once we understood that ourselves, things healed in our system. We grew.

This brings me to my last point. Pretending that any part of you is inherently evil will never help you heal. It will always be damaging to your health. So why are you still doing it? More than likely, it’s because you have yet to work through your shit. And that’s valid - healing doesn’t happen immediately. It takes time. But you need to recognize that spreading the idea that “oh my alter is Just Evil and I cant change that” is not only damaging you, but others. That’s the sort of ideals that led to us hurting Debra in the past. Which led to more insys problems and trauma.

There are no inherently evil alters. Either work through your shit, or keep it private if you’re not ready to work through it yet. Either way, don’t spread this idea that persecutors can just be Evil for Evil’s Sake. Nobody is. And suggesting that they are is going to demonize them, whether you were aiming to or not.

[straight-to-the-pain]

There is so much to unpack on the CRYPTID military post, such as whether someone with that name has legit experience. 1) Admitedly military has lots of past issues to be fixed and are being fixed. 2) Those in combat roles know they may need to give their life. This is not brainwashed. It is not disregard for safety. It is a job, and the understanding that the job has certain risks. 3) Many are college grads. They're military because of a reasoned decision.

Not all like the military. Online, it's easy to be disparaged by those who have no real understanding of the US govt, it's arms, or the military. But many of your followers may be military because despite the wrongs prior Presidents have done, we believe the military has a beneficial role in aide to disaster areas, intl relations to professionalize other countries' mils into civ-led institutions that won't cause coups, etc. Please don't attack us or post false/one-sided info about what we do.

A couple things to begin: I’m happy having a civil debate about things and you’re welcome to disagree and we can come away from this respecting each other, that’s fine, but if people send me anon hate I will simply delete it. I cannot know if the OP was in the military, and I am not personally in the military, but I have had family members who were and hated it and would never want to go back to that place and those circumstances and family members who liked it well enough as a job but couldn’t continue doing it due to disability, and their experiences all have things in common.

I’m also not trying to attack anyone who is in the military. I think that most people join the military out of desperation (for money, for education, to get away from a bad family situation) and idealism (serving their country, protecting their values, learning useful skills). And I think that both people who are currently serving and veterans deserve better from their government. Being aware of the flaws in your own organisation is a good thing; blind faith in your leaders isn’t.

This might be something you personally don’t agree with but I don’t actually like the government. I try vote for the lesser of two evils and whoever wins, even if I prefer them, I will still challenge them and hold them accountable, because I fundamentally do not think that most people in power are going to do good things unless we as people force them to. That’s how I see politics, and that obviously affects my view of the military. The military is a tool of the government, it fulfils the aims of its leaders and these aims are so often those of imperialism and control and even fascism.

I understand why people might want to join, I really do. If I wasn’t considered too disabled, maybe I would have done it too, for a stable job and good pay and if I’m honest, a bit of excitement. As a nursing student, I’m going into a job that I know may well be bad for my mental health and I’m putting myself at physical risk too in order to try to help people. And that’s worth it to me, I get that, but I also know that I work for an organisation that despite its flaws genuinely exists to help people and do good. I’m sure some people feel that way about the military, but I don’t.

I am also aware that some things are getting better with regards to discrimination and abuse, but the military still has incredibly high rates of sexual assault, racism and homophobia, and often these crimes are not properly investigated and people are not held accountable.

Obviously an organisation that is focused on the physical is going to have a big focus on physical health and ability, but that in itself means that it becomes an organisation that selects people who can be useful as tools and then uses them until they break. Even if people do sign up for it and willingly take on the risks it’s still an environment that dehumanises you and makes it easier to dehumanise others and hurt others.

I’m not saying that the military doesn’t fulfil a useful purpose sometimes, but I do think that certain goals can be achieved with a less militarised force (such as aid and disaster relief). I also just think that war is bad and I understand the need for defence, but that budget isn’t going towards actual soldiers to improve their salaries and their living conditions, it’s going towards equipment that can kill people.

I’ll admit that I’ve been listening a lot to the ‘what a hell of a way to die’ podcast which is hosted by veterans who used to think the way you do but got out when things became intolerable and are trying their best to save other people their experience. And I know that not everyone will agree with that perspective, but that’s my opinion based on things I’ve heard and read and you are welcome to disagree, respectfully.

[beardedvulture94]

Democracy and the political entity known as "people"

Democracy is a form of government whose roots date back to ancient Greece. It is derived from the words "demos" (people) and "kratos" (power) and means "government of the people."

But what does "Government of the people" means? What lies behind this word? Nowadays, many people across the world ask this question, a lot of them may share the same meaning, a lot of them probably not, in the end we can’t deny the existence of various type of democracy so why I’m here wasting time?

Despite it multiple masks, democracy has one undeniable common factor: the political weight of the people.

And what exactly is "political weight"? It simply means that no political entity can ignore our voice. It takes also us to decide (directly or indirectly) who takes the lead. We’re talking about a great power and a great privilege and with great power comes great responsibilities. In a democracy, the population who has the right to vote becomes a concrete political entity who actively participates in politics and what do we usually ask  from a political entity to make it work? Competence, education, awareness, and honesty.

If the political entity known as "people" truly want to make it work, then we also must fulfill all four requirements. "All good words, but what are we supposed to do?" you may ask.

The population of a country is the most messed-up political entity in a democracy: it is massive, extremely diverse in a variety of ways, and God forbid we unanimously agree on something once in a lifetime! It is impossible by nature, people constantly change: each generation comes with new ideas, new political parties arise, new challenges comes, how can we possibly think to make it work? People are messy, and not everyone can be competent as a political figure (assuming the ideal one), but we have a fantastic tool to fuel the engine, and that tool is Dialogue!

I know, you may say to yourself "Talking with them!? Not in a million years!". If this is true, then ask yourself these questions:

"Why do I think my ideals can make the world a better place?"

"Why do I think of "the others" as a clusterfuck of scary nonsensical words?"

"Do I want to make a better world for everyone, or me?"

"How can I work on a better world if "the others" exists?"

You see, betting on a complete victory of your ideas is a loss of money (guaranteed), you can fight everyone, cover yourself in your flags, get beneath your heroes and chant your war songs everyday. You are never ever going to get that total victory. In this system, we compromise, we have to, because "the others" are also a part of the political entity you share. You cannot force them out as you cannot force your head out without dying.

There’s a single word for the ones who believe in a "single way of thinking" type of people: Tiranny.

"You talk big game! How am I supposed to coexist with someone who wants me out, or worse, dead?". First of all, we need to accept that today "the others" exists and they are here to stay, for the time nature gave them. We just need to understand the reason why "the others" exists and why they serve a purpose (or served). How can we learn these things without dialogue? By talking with each other we may learn about common struggles, common beliefs and other wholesome things. In other words, we find common ground. By finding common ground, we work better.

Straight to the point, if it is true that the people need to talk to each other and fulfill the four requirements to make democracy work, alongside others political entities, then we need to PARTECIPATE.

 This word is the key for democracies. We partecipate? All is ok! We don’t partecipate? Something is not ok.

By participating in a democracy, we work for it, and we get to know the job: It is requested from us to be active in the debate, to study the environment, and to consult with our colleagues to decide the best outcome for our society, even if some of them are less fancy and funny than us. Sure, sometimes your favorite political party may lose; it is natural; but in that case, if you worked well with your colleagues, you probably gained their respect, and with that, it might be possible to see them ask you something about your ideal.

In conclusion, the most important thing we must not forget is that we work for the good of everyone, not just ourselves. Participation is the only real rule allowing us to fulfill the four requirements for a political entity to work. Let's use it!

I would like to extend my point of view on this topic, but at this point it would be an essay and not an introduction.. I would also like to explore so many concept such as: Progress as a natural cause to democracy, the role of pragmatism on ideals and so on but I’m going to stop here for now! Let me know what you think (criticism is higly accepted), do you agree? Did I miss something? Let’s partecipate 😉.

[writingwithcolor]

Jurassic period alien interacting with key cultures and historical figures in Middle East & Asia throughout history

@ketchupmaster400​ said:

Hello, so my question is for a character I’ve been working on for quite a while but wasn’t sure about a few things. So basically at the beginning of the universe there was this for less being made up of dark matter and dark energy. Long story short it ends up on earth during the Jurassic Period. It has the ability to adapt and assimilate into other life animals except it’s hair is always black and it’s skin is always white and it’s eyes are always red. It lives like this going from animal to animal until it finally becomes human and gains true sentience and self awareness. As a human it lives within the Middle East and Asia wondering around trying to figure out its purpose and meaning. So what I initially wanted to do with it was have small interactions with the dark matter human and other native humans that kinda helped push humanity into the direction it is now. For example, Mehndhi came about when the dark matter human was drawing on their skin because it felt insecure about having such white skin compared to other people. And ancient Indians saw it and thought it was cool so they adopted it and developed it into Mehndi. Minor and small interactions though early history leading to grander events. Like they would be protecting Jerusalem and it’s people agains the Crusaders later on. I also had the idea of the the dark matter human later on interacting with the prophets Jesus Christ and Muhammad. With Jesus they couldn’t understand why he would sacrifice himself even though the people weren’t deserving. And then Jesus taught them that you have to put other before yourself and protecting people is life’s greatest reward. And then with the prophet Muhammad, I had the idea that their interaction was a simple conversation that mirrors the one he had with the angel Jibril, that lead to the principles of Islam. Now with these ideas I understand the great importance of how not to convey Islam and I’ve been doing reasearch, but I am white and I can understand how that may look trying to write about a different religion than my own. So I guess ultimate my question is, is this ok to do? Is it ok to have an alien creature interact with religious people and historical events as important as they were? Like I said I would try to be as accurate and as respectable as possible but I know that Islam can be a touchy subject and the last thing I would want is to disrespect anyone. The main reason I wanted the dark matter being in the Middle East was because I wanted to do something different because so much has been done with European and American stuff I wanted to explore the eastern side of the world because it’s very beau and very rich with so many cultures that I want to try and represent. I’m sorry for the long post but I wanted you guys to fully understand what my idea was. Thank you for your time and hope you stay safe.

Disclaimer:

The consensus from the moderators was that the proposed character and story is disrespectful from multiple cultural perspectives. However, we can’t ignore the reality that this is a commonly deployed trope in many popular science fiction/ thriller narratives. Stories that seek to take religious descriptions of events at face value from an areligious perspective particularly favor this approach. Thus, we have two responses:

Where we explain why we don’t believe this should be attempted.

Where we accept the possibility of our advice being ignored.

1) No - Why You Shouldn’t Do This:

Hi! I’ll give you the short answer first, and then the extended one.

Short answer: no, this is not okay.

Extended answer. I’ll divide it into three parts.

1) Prophet Muhammad as a character:

Almost every aspect of Islam, particularly Allah (and the Qur’an), the Prophet(s) and the companions at the time of Muhammad ﷺ, are strictly kept within the boundaries of real life/reality. I’ll assume this comes from a good place, and I can understand that from one side, but seriously, just avoid it. It is extremely disrespectful and something that is not even up to debate for Muslims to do, let alone for non-Muslims. Using Prophet Muhammad as a character will only bring you problems. There is no issue with mentioning the Prophet during his lifetime when talking about his attributes, personality, sayings or teachings, but in no way, we introduce fictional aspects in a domain that Muslims worked, and still work, hard to keep free from any doubtful event or incident. Let’s call it a closed period: we don’t add anything that was not actually there.

Reiterating then, don’t do this. There is a good reason why Muslims don’t have any pictures of Prophet Muhammad. We know nothing besides what history conveyed from him. 

After this being said, there is another factor you missed – Jesus is also an important figure in Islam and his story from the Islamic perspective differs (a lot) from that of the Christian perspective. And given what you said in your ask, you would be taking the Christian narrative of Jesus. If it was okay to use Prophet Muhammad as a character (reminder: it’s not) and you have had your dark matter human interacting with the biblical Jesus, it will result in a complete mess; you would be conflating two religions.

2) Crusaders and Jerusalem:

You said this dark matter human will be defending Jerusalem against the Crusaders. At first, there is really no problem with this. However, ask yourself: is this interaction a result of your character meeting with both Jesus and Prophet Muhammed? If yes, please refer to the previous point. If not, or even if you just want to maintain this part of the story, your dark matter human can interact with the important historical figures of the time. For example, if you want a Muslim in your story, you can use Salah-Ad-Din Al-Ayoubi (Saladin in the latinized version) that took back Jerusalem during the Third Crusade. Particularly, this crusade has plenty of potential characters. 

Also, featuring Muslim characters post Prophet Muhammad and his companions’ time, is completely fine, just do a thorough research.

 3) Middle Eastern/South Asian settings and Orientalism:

The last point I want to remark is with the setting you chose for your story. Many times, when we explore the SWANA or South Asian regions it’s done through an orientalist lens. Nobody is really safe from falling into orientalism, not even the people from those regions. My suggestion is educating yourself in what orientalism is and how it’s still prevalent in today’s narrative. Research orientalism in entertainment, history... and every other area you can think of. Edward Said coined this term for the first time in history, so he is a good start. There are multiple articles online that touch this subject too. For further information, I defer to middle eastern mods. 

- Asmaa

Racism and Pseudo-Archaeology:

A gigantic, unequivocal and absolute no to all of it, lmao. 

I will stick to the bit about the proposed origin of mehendi in your WIP, it’s the arc I feel I’m qualified to speak on, Asmaa has pretty much touched upon the religious and orientalism complications. 

Let me throw out one more word: pseudoarchaeology. That is, taking the cultural/spiritual/historical legacies of ancient civilizations, primarily when it involves people of colour, and crediting said legacies to be the handiwork of not just your average Outsider/White Saviour but aliens. I’ll need you to think carefully about this: why is it that in so much of media and literature pertaining to the so-called “conspiracy theories” dealing with any kind of extraterrestrial life, it’s always Non-Western civilizations like the Aztec, the ancient Egyptians, the Harappans etc who are targeted? Why is it that the achievements of the non West are so unbelievable that it’s more feasible to construct an idea of non-human, magical beings from another planet who just conveniently swooped in to build our monuments and teach us how to dress and what to believe in? If the answer makes you uncomfortable, it’s because it should: denying the Non-West agency of their own feats is not an innocent exercise in sci-fi worldbuilding, it comes loaded with implications of racial superiority and condescension towards the intellect and prowess of Non-European cultures. 

Now, turning to specifics:

Contrary to what Sarah J. Maas might believe- mehendi designs are neither mundane, purely aesthetic tattoos nor can they be co-opted by random Western fantasy characters. While henna has existed as an art form in various cultures, I’m limiting my answer to the Indian context, (specifying since you mention ancient India). Mehendi is considered one of the tenets of the Solah Shringar- sixteen ceremonial adornments for Hindu brides, one for each phase of the moon, as sanctioned by the Vedic texts. The shade of the mehendi is a signifier for the strength of the matrimonial bond: the darker the former, the stronger the latter. Each of the adornments carries significant cosmological/religious symbolism for Hindus. To put it bluntly, when you claim this to be an invention of the aliens, you are basically taking a very sacred cultural and artistic motif of our religion and going “Well actually….extraterrestrials taught them all this.”

In terms of Ayurveda (Traditional holistic South Asian medicine)  , mehendi was used for its medicinal properties. It works as a cooling agent on the skin and helps to alleviate stress, particularly for the bride-to-be. Not really nice to think that aliens lent us the secrets of Ayurvedic science (pseudoarchaeology all over again). 

I’m just not feeling this arc at all. The closest possible alternative I could see to this is the ancient Indian characters incorporating some specific stylistic motifs in their mehendi in acknowledgement to this entity, in the same vein of characters incorporating motifs of tribute into their armour or house insignia, but even so, I’m not sure how well that would play out. If you do go ahead with this idea, I cannot affirm that it will not receive backlash.

-Mimi

These articles might help:

 Pseudoarchaeology and the Racism Behind Ancient Aliens

A History of Indian Henna (this studies mehendi origins mostly with reference to Mughal history)

Solah Shringar

2) Not Yes, But If Ignoring the Above:

I will be the dissenting voice of “Not No, But Here Are The Big Caveats.” Given that there is no way to make the story you want to tell palatable to certain interpretations of Islam and Christianity, here is my advice if the above arguments did not sufficiently deter you.

1. Admiration ≠ Research: It is not enough to just admire cultures for their richness and beauty. You need to actually do the research and learn about them to determine if the story you want to tell is a good fit for the values and principles these cultures prioritize. You need to understand the significance of historical figures and events to understand the issues with attributing the genesis of certain cultural accomplishments to an otherworldly influence. 1.

2. Give Less Offense When Possible and Think Empathetically: You should try to imagine the mindsets of those you will offend and think about to what degree you can soften or ameliorate certain aspects of your plot, the creature’s characteristics, and the creature’s interactions with historical figures to make your narrative more compatible. There is no point pretending that much of areligious science fiction is incompatible with monotheist, particularly non-henotheistic, religious interpretations as well as the cultural items and rituals derived from those religious interpretations. One can’t take “There is no god, just a lonely alien” and make that compatible with “There is god, and only in this particular circumstance.” Thus:

As stated above by Asmaa and Mimi, there is no escaping the reality the story you propose is offensive to some. Expect their outcry to be directed towards you. Can you tolerate that?

Think about how you would feel if someone made a story where key components of your interpretation of reality are singled out as false. How does this make you feel? Are you comfortable doing that to others?

3. Is Pseudoarchaeology Appropriate Here?: Mimi makes a good point about the racial biases of pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoarchaeology is a particular weakness of Western-centric atheist sci-fi. Your proposed story is the equivalent of a vaguely non-descript Maya/Aztec/Egyptian pyramid or Hindu/ Buddhist-esque statue being the source for a Resident Evil bio weapon/ Predator nest/ Assassin’s Creed Isu relic.

Is this how you wish to draw attention to these cultures you admire? While there is no denying their ubiquity in pop-culture, such plots trivialize broad swathes of non-white history and diminish the accomplishments of associated ethnic groups. The series listed above all lean heavily into these tropes either because the authors couldn’t bother to figure out something more creative or because they are intentionally telling a story the audience isn’t supposed to take seriously.*

More importantly, I detect a lot of sincerity in your ask, so I imagine such trivialization runs counter to your expressed desire to depict Eastern cultures in a positive and accurate manner.

4. Freedom to Write ≠ Freedom from Consequence: Once again, as a reminder, it’s not our job to reassure you as to whether or not what you are proposing is ok. Asmaa and Mimi have put a lot of effort into explaining who you will offend and why.  We are here to provide context, but the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for how you choose to shape this narrative, particularly if you share this story with a wide audience, is you. Speaking as one writer to another, I personally do not have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I think it is important to be face reality head-on.

- Marika.

* This is likely why the AC series always includes that disclaimer stating the games are a product of a multicultural, inter-religious team and why they undermine Western cultures and Western religious interpretations as often (if not moreso) than those for their non-Western counterparts.

Note: Most WWC asks see ~ 5 hours of work from moderators before they go live. Even then, this ask took an unusually long amount of time in terms of research, emotional labor and discussion. If you found this ask (and others) useful, please consider tipping the moderators (link here), Asmaa (coming eventually) and Mimi (here). I also like money - Marika.

[north-of-annwn]

Ok so I'm not going to do this anonymously because i don't fear getting chastised for my own ignorance but there are other alternatives to abortion aren't there? I mean i honestly don't understand this bill nonsense but it mostly at least to me sounds like it's just to keep children alive. I mean there are adoption centers and people who will actually pay women who are pregnant to act as surrogates. Why is anti abortion so bad? And how is this a woman's autonomy probpem. Please educate me

First, I want to thank you for acknowledging that your perspective on this may be informed from a place of systemic oppression of AFAB people, and for seeking out information. When people add on to this post with the purpose to educate, I implore you all to remember this person is seeking information. Please avoid shaming them or ridiculing them.

Let’s first address your questions:

1) “There are other alternatives to abortion aren’t there?”

Let’s first define abortion. “In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. A spontaneous abortion is the same as a miscarriage. The miscarriage of three or more consecutive pregnancies is termed habitual abortion or recurrent pregnancy loss”  (Shiel MD, MedicineNet).

¼ womxn will have abortions in their lifetime. Abortion is a medical procedure that can be requested or required for a lot of different reasons:

The pregnant person may not be able to carry an embryo to term safely.

The pregnant person may not have the financial support to pay for the medical bills that pregnancy costs in the US (prenatal and delivery alone can cost around $18k).  

I also want to add that people in this country are not given any kind of financial support for the time taken off for prenatal or postnatal care. Being out of work for this time could mean entering extreme poverty.

The pregnant person may not have the financial support or stability of lifestyle to support a child.

The pregnant person may not be physically up to the task of carrying a child to term and delivering. Not all womb-having people are up to what childbirth does to the body. Childbirth is one of the most dangerous things that a body can be put through.  In the US we’re just under 20 maternal deaths per 100,000 births, which is the highest in the developed world. Some undeveloped countries have better stats than we do

Abortion may be required as an emergency life-saving procedure for the pregnant person. And waiting for approval by a committee could mean the death of that person.

Medical interference can also be needed if the embryo has already been determined unviable (basically will not ever have life) because having dead tissue remain in the womb will kill the person. Wombs don’t always do what they’re supposed to and often they will still act as if the pregnancy is going along normally when the embryo stopped growing and forming.

Abortion as a medical procedure is part of basic reproductive healthcare. Denying it is like denying the use of a c-section or blood transfusions.

I also want to add that many of these GOP states are seeking to classify any and all contraceptives as “abortion” as well. This isn’t included in this bill specifically but it’s been named as part of their agendas.

2) “I mean I honestly don’t understand this bill nonsense but it mostly at least to me sounds like it’s just to keep children alive.”According to the CDC, 91.1% of abortions are performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. At this time, this is an embryo and fetal tissue. It’s not a child. Pro-life people are placing the eventual *possible* life of a being that isn’t even formed yet above the autonomy and rights of a living human being (the pregnant person). A zygote without a brain or the ability to survive outside the womb is not a person, and therefore not a child. We have determined that something without brain activity is not alive. People with wombs are not incubators. This is not the sum of our existence.

Right now you cannot force a person to give blood or organs in life-saving situations. Why should it be okay to force a person to donate their entire body as an incubator if they don’t want to, which has health complications, and long-lasting effects on the body? We even afford humans that are DEAD more rights than womb-having people in this country. It is illegal to take organs or tissue from dead bodies with no brain activity without consent, but it’s legal to force a living person to act as an incubator for tissue and chromosomes that aren’t even formed to make a person yet?

Also, this bill has SO much more nuanced support for the oppression of women than just keeping “children” alive. This affords the state the right to investigate any suspicion of “intentional abortion.” This means, if a person miscarries, they may be subject to invasive investigation and murder charges on top of grieving for their loss and recovering medically. This bill also in no certain terms basically considers all womb-having people in their state to be the property of the state by allowing people to be extradited and charged if they have a LEGAL abortion procedure in another state.

3) “I mean there are adoption centers and people who will actually pay women who are pregnant to act as surrogates. Why is anti-abortion so bad?” We currently have 108,000 foster children up for adoption right this second in the US. This doesn’t even include unwanted pregnancies being given to private adoption agencies. Adopt one if you want to save a child, but forcing people to enter crippling debt, put their body through the abuse of childbirth, and possible forced poverty because of lack of childcare or compensation for missing work isn’t okay.

Additionally, anti-abortion really only seems to be concerned with one thing - popping out children. There is ZERO concern for the health, wellbeing, or survival of that child OR the parent afterward. This is oppressive and forced childbirth expectations. And again, reduces womb-having people as nothing more than a means to an end. Their life and wellbeing aren’t considered - they’re incubators.

4) “How is this a woman’s autonomy problem.”All of the above. The entire idea of denying women normal reproductive medical procedures or criminalize a natural thing that our bodies DO is inherently oppressive. Deciding that a womb-having person is just supposed to do their best to carry to term an embryo regardless of danger to their life, medical needs, e, inability to care for the child, inability to pay medical bills, or the abuse that childbirth puts on the body… and possibly condemning them to death, poverty, or life-long debt removes the ability for a person to choose what is done or what is done TO their body. It’s inherently oppressive.

Make no mistake, these bills have very little to do with saving the lives of children, and everything to do with keeping women impoverished, oppressed, and without any control over their own bodies and lives. These bills are also written and signed without ANY input or oversight primarily by the people they affect. This is not a choice that womb-having people made… these are oppressive laws being forced upon them.

Some final personal notes from me: I am currently in a place where I would suffer greatly from these laws if they were to be implemented in my state. First of all, if I were to get pregnant, mine would be a high-risk pregnancy. It is likely that I could lose the pregnancy anytime within the first two trimesters, which would require an abortive procedure to remove the remaining tissue. If I’m to get pregnant, I need to know that modern medical procedures that are agreed to be the most effective best practices would be available to me by a doctor without the threat of criminalization or debating on whether it’s necessary/legal. This affects all people who may ever become pregnant. This is a clear and present fear for us. It’s not just anti-abortion. If that’s all it was… the answer would be simple, don’t have one. If you need one to save your life, you can choose to say no. But it’s not. This is about controlling womxn, denying us healthcare, and we are afraid. We are all desperately terrified of this becoming the new normal across our country. ONE in FOUR pregnancies ends in the need for abortion. And if you need one, you get one. This is about whether or not we have access to SAFE and MEDICALLY sanctioned abortions. 

I really encourage you to do some additional research and reading from educational sites. Be wary of both FOX News, CNN, major news networks, and any journalists with a religious agenda. Further reading: https://prochoice.org/education-and-advocacy/downloads-resources/https://iwhc.org/2018/09/abortion-normal-and-vital/https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issue/abortion-access/I’d really appreciate if any followers could tack on additional resources, statistics, and personal stories. This is SO important. 

[deadinsidedressage]

Why Acti-Veg’s “Ethical Issues with Horse Riding” is Flawed

Militant vegans and animal right’s activists alike have determined that horse riding is an inherently unethical activity. Yet the criticism they dole out is inherently flawed itself. In a recent run-in with the vegan community a “source” provided to shame me about being an equestrian was a post by Acti-Veg. 

The following will be a look into the claims made in that post by myself, someone who has grown up around horses, ridden a variety of disciplines, witnessed the spectrum of how personal finances impact horse care, and currently work for a top level professional. 

To really delve into the flaws in the arguments made in Acti-Veg’s post we must first acknowledge one difficult truth: Abusive practices in horse riding, horse training, and horse management still exist, still are popular, and are extremely visible.  There’s a higher degree of accepted abusive practices the lower on the economic spectrum the culture of a given discipline, breed, or nation tends to be. The ugly truth about animal abuse and neglect is that it tends to occur because of a lack of education. A lack of education occurs because of poverty. The poverty cycle and the impacts it has on education is well-documented and something I am personally acquainted with as an educator in an under-serviced community. The way we break abusive practices in any animal husbandry starts with making education free and accessible.  Yet there’s the flaw with equestrianism--- it’s an extremely classist endeavor. There is a hard class division between the ability to be a truly ethical horse owner and as an unintentionally neglectful or outright abusive horse owner. The class issue in equestrian is two-fold; on the one hand there’s the lack of educational opportunities free from a paywall that could help erase abusive practices, on the other there’s the psychology of poverty and the creation of a “us versus them” mindset (often what I refer to as the “underdog mentality). There are limited opportunities for people to access affordable/free education to improve their horse care, handling, riding/training and when there is it is often meant with hostility.  The unfortunate fact is that people who are engaging in abusive and neglectful practices because of lack of education are also extremely defensive of having their practices questioned. They fall into an assumption that the party attempting to educate them is just an embodiment of the upper class and judgmental because of their privilege. In the US, this dichotomy is primarily seen in the split between Western and English disciplines. With Western often engaging in “old timey”,“cowboy” practices and English being dismissed as “snooty”, “spoiled” and so forth. Refusal to change and adjust to ethical practices is seen as a place of pride because the “cowboy method” is upheld against the assumed “spoiled princesses” who have “everything done for them”. These people believe themselves to be “do-it-yourselfers”, of succeeding despite “the system”, and of having “worked for what they have”.  Abuse and neglect is not exclusive to Western disciplines, but the vast majority of under-educated unintentional abusers, in my experience, come from Western disciplines. 

When I discuss counter-points to vegan talking points, I am speaking specifically of ethical equestrianism. Horse ownership, care, and training rooted in a belief in continuing education. A group that is self-aware of the flaws in the sport and who advocate for global changes toward ethical equestrianism. 

With that out of the way, the first point latched onto is the use of the term “breaking” when discussing the training of horses for riding: 

“... horses are forced to accept a rider against their will. A lack of resistance does not mean that a horse has consented to being ridden, it simply means a horse has figured out that it is in their best interests to allow it to happen. Even the term “breaking” implies an acknowledgement of the truth of this fact.”

Breaking is an antiquated term and while still used in the equine community to describe starting horses under saddle, when we are discussing ethical horse training it is simply a colloquialism. The post mentions still-existing though admittedly abusive practices such as laying down a horse (forcibly dropping a horse to force “submission”) and begrudgingly refers to currently accepted slow-start practices though insistent that that is still an inherently abusive practice.  The fact is, when discussing the practice of training a horse to be ridden as “unnatural” is only as true as the act of domestication is unnatural. Domesticated animals do not have the same instincts as their wild counterparts. They have had instincts bred out of them and the ability to enjoy co-habitation with humans bred into them. Do horses feel the need to be ridden? No. Neither do cats or dogs feel the need to live with us, but like these are all animals that have been bred to accept and enjoy human socialization. Riding is a form of socialization. Dependent on the breed and individual personality of the horse, not only is riding a fulfilling form of inter-species socialization but it’s a form of complex mental and physical stimulation they need for quality of life. Yes, just like there are dogs that have been so purpose bred they develop neurosis when kept “just as a pet” there are horses who have the same need for work. 

Another point the post tries to make is about growth plates and long-term impacts of riding prior to fusion:

However, studies demonstrate that the epiphyseal plates in the body of the lumbar vertebrae of thoroughbred horses is not fully developed until they are between 6 and 9 years old, and that riding them before this time can cause lasting injuries. Even after this age, damage to the spine resulting from riding is common. In one study, 91.5% of ridden horses studied were diagnosed with some kind of alteration of the spine after x-ray, even though they seemed perfectly healthy prior to the scan. 

The post sites two studies, one which is written by someone with their PhD in holistic medicine, a clear anti-riding bias, and a misunderstanding of kissing-spine as universal to all horses. The other is in German. Were the entire post in German and meant for German speakers I wouldn’t have an issue with sourcing a study in German... but as it’s directed toward an English-speaking audience and it’s in German... I mean that just reeks of twisting facts to suit your narrative while preventing people from fact-checking you. 

Here’s the thing about growth plates and horses, we also have studies that have shown that light age appropriate work helps with bone density, helps remedy some conformational flaws, and does not damage. The key word is appropriate.

Reining and racing are the two top sports that skew data sets toward showing detrimental impacts on the longevity of horses because they are sports that start horses too early and with too high of intensity for it not to result in damage. Ethically developed young horses are given long stretches of off time to accommodate growth phases and are worked lightly. A 4 year old is not worked with the intensity of a 14 year old. 

There’s also the issue of kissing spine which is still not fully understood. It’s most prevalent in Quarter Horses, Thoroughbred, and Warmbloods--- the three arguably most populous riding horse breeds. There is some debate as to what causes it or the extent of the genetic component, but kissing spine has been discovered in the remains of prehistoric, pre-domesticated horses. 

I would also argue that depending on the age demographic of the “91.5%” study that there’s also just the nature of wear and tear on bodies. Within the equestrian community it’s known that no horse is going to vet entirely clean because that’s not how being a living creature works. Life has impact on the body and even humans who’ve never engaged in sports activities will develop conditions like arthritis as they age. Especially when we consider that medical advancements have surpasses ours and our domesticated friends’ evolutionary lifespans. Simply put, ours’ and theirs’ bodies will begin to breakdown long before there are no longer care options to prolong life. 

A point that is barely worth mentioning because of the seeming refusal of the author’s post to do any research in order to attempt an educated opinion is on the use of training equipment and aids: 

On top of the process of riding, many riders inflict additional harm on their horses using instruments like harnesses, bits and whips; even saddles can restrict blood flow and cause chafing, this is not including general injuries sustained by horses which are part and parcel of being ridden. Bits are particularly harmful, as they damage horse’s sensitive nerves, their teeth, tongue and palate.

None of this equipment is inherently harmful. An ill-fitting saddle or an incorrectly used bit and the damage they can cause are not equatable to a properly fitting saddle and a correctly used bit. They don’t even give me something to counter here other than saying “no, that’s wrong” because they have so little understanding of the use of tools in training and riding horses. Saddles can cause chafing--- hmm, does that reason that a vegan would then prefer if I “had” to ride I did so bareback? What about the studies I can pull up showing that bareback riding is detrimental to spine health...  The “not including general injuries sustained by horses which are part and parcel of being ridden” portion of this is a little hilarious as someone who has always been around horses. Yes, it’s not out of the question for a horse to sustain small injuries through the course of being ridden just as it’s not out of the question for a human person engaging in any physical activity to sustain small injuries. What about potentially “career ending” injuries though? Anecdotally, I know of few horses with injuries that lead to retirement from riding that actually occurred while being ridden. Horses are an evolutionary shitshow and much of that is evident in their tendency to injure their legs in somewhat miraculous ways.  Additionally, injuries that could occur from work are also mostly preventable and this is where the class/educational barrier raises it’s ugly head again. A top tier dressage horse is likely to have more overall stress on their body than the average 4H horse. However, the dressage horse is also going to be exposed to preventative and aftercare measure such as boots/polos, icing, poultice, theraplating, PEMF, laser therapy, nutritional support, structured warm-up/cool-down, etc. The 4H horse is usually lucky if someone notices they’ve bowed a tendon or developed a bone spur. There is so much that education can do in prevention of injury and wear. 

The supposed “gotcha” moment of this post comes when talking about euthanasia, making bold claims about horses being disposed of when they outlive usefulness: 

One in particular, an owner of a horse equipment shop, explained the reasoning: “I really love horses. But when they’re no good to me, what are you going to do with them? We don’t want to take ‘em out back and shoot ‘em. They may just as well be slaughtered, and get some use out of them.” Another commented that: “Chickens for eggs, lambs for wool, cows for milk, horses for work, and when their useful, productive life has passed, then you turn them into meat.”

Part of me honestly doesn’t really believe this is a real quote by a real person, but these people also do exist. There also is the unfortunate reality of the “slaughter pipeline” in the US in which horses who are sent to auction often end up in the hands of kill buyers who ship them over the boarder to sell for meat. 

As far as should a horse be killed when it surpasses “usefulness”? Absolutely not. Ethical equestrians don’t view horses this way and recognize that an animal which has offered so much by way of partnership deserves a soft retirement and a loving home until they die. However, the post tries to take an anti-euthanasia stance period:

“..most owner’s prefer to euthanize animals when they become too old or sick to walk or ride”

If you’re not catching the problematic part of that sentence, there’s the suggestion that it’s wrong to euthanize an animal that can’t walk. The inability to conceptualize quality of life over quantity of life seems to be a recurring theme with vegans. An animal that is evolutionarily designed to roam miles in a day, essentially need movement to help with digestion, and can’t communicate pain isn’t an animal that can be ethically kept alive when it loses the ability to be comfortably mobile. It is better to euthanize any animal in order to prevent suffering that is to force them to live through it. Animals cannot conceptualize pain the way a human being can. A horse does not wake up in pain and think “well, thank god I’ve lived through another day!”. It wakes up, feels itself in pain, and suffers. 

Now, to indulge myself in my own controversial opinions... I think horse slaughter should be legalized in the United States and regulated in order to make sure it is done in an ethical manner. There is simply too high an over-populous of unethically bred horses that are not going to be placed in homes to justify the horrors involved in the shipment of horses to slaughter. Horses currently going through the slaughter pipeline due to being undesired go through horrific non-stop truck journeys in which they are crowded, starved, dehydrated, extremely stressed, and sometimes even die in the process of the trip. It’s a cruel end to the horse.  Horses are also extremely expensive animals that require a high degree of care in order for their needs to truly be met. This post referenced horse owners as spending an average of roughly $3,500 a year on their horse. That is a shockingly low number and indicative of how normalized neglectful care is. Prices of care certainly change based on location, but personally keeping my horse at an absolute basic level of care while assuming no vet emergencies are taking place and without factoring any of the expenses keeping her in work would entail.. I am at nearly $10k a year and that’s with doing the absolute minimum with zero preventative care.  I also have no issue with the sentiment of horse owners who’d like to see some “usefulness” out of the death of their horse. The practice of either taking the meat from your deceased horse for you family or to be given to the needy in the community is standard in Norway. It isn’t a taboo, it’s a sensible way to dispose of the corpse of a large animal in a way that doesn’t negatively impact the environment and honors the horse. I know people who have donated their horses’s corpses to wildlife sanctuaries to feed animals. For some people being able to ascribe some meaning pr purpose to the death of their animal is needed for coping. 

The major thing with this post is that it lacks the understanding of nuance. It condemns riding as a whole based off an awareness of abusive practices that activists within the community are trying to change. Arguments made are made without the education to back up the points being attempted and when all else fails it’s reliant on the classic militant vegan rhetoric about interaction with animals being exploitative. Ultimately while not as egregious as PETA thinking sheering sheep involves skinning them, this is the horse version of utterly misunderstanding the subject of the argument.

[bluewatsons]

Alone Ferber, Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in “anti-intellectual times”, New Statesman (September 22, 2020)

Alona Ferber: In Gender Trouble, you wrote that "contemporary feminist debates over the meanings of gender lead time and again to a certain sense of trouble, as if the indeterminacy of gender might eventually culminate in the failure of feminism”. How far do ideas you explored in that book 30 years ago help explain how the trans rights debate has moved into mainstream culture and politics?

Judith Butler: I want to first question whether trans-exclusionary feminists are really the same as mainstream feminists. If you are right to identify the one with the other, then a feminist position opposing transphobia is a marginal position. I think this may be wrong. My wager is that most feminists support trans rights and oppose all forms of transphobia. So I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen.

Alona Ferber: One example of mainstream public discourse on this issue in the UK is the argument about allowing people to self-identify in terms of their gender. In an open letter she published in June, JK Rowling articulated the concern that this would "throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman", potentially putting women at risk of violence.

Judith Butler: If we look closely at the example that you characterise as “mainstream” we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry.

Alona Ferber: I want to challenge you on the term “terf”, or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which some people see as a slur.

Judith Butler: I am not aware that terf is used as a slur. I wonder what name self-declared feminists who wish to exclude trans women from women's spaces would be called? If they do favour exclusion, why not call them exclusionary? If they understand themselves as belonging to that strain of radical feminism that opposes gender reassignment, why not call them radical feminists? My only regret is that there was a movement of radical sexual freedom that once travelled under the name of radical feminism, but it has sadly morphed into a campaign to pathologise trans and gender non-conforming peoples. My sense is that we have to renew the feminist commitment to gender equality and gender freedom in order to affirm the complexity of gendered lives as they are currently being lived.

Alona Ferber: The consensus among progressives seems to be that feminists who are on JK Rowling’s side of the argument are on the wrong side of history. Is this fair, or is there any merit in their arguments?

Judith Butler: Let us be clear that the debate here is not between feminists and trans activists. There are trans-affirmative feminists, and many trans people are also committed feminists. So one clear problem is the framing that acts as if the debate is between feminists and trans people. It is not. One reason to militate against this framing is because trans activism is linked to queer activism and to feminist legacies that remain very alive today. Feminism has always been committed to the proposition that the social meanings of what it is to be a man or a woman are not yet settled. We tell histories about what it meant to be a woman at a certain time and place, and we track the transformation of those categories over time. We depend on gender as a historical category, and that means we do not yet know all the ways it may come to signify, and we are open to new understandings of its social meanings. It would be a disaster for feminism to return either to a strictly biological understanding of gender or to reduce social conduct to a body part or to impose fearful fantasies, their own anxieties, on trans women... Their abiding and very real sense of gender ought to be recognised socially and publicly as a relatively simple matter of according another human dignity. The trans-exclusionary radical feminist position attacks the dignity of trans people.

Alona Ferber: In Gender Trouble you asked whether, by seeking to represent a particular idea of women, feminists participate in the same dynamics of oppression and heteronormativity that they are trying to shift. In the light of the bitter arguments playing out within feminism now, does the same still apply?

Judith Butler: As I remember the argument in Gender Trouble (written more than 30 years ago), the point was rather different. First, one does not have to be a woman to be a feminist, and we should not confuse the categories. Men who are feminists, non-binary and trans people who are feminists, are part of the movement if they hold to the basic propositions of freedom and equality that are part of any feminist political struggle. When laws and social policies represent women, they make tacit decisions about who counts as a woman, and very often make presuppositions about what a woman is. We have seen this in the domain of reproductive rights. So the question I was asking then is: do we need to have a settled idea of women, or of any gender, in order to advance feminist goals? . . . I put the question that way… to remind us that feminists are committed to thinking about the diverse and historically shifting meanings of gender, and to the ideals of gender freedom. By gender freedom, I do not mean we all get to choose our gender. Rather, we get to make a political claim to live freely and without fear of discrimination and violence against the genders that we are. Many people who were assigned “female” at birth never felt at home with that assignment, and those people (including me) tell all of us something important about the constraints of traditional gender norms for many who fall outside its terms. . . . Feminists know that women with ambition are called “monstrous” or that women who are not heterosexual are pathologised. We fight those misrepresentations because they are false and because they reflect more about the misogyny of those who make demeaning caricatures than they do about the complex social diversity of women. Women should not engage in the forms of phobic caricature by which they have been traditionally demeaned. And by “women” I mean all those who identify in that way.

Alona Ferber: How much is toxicity on this issue a function of culture wars playing out online?

Judith Butler: I think we are living in anti-intellectual times, and that this is evident across the political spectrum. The quickness of social media allows for forms of vitriol that do not exactly support thoughtful debate. We need to cherish the longer forms.

Alona Ferber: Threats of violence and abuse would seem to take these “anti-intellectual times” to an extreme. What do you have to say about violent or abusive language used online against people like JK Rowling?

Judith Butler: I am against online abuse of all kinds. I confess to being perplexed by the fact that you point out the abuse levelled against JK Rowling, but you do not cite the abuse against trans people and their allies that happens online and in person. I disagree with JK Rowling's view on trans people, but I do not think she should suffer harassment and threats. Let us also remember, though, the threats against trans people in places like Brazil, the harassment of trans people in the streets and on the job in places like Poland and Romania – or indeed right here in the US. So if we are going to object to harassment and threats, as we surely should, we should also make sure we have a large picture of where that is happening, who is most profoundly affected, and whether it is tolerated by those who should be opposing it. It won’t do to say that threats against some people are tolerable but against others are intolerable.

Alona Ferber: You weren't a signatory to the open letter on “cancel culture” in Harper's this summer, but did its arguments resonate with you?

Judith Butler: I have mixed feelings about that letter. On the one hand, I am an educator and writer and believe in slow and thoughtful debate. I learn from being confronted and challenged, and I accept that I have made some significant errors in my public life. If someone then said I should not be read or listened to as a result of those errors, well, I would object internally, since I don't think any mistake a person made can, or should, summarise that person. We live in time; we err, sometimes seriously; and if we are lucky, we change precisely because of interactions that let us see things differently . . . On the other hand, some of those signatories were taking aim at Black Lives Matter as if the loud and public opposition to racism were itself uncivilised behaviour. Some of them have opposed legal rights for Palestine. Others have [allegedly] committed sexual harassment. And yet others do not wish to be challenged on their racism. Democracy requires a good challenge, and it does not always arrive in soft tones. So I am not in favour of neutralising the strong political demands for justice on the part of subjugated people. When one has not been heard for decades, the cry for justice is bound to be loud.

Alona Ferber: This year, you published, The Force of Nonviolence. Does the idea of “radical equality”, which you discuss in the book, have any relevance for the feminist movement?

Judith Butler: My point in the recent book is to suggest that we rethink equality in terms of interdependency. We tend to say that one person should be treated the same as another, and we measure whether or not equality has been achieved by comparing individual cases. But what if the individual – and individualism – is part of the problem? It makes a difference to understand ourselves as living in a world in which we are fundamentally dependent on others, on institutions, on the Earth, and to see that this life depends on a sustaining organisation for various forms of life. If no one escapes that interdependency, then we are equal in a different sense. We are equally dependent, that is, equally social and ecological, and that means we cease to understand ourselves only as demarcated individuals. If trans-exclusionary radical feminists understood themselves as sharing a world with trans people, in a common struggle for equality, freedom from violence, and for social recognition, there would be no more trans-exclusionary radical feminists. But feminism would surely survive as a coalitional practice and vision of solidarity.

Alona Ferber: You have spoken about the backlash against “gender ideology”, and wrote an essay for the New Statesman about it in 2019. Do you see any connection between this and contemporary debates about trans rights?

Judith Butler: It is painful to see that Trump’s position that gender should be defined by biological sex, and that the evangelical and right-wing Catholic effort to purge “gender” from education and public policy accords with the trans-exclusionary radical feminists' return to biological essentialism. It is a sad day when some feminists promote the anti-gender ideology position of the most reactionary forces in our society.

Alona Ferber: What do you think would break this impasse in feminism over trans rights? What would lead to a more constructive debate?

Judith Butler: I suppose a debate, were it possible, would have to reconsider the ways in which the medical determination of sex functions in relation to the lived and historical reality of gender.

[cishater]

About/BYF/DNI:

Before you follow: -I reclaim the words autist and transsexual. If that makes you uncomfortable, then don’t follow me. If I followed you, then you can block me if you don’t want to interact. -I talk a lot about hating cis people and allistics. Trans allistics and cis autistic people are not exempt from my ire. -I post A LOT of discourse. -I have a legitimate reason as to why I don’t list my exact age or any other specific identifying details about myself. Please don’t ask about it, I really don’t like to talk about it. All I’ll say is that a certain someone won’t take “no” for an answer. -Sometimes I misspeak or say things in a way that’s hard to understand for other people, so if you need me to clarify something, just ask. -Do not ask me for my birthday, my exact age, my zodiac sign, my personality type, my DND alignment, or anything about my genitals/transition progress. I will share this stuff if I want to, but not if asked.

Do Not Interact: T(W)ERFs/radfems, Nazis, racists/anti-BLM, Islamophobes, otherwise religiously intolerant.

Do not follow: T(W)ERFs/SWERFs/radfems/gender critical, Nazis, DDLG/littlespace, MAPs/NOMAPs/PEARs/pedos, racists, Islamophobes, religiously intolerant, pro-life, fatphobes, pro-shippers/anti-antis, you refer to yourself or others as “TEHMs,” truscum, “cis transmeds,” exclusionists, REGs, “binaryphobes,” anti-MOGAI, enbyphobes/skeptics, intersexists, fujoshis, ableists. That’s quite a list, I know.

Ask to follow: -Cis people (especially cishets or a cis men). Questioning people who identify as cis but aren’t sure if they’re actually cis or not can follow without asking. -Christians. Christians can follow if I followed first. -Allistics.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Stances:

-Transcompassionist/Tucute/anti-trumed. Gender dysphoria is not needed to be trans. Gender incongruence is, however.

-Inclus. Arospec, aspec, and mspec people belong in the LGBTQ+ community despite who they’re dating/attracted to.

-Anti. Ships that involve p3dophil1a, abuse, inc3st, r*pe, and z00phil1a, are harmful and people, especially traumatized people and children, should not have to be exposed to it.

-Anti-fujoshi/fudanshi/yaoi fan. Stop fetishizing men who love men.

-Also stop fetishizing women who love women and trans people.

-Pro-Black Lives Matter, anti-All Lives/Blue Lives Matter. Just anti-cop in general.

-Pro-MOGAI.

-Pro-neopronouns.

-Anti-Auti$m $peak$ and anti-ABA “therapy.”

-Pronouns =/= gender.

-Neutral on system discourse, as I am a singlet and have no place in such discourse. Please do not try to involve me in system discourse. If it makes you uncomfortable that I’m neutral, you can block me.

-Pro-otherkin/fictionkin/therian/etc.

-Anti-MAP/pedo/DDLG/CGL/MDLB, non-system littles/non-system and/or non-trauma age regression.

-Anti-TERF/TWERF/SWERF/radfem/”gender critical.” I don’t debate T(W)ERFs because their arguments are inherently invalid and wrong.

- “Binaryphobia” is transmisogynistic. Enbyphobia does exist, but that doesn’t mean trans women can oppress nonbinary people.

-GNC trans people are valid. You’re allowed to present however you want, this does not take away from your transness.

-Goy/goyim/gentile, cis/cishet, and T(W)ERF are not slurs.

-Queer is a valid identity, and the word was reclaimed decades ago. If you have trauma attached to that word, then I will tag it for you if you ask.

-Educated self-dx is valid.

-F*mboy is a transmisogynistic slur.

If you wanna know my opinions on anything else, feel free to ask.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Anything else you should know about me. I am:

-White.

-Queer.

-Trans male (not entirely binary, but mostly binary). I use he/him pronouns exclusively. I’m TME. Mister or Mixter, please.

-Severely dysphoric.

-Autistic and mentally ill.

-Goyische.

-An adult (under 25, over 18).

Feel free to correct me or tell me if I talk out of line, I am here to learn from my mistakes and uplift voices, and I’m never ignorant on purpose.

This post may be periodically updated.

[things-we-used-tc-share]

Symbols

Thank you to @breebro for commissioning me!

Warnings: Sympathetic Deceit, Angst

Ship: None

Plot: Deceit is struggling to comprehend what this might mean for Thomas, in the meantime, the others are debating what this means for Thomas. 

Please read Branded first!

When they were all a little younger, Creativity had an idea, that is after all his job-ideas. When they were all ready and when Thomas was ready, the sturdier parts of his personality should have symbols to represent their parts to play. It had been a nice idea, but once it was in Thomas’ mind, it was unfortunately no longer up to Creativity to decide who got the brands and when. 

Patton got his first, he was bouncing on the balls of his feet with excitement, showing his little heart on his chest as he smiled around at them. Roman had found it endearing, Logan a little too fanciful for his taste, but he agreed it was a good idea. That night, the coat of arms that Roman was all too familiar with in his dreams appeared with a scratch of pain on his arm. 

Two weeks later, Logan, the last of the three to fully accept the idea to what other’s might call a heart, has his appear at the base of his neck. The three of them quietly admired them for a while after that, although Logic often struggled because he couldn’t technically see his, ironic considering Thomas so often loses sight of his actual Logic. 

A couple years later, after Virgil is revealed to have a functional purpose and is ready to be accepted into the group as much as they are ready to accept him, wake up to a rather sharp hiss of pain as his brand appears. He wasn’t quite happy about it, but he got used to it after a while. 

Now, mirroring the same spot over his heart that Morality had received his, Deceit stares blankly at his own reflection. He’d wanted Thomas to consider him and he’d wanted Thomas to think about his methods every now and then. But this? No matter how smug he pretended to act there is no way Deceit can pretend this is a good idea; the twenty-nine-year-old may be a little scattered at times but he is a good person. 

Thomas is a good person.

And there is no room for Deceit behind the rails of decision making, in a good person. He sits on the edge of his bed and stares at his hands. Every time he thinks about peeking outside his door he can hear the four of them arguing downstairs; he’d managed to upset Patton once again and although he shouldn’t care as much as he fears he does, Patton is at the core of many of Thomas’ feelings. As long as Patton is distressed then so is their host. 

He flops back on the bed and stares at the ceiling, all around this was bad news, and no matter how much he tries to consider the good points all he can think of is that unconsciously Thomas will continue to use his deception as a means. Right?

Deceit sighs, pushing his brown hair from his eyes as he opens the door and creeps to the top of the stairs to listen. 

“Perhaps this simply isn’t as bad as you assume Patton,” Roman sounds stressed, tired despite it not even being afternoon. As he peaks through the railings to see them stood in a circle talking, except Virgil whose sitting on the breakfast bar, studying them with exhaustion written on his face. 

“Roman’s correct, even if Deceit is now being factored into Thomas’ decision making, unconsciously or not, his end goal is to make sure Thomas isn’t disadvantaged, not turn him into a moral-less person,” Logan added into the conversation, his arms folded firmly across his chest. “We all want what’s best for Thomas,”

“No, Deceit wants what’s best for him,” Virgil throws in, sliding off the breakfast bar to approach them “He couldn’t care less about Thomas,” 

“That’s a little harsh Virgil,” Roman adds quietly and Deceit thinks ‘at least one person isn’t completely lost in their dislike for me,’ Not that he can entirely blame them he did, after all, impersonate their friend and try to get Thomas to lie to his best friend. In his defense, he does want what’s best for Thomas but his job is to go about it in ways that other’s might not. 

His job is to lie. 

He hates that his job is to play the villain, like every person in the world constantly chooses not to lie; of course not, the world is full of liars, and it’s the liars that always get the best options. But Thomas isn’t like that is he, thanks to Patton he’d rather be disadvantaged than be false.

“Virgil’s right,” Patton adds in, his voice is laced with distaste and something that sounded between sadness and anger. “Deceit’s job is to be the antithesis of everything that I helped shape Thomas to be, that other people have shaped him to be, a good person,” Logan sighs and turns around with a shake of his head, grabbing his cup of coffee off the tabletop. 

Deceit goes to stand and move away but the stairs creak under his weight, loud in the silence and diverting all attention to his place at the top of the stairs. He swallows slightly. “Have any of us tried asking his opinion on this?” Logan interjects, “It might be beneficial to understand...”

“If you can get him to tell the truth for two seconds,” 

Virgil’s glare sets fire to Deceit’s nerves and he pulls a cool expression in response “I am perfectly capable of telling the truth,” He steps down the stairs under the assumption that if he’s made his bed, he might as well sleep in it. “I solemnly swear,”

“That you’re up to no good,” Virgil finishes blankly.

“Hilarious,” The deceptive side mutters sarcastically “My opinion is that this isn’t good,” only Logan manages to conceal his surprise as the other three pull various expressions of incredulity “But it can be good,” Everyone starts to talk at once, and he rolls his eyes with a sigh as the bickering ensues. He meets Logan’s eyes across the arguing and the logical side is regarding him with curiosity, once again, studying his expression blankly. 

“Perhaps we should consult Thomas,” he mutters, adjusting his necktie, before repeating himself, louder. “It is Thomas’ decision after all whatever that may be, that had lead to Deceit taking a seat at the figurative control panel, so we should consult Thomas on this,” Silence falls and they all exchange looks. 

“I suppose, it couldn’t hurt,” Patton replies quietly, carding a hand through his hair nervously “It would make sense to talk to Thomas after all,”

Deceit nods slowly. It does make sense, and he couldn’t believe they were all sharing one collective brain cell long enough to not have come up with that in the first place. 

Thomas is not used to visitors it seems, as he jumps out of his skin the moment they appear, spilling a bowl of popcorn all over his couch. He sighs and shakes his head “I wish you guys would just stop appearing out of nowhere, especially you two,” He points to Anxiety and Deceit “I wish there was a way to give me some forewarning,”

“There isn’t, and we’re here now what did you do?” Anxiety brushes past the others and glaring at Thomas with narrowed eyes, his face made up of set and heavy lines as he focuses on his host. The man blinks back, a small ‘uhhh’ escaping him in his confusion. He looks over to Roman, Patton, and Logan, then to Deceit. 

“What...did I do?” 

Logan sighs in response, “It seems that Deceit has gotten a brand,” He starts, his hands clasping as he talks “Which means he’s now a part of your decision-making process permanently, the assumption is something about you has changed that we can’t quite understand,” Thomas’ expression remains blank. 

“I...don’t feel any different,”

“Well something’s very different and very wrong,” Virgil snaps, his patience already so thin and breaking with each piece of hope that’s torn away from him “So start thinking, because he’s here, and he’s got his mark,” But Thomas’ face only looks anxious. 

“I don’t think he has done anything different,” Patton mutters sadly, “And as much as I hate to say it, I don’t think Deceit has either, except for making his presence more known,” He pauses, sighing “I think that now Thomas knows he’s here, he can’t be unaware of him anymore, which means he must consider Deceit in his decision making,” They all go quiet. 

It’s Thomas that breaks the silence “Why does that have to be so bad?” The looks between surprise and grief vary on each face “I mean I have always considered lying, that’s human...right Logan?” Logan nods “Even if I do consider Deceit that doesn’t mean I have to choose him, it just means it’s harder not to choose him,” Virgil un-tenses a little, his expression reading ‘really?’ “If he’s a part of me now, it’s not about pushing him away, it’s about accepting and listening to him and making an educated decision from all of your perspectives,”

“Which means he has to stop benching people whenever he feels like it,” Virgil adds bitterly, his gaze fixated on the deceitful facet. 

“That’s part of my job,” Virgil hisses in response. “I’ll see what I can do,” He sighs “But I can’t not do my job, it’s what I’m created to do, you can’t expect me to change because without it Thomas doesn’t have the option not to choose and that’s important,” The host nods in response, gesturing in Deceit’s general direction with a defeated look “And sometimes lying is the right answer, or at least learning to put yourself first,”

“Lying is never the right answer!” Patton retorts, leaning towards the other with a stern expression. 

“Maybe this is precisely why he’s here,” Logan interjects, gesturing towards the two. “To some extent, Deceit is right, putting oneself first is almost essential to survival especially in a society founded on lying, if you look at the examples around you do you think any of them got where they are by not lying? Now I’m not insinuating that Thomas should become a deceitful person by any means, but as I’ve stated previously given all the variations of lying that exist it would be almost impossible for him not to lie, and lies can serve a purpose,” He pauses “Sometimes lies are beneficial for all parties involved, and sometimes lying consecutively can create a hypothetical web impossible to escape from, the two of you represent each extreme- Patton believes in no circumstance should you lie, whereas Deceit believes there is never a situation where a lie cannot be used,” 

Roman is the first to understand the logical facet’s words “So Deceit and Patton...balance each other out?”

“Precisely, both ends of this spectrum is ‘toxic’ by itself,” Logan adds “But if they can learn to find a middle ground...”

“Then they can act with each other instead of against, find a compromise,” Thomas finished, looking slightly dazed from retaining all that information. Logan gestures towards him with a nod, agreeing with him. “Can I...see it? I’ve seen everyone else's,” Deceit pauses and steps forward in front of them all, lifting up his shirt to show the ink on his chest. 

Thomas stares for a moment and nods. “It suits you,” he pauses “It’s in the same place as Patton’s,” Patton flinches a little, his arms folding protectively across his chest “I guess it makes sense if you are supposed to balance each other out,” 

Logan unconsciously brings a hand up to the back of his neck, his fingertips brushing over where the ink is, Roman mimics his movement on the other side of the room, his hand coming up to rest on his arm. Virgil simply looks restless. “It might take some time to adapt,” Deceit mutters “But,” He sighs, slightly resentful “I’m sure we can work something out,” The look he gives shows he really does not want to get started on that right away, but Roman gives him a hopeful smile and he can’t help but give the tiniest semblance of one in response. 

“I don’t like it,” Virgil throws his hands up in defeat “But whatever, sure, if it means things are more efficient or whatever,” He shakes his head “But if you try anything Deceit I swear to God, you will not like the consequences,”

Silence falls as they exchange looks, trying to compute what the future might hold. Only Logan fails to look somewhat worried, as he takes in the emotions of the others and turns his head away slightly, his hand still over the symbol on the base of his neck. 

It’s not like Deceit can see right through him, he reassures himself, it’s not like Deceit knows about his doubts as he tries to keep the worry off his face. 

But it does, after all, take a liar to know a liar. And Logan had perfected the art of lying a long time ago.

@analogical-mess // @unikornavenger // @mycatshuman // @creativity-killed-thekitten//@theresneverenoughfandoms//@charmingprincey//@aclickonapostwillchangeyourlife//@heck-im-lost //@k9cat//@stilljittery//@romansleftshoulderpad//@sanderssideslibrary // @max-is-tired//@therealmoshar//@punsterterry//@trashypansexual// @wxlcomxtothxjunglx//@demigodnamedathena//@sevencrashing//@misunderstood-shadow //@aphriteblack//@jemthebookworm//@sandersandthesides//@penguinkool//@georganabanana//@importantrunawaystudentstuff // @ao-koshka  //@dangerous-doodle  // @smilyslimyboi // @no-sleep-gang-posts

[migleefulmoments]

Even if Mia did choose not to wear a bra for attention, it's Halloween and a lot of women choose to dress in more revealing costumes for the holiday. She was honestly covered up and that was the only part of her body that was really showing (nipples). So who the hell cares? They literally just look for anything to pick apart, it's insane!

We live under patriarchal rules that women’s breasts and specifically nipples are to be covered at all times-including while feeding infants- because they are sexual playthings to be hidden from men lest they go mad with lust and lose control. Men controlling out bodies and making us feel bad because they cannot control their own sexual impulses is outdated and always been so damn wrong . In 2019 we still have women hiding in public bathrooms to nurse their infants because men can’t handle the very idea that they are forced to think about the nipple being suckled. 

One of Abby’s followers wrote a brilliant take down of Abby’s outdated diatribe but ruined it by ending it by slut shaming Mia anyway.  Abby gave her an perfectly patriarchal answer proving she DOES NOT get it at all...she gave a “I agree BUT....” answer.

Anonymous asked:Just saw the snap chat “kiss” pic... why isn’t anyone talking about the fact that you can literally see thru her top! And no bra?! Seriously? How can she walk out in public like that?! Maybe at a private party but in public with pics?!! I’m no prude but she might as well have gone topless — even the stripper in the vids has her nips covered! (if your comment is a denial of the label followed by a “but” you are exactly that person) 

ajw720 answered: Oh we talked about it Sunday, she is not wearing a bra and the top is COMPLETELY see through.  I honestly didn’t even realize how much until she posted this set of photos.  And I never needed to see this.  Guess I am not woke.  And she is a super feminist that likes to flaunt her body. You know, a feminist that 100% utterly and completely relies on a man to be relevant and has ZERO accomplishments of her own.  (Again none of these things you mention preclude her from being a feminist.  Feminists can flaunt their bodies, have sex with men, love men, own a business and live with a man, even be stay-at-home moms and still be feminists). What a role model!!

lrpbabyy This is something that I totally disagree with. Wearing a bra is in fact a debatable thing inside feminism.We have to ask ourselves women why we have to use them when they are really unnecessary. Of course there are cases which women have big breasts and it hurts or it makes hurt their backs so, yes, they wear bras because it helps and it fulfills a purpose. Besides that, it’s an imposition. The patriarchal society imposes us women to use bras. We use them because our breasts and nipples are sexualized; because most men seem to not know how to act in a civil way whether they see covered or not boobs; because men think they own our bodies and its purpose is to satisfy them, they are happy to see boobs only when they are for their “consumption”, if not, they call us sluts and body-shame us; because that’s our occidental objectifying culture. Other cultures such as African tribes in which women go around with free nipples and men don’t drool over themselves, harass women or just act like dogs in heat because they are seeing their tits out. It’s a cultural thing and we have to educate and be educated. (Yes, all excellent points!) You can say well our breasts are different than men’s. Yes and no. We share the same ducts and mammary glands, they are just bigger. Although, men’s breasts can be used for a sexual purpose, they are still not sexualized like ours, so that’s why they can show them freely.So what I’m trying to say is that our bodies are not obscene, our breasts are not obscene by default, they are sexualized by our society.So going back to M, yes she’s a despicable woman, she is not decent, she has no class, she has poorly behaviour and she hurts D (No, those are all lies Abby tells you. Find one example of these behaviors that wasn’t told to you by Abby or DisneyPrincess)  But that has nothing to do with her decision to use a bra or not.  She objectifies herself and tries to sell her body? Yes, and that’s sad. (*What the actual fuck? As a feminist she CAN objectify herself because SHE OWNS her sexuality- men don’t. But that said, when does she do anything that could label as objectifying herself? And sell her body? WHAT? Lies lies lies lies. You lost your feminist credibility with this last part).  But I don’t feel disgusted by her boobs, I feel disgusted because she’s just a horrible person.. Finally, I want to clarify that I’m not making this a rant or whatever, this is my point of view and I just think that it’s always a good time to talk about feminism and learn and speak about what happens to us women and how we still live submitted.

notes-from-nowhere Precisely this.What it doesn’t come out from what is written is that the issue is not wearing or not a bra and if this is something that makes you a feminist. (the following nonsense is all about how the coven  know Mia’s motivation for everything she does and she isn’t a feminist but of courser that is under their misunderstanding of feminism) The issue is that M uses this trick to bring attention to her, she exaggerates behaviors (No, actually you all can’t stop staring at her, searching her out and obsessing about her. Mia has backed off and made her social media private to keep away from you all) and exposes herself and her body not because she wants to fight women rights or because she wanted to be free from others claims, she does it because this way she is talked about. The worst part is that she is not honest enough to admit that she wants attention (that still is a legit and harmless desire) but she sells her behavior as feminism. It’s wrong, it’s dangerous, it’s pointless and it’s doing the exact opposite of what feminism is about. And her young fans don’t bother to check facts, they just believe what she saying and so they grew up with the idea that being a feminist means to run around with no bra, to insult people, to spread love like legs.(How the hell would anyone “fact check” Mia’s motivation for behavior? Mia doesn’t have public social media, a podcast or a blog. There is no place int which to fact check Mia except Abby’s mind. Forgive me for not believing Abby has insight into Mia’s behavior) The bra is not the problem but it become one when she tries to say to people she doesn’t wear one because she is a feminist instead of an attention seeker.(Oh the bra isn’t the problem BUT....)

ajw720@ lrpbabyy I agree with you, I do and I know sometimes I sound harsh when it comes to M.  But the issue here, is she is not doing this, as @notes-from-nowhere said, because she is a super feminist who wants to show she is equal to a man. (another ”I agree with you but....” statements and again Abby knows Mia’s motivation. This is fundamentally impossible since Mia has not spoke publicly about her motivation or beliefs in many years,)  She is doing it for attention, plain and simple. (Oh but Abby, you give her more attention than any one emotionally-healthy person would ever want) This is a desperate cry for people to stop focusing on D and his accomplishments and C and his accomplishments and saying “talk about me, talk about me” and by doing things like not wearing a bra with a sheer white shirt, she knows we will react and then her stans will defend her and call her a feminist and say we are not “woke” (I don’t get that word at all).This is her tactic as opposed to actually trying to accomplish something that would garner her praise.M is the opposite of a feminist and a role model (But Mia isn’t looking for your praise Abby. She doesn’t even know you exist- you just WANT her to need your praise.).  And it must be continuously emphasized. Using your body for attention is wholly different than feeling than not wearing a bra for all the reasons you describe.  (Damn, you just don’t get it. It must be continuously emphasized that you really don’t understand anything about feminism). And I too am tired of her being held out as this role model when she is in reality an utterly deplorable person that uses a man that hates her and that she is actively oppressing for relevance and is willing to do nearly anything to get attention including forcing D to remain in the closet (So stop stalking her. Your anxiety would be so much better).

[cptdarkmoon]

The Nature of Freedom

To my darling wife, Coral Cays, and our beautiful children Angel and Atlas. You are the wind in my sails that keeps me going every day.

Preface.

What do you beleive happens when you sleep? Do you simply, rest and see memories of the mind's imagitions, or is it something more divine? Perhaps you learn to travel out of your body, into new realms seeking new adventures? And what of the animals that serve beneath you, or the wretched simpler life, like that of Goblins? Delving further what of the magical mechanations we've created? Do constructs dream of magical sheep? When I was a boy, I often found myself staring at the stars and asking myself these questions, so full of wonder, looking up into the endless twinkling black thinking of the gods that must be looking down at me. Now, through the world's history I've witnessed, the truths of our natures, when I see stars that's all they are. When I dream there is no mystery. This was no accident, these were blatant choices I've made that have ended up in mythical places. Is such happenstance fate, or something more chaotic? From womb to tomb, are we destined to walk a certain track, a destiny written in the sky, or are we something more sincere, pearls amongst stars? If you'd ask a Nexus priest, I'm sure they would happily inform you of Light's divine plan for us, and how everything happens for a reason, if you dared ask a priest of Tempesta, I'm sure they would inform you that life is painful and pointless chaos, swirling around the void until we meet a bitter and angry end. Gods truly are black and white. I wish to inform you of what I've dicovered not as a priest of a mighty god, or as a king of a noble country, but as the son of a farmer, who reached farther than he ever imagined. My hope is to inspire young adventurers, create true debates, and advance our way of thinking beyond the gilded cage we seem to love.

Musings on Society and Government.

I have spent many years studying why we as creatures restrict ourselves to certain laws and orders. The simple term is to create peace between many different peoples, to create an aura of safety in groupings. Then why does not all of nature do such things? Nexus demands order in our world, while the conflicting Tempesta demands chaos. Birds have no laws to live together with squirrels, fish need no government to swim with the ocean's tide. Why is this that nature can seem to flow in chaos yet survive regardless of our struggles? This is the question I have sought to answer for over five hundred years, but have only found debate. Now regardless of our debates on whether or not a magpie is flying, or swimming through the sky, do not effect what truth is, it will still soil our heads. I have seen the tyranny of nobles and kingdoms, and the theocracy of great churches, in my life I have witnessed as well a great experiment performed by The Good King Henry the 21st called Democracy. A small town that began as Picket was given priveledge by The Good King to choose it's own local noble. Each person was allowed a vote in who ruled them, which at the time was unheard of outside of bandits and pirates. It was one of the most fascinating things I've witnessed take place, but even that had a flaw. There is one revolving factor in each of these systems and their offspring that makes them weak, and top heavy. Knowledge, or rather a great lack there of. For a person to look to a leader, elected or birthed, and follow blindly it will undoubtedly end in following off into the grave, even with doubt against the ruling class, the general masses will ostracize them and carry them there regardless of struggles. Simply put, ignorance will weaken a society, I've witnessed it in every form, from friendships to Kingdoms. This ignorance is nurtured in several ways, either in a "Trust in your leader, and they will carry you to victory!" creating a reliance on those above you, so you never have to take responsibiliy for your failings, or attempt to think for yourself in a grander fashion than "where should I EXPLETIVE today?" Next, is a more Clandestine form of ignorance, that in which leaders will use lies and manipulation to make the masses beleive they know what is truly happening, in certain cases this will embolden your subjects to make them fight harder, but it has the same risks that all Clandesta followings do. Temples built on lies will soon collapse under the weight of them, once a simple brick is overturned, the entire structure collapses, the seed of doubt is the poison to this form of ignorance, and soon leads to rebellions. A much kinder form of raising ignorant masses is the illusion of education. Whatever power structure you find yourself under will offer education, if you simply seek it, pursuing the officials for pieces of information, but never quite making everything known, if this act were father, apathy would be mother. One cannot care enough to jump through the hoops and obstacles to discover what needs to be known, so they simply sit back in an apathetic and angry shell and await the choices that will be made for them. This form of Ignorance is something I am deeply familiar with, and have witnessed for most of my life. I've seen this happen due to something that I've come to refer to as the Falconer's Law. 

Falconer's Law Explained.

Falcons are great and mighty birds, hunters in the sky, as fast as lightning and deadly as a dragon to their prey. They know no greater where they take flight, never looking up for they fly the highest. So ask yourself this, how do Falconers tame such mighty creatures into servants who work for scraps? A wild Falcon must find it's own roost, hunt it's own prey, make it's own path in the world alone, at risk of failure, of lonliness, of death. But the clumsy and soft Falconer will offer safety, companionship, and an easier life, in return for a life barred in a guilded cage. The Falcon will sacrifice it's pride, it's freedoms, and it's strength, for an easier life, where it needs no responsibility. Much of the intelligent world has followed in suit.

In a perfect world, one where greed and doubt did not exist, and our own personal Fiends did not sail our ships to comfortable shores, we would have no need for government, or law in general. A well educated populace will develop it's own sense of morality to fit it's habitat, such as mice will eat their young to survive, but will rarely be shunned for an act. They will survive and protect, perserve their homes, and come together under threats. Many fear such things, because this means equality, and that word strikes fear into the hearts of nearly every living being. I have yet to meet a soul that is free of greed, and megalomania. Those in power wish to force their will onto others, for their own percieved benevolent purposes, and those under heel wish to take whatever they can in hopes to reach the top of the ladder, to force their boot on anothers neck. Equality rids us of such a cycle, no need for whips to cause toil in fields, no need to beg on streets for coin. Imagine if you will, a city devoted to itself in equality. Spies couldn't thrive, their subterfuge would be rooted out by anyone that caught wind of it, lies and untruth would wither looking for shelter. Sickness would soon find no safe harbor inside of it's walls, for each and every individual would take steps to prevent such a thinning of their herd. In times of war, an entire province uniting under arms, trained by eachother in powerful hit and run tactics, it would be a nightmare to conqeur, it's very culture would repel those who wish to oppress it. A city built in Chaos, and finding order amongst it, a balance of things, not built by some juggernaut of the powers that be, but by simple and honest free folk. Unity is terrfiying to those wishing to destroy. Such a system I have dreamt of, and only achieved once. It's most common name that I have found is Anarchy, but that implies something sinister, a rebellious cause looking to consume. I find the word Liberty, to be much more fitting. A form of existing without a Government, with personal freedoms and equality being what holds the unity of the masses together. After all, whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own lives.

The Three Paths of Life.

I have found, that regardless of upbringing or faith, we will all see three choices stretch out before us, and these will dictate our life indefinetly without us ever even knowing it. The Path of the Many, the Path of the Few, and the Path of the Self. Each of us have picked from these since birth, and have been shaped by the results, they are not exclusive, rarely will one be able to follow one path consistently throughout their lives, but undoubtedly will a free thinking being juggle between these three paths until their eventual death. These paths are not simply exclusive to one another, they cross at many points creating unique experiences and choices that we may enjoy, or deeply regret.

The Path of the Many. This is a beautiful and terrifying path to choose, like that of a hurricane, or tornado on the horizon. A volcano erupting in a flash of brilliant color. This path is made to satisfy the greater good, the survival of the whole, of existence, of the gods. Normally spurred on by a will higher than your own, be it a king or a god, it requires sacrifice and vigilance, but will ensure that others will be able to follow along, continuing the story. It is selfless, rarely recorded in history the names that followed this path to the bloody end, but known in the root of every tree, the drops in every ocean. They exist due to those few who follow this path, and ensure we all have a world to survive on, a city to thrive in, a chance to see the sun rise over the darkest night. While this is by far the noblest and most story book path, almost none are able to truly follow it, sacrifices too great to make, many follow this path but for a moment, and then resent the results of an uncaring world simply happy to carry on without knowing how close it was to truly ending. The ego prevents us from following this path for very long, save in the rare indivdual who finds calling in this. I have been lucky enough to meet at least one individual with such mentality, and I seek to show him that his work is not going unnoticed.

The Path of the Few. This path is commonly mistaken as the Hero's path, one that ensures the survival of a town, a group, a limited populace. It is the most common path for those wishing to do good to choose, it is foolhardy with good intentions, clumsy but loving, imperfect but easy. I have known many who walk this path, seen its effects, the fame that follows. It's cause stems from selfishness, political gain, and pride. Even selfish actions, done for others, can have positive effects, it creates adventurers who seek out glory, but defeat a mob of orcs threatening a mining town. In other cases, it pushes a politician to usurp power from corrupt politicians by empowering the poor and downtrodden. While they gain benefit and power from their actions, they aid those around them in the process. This is one of the more common choices people end up making, and some of the more famous choices.

The Path of the Self. This is a path of necessity, and yet it is the darkest path of all. if the Many represents light, then this would be Dark. Yet despite it's inherent inclination for horrid actions, it is necessary for our survival. This is the path that serves those that enslave children for cheap labor, but ensures that we will kill while our lives are threatened. In a much less dramatic sense, it is what allows us to look past the killing of animals for food, or in some cases, the killing of free thinking creatures for food. An act that allows us to thrive yet at the cost of life around us. Refusing this path for too long can be dangerous, forcing you to indulge in it at great excess. Dark followers most often follow this path exclusively, choosing an easier path of caring only for themselves, but ensuring the world does not get lost in selflessness. One must be selfish to ensure your own survival, or we'd be buried in the bones of martyrs. If we live solely for the purpose of others than we have only lived as slaves to them. Truly do we not deserve to enjoy the fruits of our own labor? To see the sweat of our brow water our own fields instead of those above us?

Now to those who do not beleive in the freedom of our choices and actions, the paths we walk are predetermined, however hard it may be to see, our destiny has us going down a series of events with a set outcome. I like to think we are less restricted than that, that we choose our own actions regardless of their noble light, or cruel intent. We are our own heroes, or villains. I have travelled down all 3 of these paths in my life, following closer to the middle and bottom than I'd like to admit, but without honesty, there can be no change. Undoubtedly though, we each have the freedom to choose what steps we take, what path we follow and what consiquences we accept. Not all choices are clear however, and seldom are they ever easy to make. Those stuck in the most hopless of situations may hear these words and argue "How can I ever choose anothers life over mine? How can I change the path that I have been set on!" and I truly do understand, in a situation where a blade is held to the one you love, and words demanding of you "Obey or they die" what path is the best to follow? What truth will you discover in yourself when that moment comes, and can you percieve the changes that it will have on you? Sacrficing freedom for survival of others, The Path of the Few is painful, however Sacrificing your loved one to defy the enemy and prevent their victory, The Path of the Many is all too crippling

[eternalsyzygy]

what is wrong with acting out on hedonistic pleasures, so long as no one ever is getting hurt? Is it better to make this life’s meaning or to live without a means of purpose? Because what if i’ve tried to find some sense as to why living is worth it, and this is the only reasoning i can find? Living to live and just that. Why is that so wrong? Conforming means I fall back into routine which means I fall back into my original state of emotionless, uncomfortable comfort. I recently read a book that concluded life’s meaning was to make your own meaning, whatever that may be. I know mine sounds selfish, that many others purposes sound much more meaningful whether it’s dedicating themselves to a God or lifestyle or work or another being, and of course many other people’s meanings aim to tip the universe’s scale far heavier and impactful then my intended goal, but at the end of the day, aren’t all of our supposed purposes just ways to make us feel better about ourselves? and everyone can help themselves feel better about their own definitions of “meaning” by wrapping it with pretty strings of reasonings in which they include another being or entity outside themselves, but despite all the decorations, each and every one of our purposes stripped down to its core reveals some sort of personal intention and hopeful self-gain. is it wrong to conclude we’re all selfish anyways, doing things, whatever that might be, just to help us feel a little better about life and ourselves?

We have free will, and yes it can be negatively abused, but so long as i have moral conscience, self-control in actions that would hurt others, and empathy, which i do, shouldn’t it be okay to do what i please? and yes, i’ve considered the arguments and possible effects on a larger scale, if theoretically speaking, everyone approached life with this philosphy. But again: everyone’s meaning they’ve created to their own life differs from another, which, as bad as this sounds, seems to only further affirm the validity of my statement, because if other people find pleasure in being the leaders, the architects, the inventors, the activists, the protagonists, the speakers, the artists, why can’t i find pleasure in just being the follower, the resident, the citizen, the listener, the bystander, the muse, the unnamed character, the background noise so long as that’s what keeps me happy?

All i want in my life is to experience everything I possibly can, enjoy all i admire, love the souls that captivate me, and drench myself in all of the beauty my world has to offer. I want to see it all and feel it all. I desire the most palpable of emotions, the most entertaining of people, the most interesting of experiences, and the most educating of conflicts. And i want to endlessly grow, stretching myself to places, reaching out to people, expanding into foreign concepts and thoughts, sprouting into unique experiences until i’m no longer able to, until i eventually wither and shrink and decompose into our inevitable, collective fate.

my purpose is for me. Just like everyone else’s at it’s root. but because my purpose is also about me, it is harder to accept. i’m selfish. We all inherently are. I think the quicker you are at accepting it and realizing that it doesn’t make you a shit person, the easier it is to allow yourself to enjoy it all. So is it better i accept and allow myself to accept that i can only find joy in my hedonistic tendencies, or am i wrong for assuming that is all there is to life?

I know i am just reiterating already-asked questions, I know I am just realizing already-imagined ideas. I have, like all other people through experience, understood the likes of particular philosophical concepts before even officially learning of its title, birth and existence. I know there are no right answers, and i can probably spend the rest of my life debating with my own thoughts. I know meaning is subjective, and in the largest picture on the grandest scale, all of our subjective meanings will most likely have no meaning anyways. i also know i’m just screaming into my own infinite, black void here. I also know i’m hyped up on chemicals, and the sky is suddenly now bright, and the fog and dark of the night has disappeared all in what seems to be a moment’s glance. I know i have to return to my essay and find a way to finish it in an hours time, go to my class and go to my clubs, and continue on with things I barely want to do all the while pretending I flawlessly live out this chosen philosophy and am unique and lucky compared to the rest and that i hold the reigns on my life rather the other way around. but of course, nothing is fluid. i always will find everything a contradiction, the most conflicting of all contradictions being myself. but awareness is always the first step, so knowing all that I know, i’m at least sure i have the ability to try. So i will try to live out this concept, romanticizing every element in and outside of me, attempting to fool myself into believing there’s worth in making me more than I am. and that’s all I will do from this point on. Live. Live. Live.

[thevoilinauttheory]

title in progress

( the first part of my self-indulging fic, I guess lol. I meant for it to be short but now it has chapters so... here’s the first one. It’ll be under a cut for being so long, though here are some small details.

chapter 1/?

summary: shadowbringers spoilers - this will be tagged appropriately so it doesn’t come up on those who have these tags blocked. a studious amaurotine makes terrible mistakes and gets thrown into a series of events he really didn’t want to be a part of in the first place, but here he is. )

More things that needed tending to. More cataloging, more plants, more… terrifying fish in a pool of water that he shouldn’t have been afraid of, but was anyways. It was his work. To make sure everything was in its place and stayed in its place. Not that anything was going anywhere anytime soon - or ever, he had thought. He shuffled through books and memos, static keeping him company over a small radio device. There were words, though it cut in and out from the loss of signal. “More ill… injured… beasts run-... it’s a mess…” He never minded the static, it was better than the silence he dealt with usually. Something to stimulate him and his ever sprinting mind. He placed books back, moved to a desk and wrote down more. When the silence hit him once more, his head snapped towards his radio. “Philokrates.” The equally robed person in front of him had turned off his white noise. It irritated him somewhat. “Yes?” “Why do you never tune to something more tasteful, hm?” They picked up the small device and tuned to something lighter - soft jazz music, which, while Philokrates did not abhor, found it grating to listen to as he worked. “Taste is an opinion.” His words and body language did not speak the flinching and disgust that was hidden behind the mask on his face. “And in my opinion, I find music to be distracting while I study. The chattering of voices and debates are far more productive in stimulation.” “Very well.” They turned the radio back to the static and voices that echoed gently in the background of his mind. “I wished to make you aware of the group of children that are arriving soon. We have elected you to teach them of our faculties, procedures, and personnel here.” Elected - the word didn’t sit right. It felt more as if they were throwing him onto the duty simply because everyone knew he was a favorite of the budding students that often graced the Akadaemia. They could at least admit honestly to it, he would be more willing then. “I apologize. I am currently in the midst of groundbreaking work - for the illness that has been plaguing our people. If I may request that another take my place for the time being.” “Your work is not going anywhere.” “But our people are. I could debate this with you for the rest of our existence, but that would get neither of us anywhere. Please. Allow me this one day.” An audible sigh emitted from the robed figure, a shake of their hood and mask in disappointment. Their exasperation made known. “...If that is all that you need, then continue your work. I shall get Aniketos to take your place for the time being. Perhaps I could recommend visiting Phantomology for more answers - if it will quicken your progress.” “I appreciate your understanding. The recommendation has not gone unnoticed, however, I do not believe it necessary.” His words were the last that were spoken before he was left to the static and sudden screams that cut the station he listened to back to silence. He stared at it, heaving out a heavy sigh. There was a lot of work to be done, not enough time. This illness was spreading too quickly. His people turned to horrific beasts and monsters which no one had ever thought to create - and now the images were all anyone could see. He had hoped his newest creation would aide those who were showing the first signs of the illness. It was an utter shame that once turned, not even the strongest of creations could revert what damage had been done. Though in the progress of attempting to create asylum to those who suffer, he studied further to attempt understanding what their world was going through. There were nothing left in these books to guide him. He had gone through them all, pulled aside those that could aide him, then stacked them high as he grabbed his papers. One more stop. Phantomology was the section best kept to itself, both its creations and creators - they were not terrible folk. They engaged well in conversation. Though it was for those reasons that he found the quarter rather… intimidating. Having been founded by an esteemed member of the Convocation, the idea of running into such an individual made Philokrates’s spine shiver in anxiety. To be forced to have a conversation with them even more so. He had always lauded himself above others, finding himself to be superior in intellect. But there was a reason why he was but a cataloger of creations rather than a member of the Convocation - he could not deny that his intellect would be but a child’s compared to them. Lost in his thoughts once more, he picked up the small pile of books, his stack of papers, and his radio - which was promptly shoved into a pocket in his robes. He shuffled himself through hallways, tensely past the glass aquariums and caged botany creations. Round the corners of the institution, greeting others he had passed with a nod. Until the halls grew empty, quiet. The silence again. He hated it. It made him more anxious than he already was. His footsteps were all he could hear as he made his way to the Phantomology section. There was nobody here. In his confusion, he looked about for a sign or note that the section might have been closed off - but there was nothing. No students, no creators, not even the slightest hint of life. He cleared his throat loudly. “...Hello?” It was not the most graceful, nor educated, manner of presenting himself. But he would not intrude upon such a place if there were no one here. He peered around the corner, deeper into the quarter. Still no one. It was almost… eerie. Haunting. The halls echoed with every breath. He had a mind to turn around and leave, but his curiosity was piqued. There was no one here, who was to stop him from pulling but one book down to read? As his moral compass spun in circles, he had no time to register the tall being behind him. “It seems there is a visitor here, one from…?” The sudden voice had caused Philokrates to not only let out an uncharacteristic yelp, but jump and drop everything that he held. So startled and drawn back from his mind he was, he had barely the time to realize what happened before the black-robed man laughed at him. He stuttered in embarrassment kneeling down to gather up his belongings quickly. “Ph-Phytobiology.” “Phytobiology.” He repeated the word as he leaned over to pick up the scattered remains of the neat paper stack. He read over them, or at least, what he could of them. “...Is that so? Such progress for a man of one station, do you not think?” “I…” Philokrates cleared his throat. Right, stand tall, don’t show fear or anxiety or embarrassment. “...I pride myself in learning all that I can. I merely work in Phytobiology. I would not say it is my first choice in studies, however--” “However, it has led you to a conclusion that you believe to help our kind, yes?” The man picked up more of the papers, skimming over them. “As much as I would love to say that your conclusion has proved enlightening, we have already tried this method.” He stacked the papers neatly together and piled them on top of the books that Philokrates picked up. “We..?” He should not have questioned so soon. He should have ignored it. Instead, he made a much larger fool of himself. “Ah- I mean-... is that… right? I see. I had hoped some insight in Phantomology would prove to aide my work, though it seems I must return to hypotheses.” Despite the covered face, the position of the man’s body practically screamed that he had an inquisitive brow raised. He stood in silence and thought before lifting a finger to his mask, a gesture to keep silent, before beckoning him to follow. Philokrates blinked, stunned for a moment before scuffling along to keep up. He took in what he could of the area, before he was stopped at the end of another hallway. The dark-robed man gestured broadly to the desk off to the side, littered with papers and books - theories, testaments, pictures. All on the illness that spread so quickly. Philokrates stopped for a moment, turning his head to the mysterious and confusing man before setting down his belongings to look over everything that was scattered across the surface. He tried to read. It was too hard to focus, what with a man standing over his shoulders and the dead silence. He fished in his pocket for his radio, setting it down with a soft “do you mind if I-?”. With a brief shake of the hood, the radio was turned on. Static, barely words to make out in the background as he relaxed in the noise. Back to the papers. Everything he read, it only led to more confusion. He skimmed books, memorized details, pieced together more information. It didn’t take too long before the shock of it all settled in. “The illness… is caused by our own use of creation?” He set the papers down. “I see… that is why no creation can cure it.” He thought for a moment, folding his arms across his chest. “No creation can cure or stop it, for creating only makes the process faster and worse. If that is the case then, perhaps…” He shook his head and let out a sigh. There was too much to process and not enough time to do so. “Perhaps, then, you would like to read over my attempts to find a solution?” The man’s voice was arrogant, like he was asking to have his ego stroked by witnessing the reaction of a lesser groveling to his intellect. He pulled a neater stack of papers from a drawer in the desk to hand off to Philokrates. Why was he even doing this? What purpose did all of this serve? Did he just happen in the wrong time and place? Was this man so desperate for praise that he’d show a stranger - very obviously lacking in the same degrees of smarts - his work? Though after he had read but the first page, he had almost thought to laugh. “Summon a creation strong enough to end the illness? To stop the end of our world as we know it? You would create a god instead of finding a true solution? If I must be honest, this seems to be the easy way out. Instead of honing our craft, you would simply cast it aside as if it were nothing.” Philokrates had no intention of offense, but the mere prospect was as if a child had come up with the answer. “And you have a better one, then, I take it?” The smug response of a man who knew what he was doing. Or at least, had thought so. “With enough time, I would say so.” “We do not have time.” He shook his head with a shrug. “The rest of the Convocation has already agreed that the time we would need to come up with a… less ‘lazy’ solution does not exist. For our end days are upon us already.” “And you would tell me this why?” “Tell me what your proposed solution would be.” “As I stated, I would need more--” “Right now.” His tone of voice dropped. Serious and demanding. Had Philokrates not already expected as much, he would have found it intimidating enough to clam up. He had already dug himself into his grave by practically insulting the work of the Convocation - enemies that he should not even think to make - it was only right that he continue digging until he was the full six feet under. “Instead of using our powers of creation to devise a solution, I would leave our fair city to gather bounty from that which the land has granted us. Use it to treat symptoms as they come. Medicines made from hand, not magic.” The man scoffed. About to debate the idea down, no doubt. Only to stop and hum in thought. The moments that it took him to think about the prospect, Philokrates had already begun to pack up his things once more. “...It would take far more time than what we have. That it may work I will not discredit, but our time is but upon us already.” Was that… a compliment? Philokrates stood up and turned to him, quizzical. “What? Not even a ‘thank you’? That is by far the highest compliment you could recieve, especially from me.” So it was a compliment. Still. That didn’t answer why this man had chosen him to share the ideas the Convocation had come up with - they weren’t his answers to share… oh, they were. He said the paper was his. The Convocation couldn’t come up with anything better. That he- they-. He stopped. Oh… Oh, dear. He had insulted the work of the esteemed Lahabrea, and all he did was laugh it off if not completely put him down. He could almost feel the aether leaving his body as he realized his mistake. He should have never come here. He should have just continued his work in peace, blissfully ignorant of how stupid it was. All he knew next was darkness as he fell to the ground, faint from either the realization or sudden sickness.

[tybalt-you-saucy-boi]

Hello! I was curious to know what some of your favorite Mindcrack moments are in all of their years of existing?

Bro. You are in for a motherfucking LIST.

Off the bat, every single Team Canada Prank. I’ve practically memorized the Sky Shrooms and King of the Ladder episodes. That moment when Guude realized Etho was part of the prank and said “We? Who’s we?” and Etho stuttered and fell backwards off the mushrooms to his death was the first moment in my life that I truly felt alive. #TheOfficeIsAGoodShow #RealMenUseTheirRingFinger

Von Swaying Guude’s house changed my whole outlook on Minecraft. How could someone make something so darn ugly and yet so beautiful? It’s the epitome of doing something for the sole purpose of shit starting creating and having fun rather than aiming for perfect and never finishing. Zisteau is a great addition to any video 10/10 educational content

Just about every moment in Guude/Nebris/Pakratt/Arkas’ TerraFirmaCraft Reloaded series. Had to pause videos multiple times to write down quotes and even then I passed up some good ones! I fully intend on rewatching the series from each perspective. Arkas getting slain by bear, Guude and Arkas secretly growing mushrooms and getting high, Pakratt confusing dolomite and diorite, literally everything Arkas does, THE COWS, that last episode of absolute chaos wtf Pakratt

UHC #ForTheKidsSeven with Single Malt scotch’s skyblock base and rampant cheating from every team except Nebris’. I fucking LOVED that near-kill with the anvil, and all the chaos as the border shrank. Four players stuck in a 1x1 column! The arrow volley between SMS and SkyblockJr. Can this happen every UHC?

Speaking of UHC, Etho and BdoubleO’s epic fight in season 11! He was absolutely on the ball with those potions, I was sure he’d die before he could use them all. And Etho’s fight with Guude right before that was hilarious! Guude high as fuck on percocets and Etho like completely confused at what Guude was doing. The original UHC skybase by Zisteau #I’mALavaExpert and Anderz reaction to the skybase, and then to Guude’s dogs

The whole portal thing in season 3 with Pause, Kurt, and Beef too! That has remained one of my favourite UHC moments since I saw it, there is nothing more classic. Every single season I hope someone will make a portal for no reason and end up in someone else’s base with them. #TheWolfTheWolfAmazing!

Zisteau’s E-Pranker Montage. I legitimately cry every time I watch it, particularly during 0.5 (the fourth prank) when he rebuilds Bdubs’ first house from his Building With BdoubleO series. Bdubs’ moment of realization hits me like a train even though I know it’s coming. Like, if someone built my first Minecraft base to prank me I think I would die on impact, but like in a good way.

And back to UHC! Season 14 episode 5. HOOOOOOLY FUCK! 2spooky4me should have totally been a UHC team! Remember when Zisteau played UHC? It just isn’t UHC without him to be honest. And besides the #BadYouTubers and #ImALavaExpert moments from Super Hostile and Ninja Turtles, Parkas had a great season as well! Shit, everyone was awesome! Parkas listening in on BTC finding a silverfish, Doc listening in on Ole Yeller right before Zisteau-ing himself and swearing, Baj hiding nether wart, every single drunken drink Genny did, Parkas towers “we should smelt some stone to make bricks”, snnnnowballs! :D, HEY JSANO! WHY YOU RUNNING JSANO?, “ooooh, we’re right behind you haha” “BTC, they’re actually here.” Pakratt was slain by generikb, Avidya’s spooky voice echoing around Seth and Anderz “You wouldn’t hurt an old teammate, would you?” “I dunno. It’s been awhile.” Just. God this was a good season.

Season 19 with Vechs and BTC! You’ve heard all the famous quotes, “how did I get stuck with you of all people” “Vechs, Vechs. I don’t hate you anymore” “He’s not dying. He’s just mad right now.” “Did it come from your hand, knocking a teammate off the ledge?” “THAT WAS A MOD!” etc etc. I also like MC’s half heart midnight desert dash, although it took a good 10 years of my life from the stress. Oblivious Pakratt running away from his teammates as they yell after him and then wondering why he hasn’t found anyone yet. Seth’s reaction to MC’s diamonds. Coe’s post commentary, again, you know the quotes: “Left. Chicken. Right. Chicken.” “This bucket has wheels!” “Are you gonna put that dirt in a chest?!” etc. Kurt finding Beef “Sharpness Five diamond sword!” and PiMP turning around. F1 and PiMP in general. SwedishZen and Millbee with the melons.

Obligatory mentions: “NOOO YOUR DOGS KILLING ME!!!!”, 2Germans1Hole, Zisteau crafting a clock and finding every excuse to use it during the game so that those 4 gold didn’t go to waste, Rob’s jukebox battles, Anderz fighting spiders when a creeper wanders into his hole, Bdubs’ “real” season 9 ending, Nebris going God-mode “HIT ME ALL YOU LIKE”, Nebris and Pause double kill, Nebris and Pyro double kill with Bdubs watching and cleaning up at half a heart and then Etho cleaning up again and finding the potions B left and Bdubs interrupting his video to do facecam to explain that he’s a nice guy who shares and leaves gifts for others (basically whenever Bdubs does facecam in UHC. Let’s face it, when Bdubs whips out the cam you know you’re in for a good show), Team Uppercats season 10. All of it.

Trouble in Terrorist Town when Pyro and Coe pull a long con on Pause and Guude in like episode 9 during the last round. I had to pause the video to take it all in, I was just in awe. That series is one of my favourites! I always watch from Pause.

In original DvZ when BTC got warned for breaking a cake. Also Pause’s helmet!

Team Canada CTM uhhh forgot which series, but Pause and Beef getting stuck in a hole, Etho dying, placing TNT over their heads, and singing “Pause and Beef, best of friends” while Beef panics.

Etho calling Pause fat as a joke and Pause taking it serious and then Etho going “wait, are you actually fat?’ lmao.

Pause yelling about vacations on episode 37 of the podcast with BdoubleO “STOP TELLING PEOPLE I’M GOING ON VACATION IT’S NOT A VACATION!!!!!!!” and every time he’s yelled about vacations or muted his mic.

Baj reading a question and mid sentence switching to talking about the curry he had last night, and then there’s a pause and the rest of Nancy Drew fucking loses it.

On the podcast, Kurt’s “Wake me up, boys!” That whole episode was a blast!

The whole “sitting or standing?” debate and the guests’ reactions to it.

Doc accidentally killing Notch on the Mindcrack server, and Dinnerbone confused about him not dropping an apple.

Doc’s zombie death loop from season 4 with Anderz saving the day and then promptly dying.

B-Team mafia in survival of the fittest, Etho killing Genny, and B and Etho teaming up afterwards. Also B and Pungence talking excitedly at the end was adorable, you can really tell they’re brothers lol. And Etho drinking out of the outhouse! Bdubs’ comment on that video killed me lol. And Etho forgetting his push-to-talk and failing to team up with Doc.

The whole got-dang B-Team trial.

End of season 3 tour “On a scale from Baj to Anderz” “Arkas, say something about your build.” Arkas: “Hello.”

The original Death Games, when Etho reveals his secret to Nebris particularly, and all the trash talking. Also Millbee, MC, and Nebris coming to kill him and Kurt logging on in the middle of it.

Prop hunt, and all the wiener and erect jokes. “Am I erect?” “I just saw a can spying on me while I was trying to put my wiener in the toilet!”

Pause and Rob getting girlfriends in Orespawn, and Rob naming his after Pause, and Pause murdering his.

Andrea talking about waking up with spiders in her mouth in an old Triple Eh Mondays episode.

Nebris “sensually” feeding Beef a banana (and practically begging to do it to) on the Mindcrack marathon, and Beef completely ruining the mood lol

Zisteau accidentally launching CaptainSparklez back into a lava tree column and “Dude, it’s okay. You can just kill me” after Jordan’s hit him about 40 times.

#ForTheHorse

MC accidentally killing his one and only teammate JSano during UHC season 22

Sevadus and Seth playing blindfolded lego with Chad’s underwear on Sev’s head, lots of swearing, bugs in the lego, “Are you sure it’s the grey lego?”, “I don’t think I like kids anymore” etc

All the Pyro and Baj burns on Quiplash, ie “What’s something that absolutely does not make you think of a penis in any way?” “Baj”

Coe and Pak playing that stupid horse/giraffe volley ball game with the stretchy legs and neck, and Coe doing the silly accent

Bdubs calling Nebris a psychopath in Nebs’ first FTB episode because he jumped a dangerous ledge for 2 (TWO) pieces of glowstone dust

Nebs coming outta nowhere and jumping in Etho’s car when he was about to test his race track

The first few episode of CrackPack and the battle between Etho and BTC, and Beef and Nebris

The first building game with potatoes on sticks, the second accidentally dirty and racist building game with bloody toilet capsules, the third actually dirty building game with a viking hat with a penis inside

God, I could go on forever, but I’ve already spent over an hour and a half on this.

[theadmiringbog]

Adler was one of the original core members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, which was led by Freud. His ideas were counter to Freud’s, and he split from the group and proposed an “individual psychology” based on his own original theories. 

Adler was very different from Jung, who revered Freud as a father figure.

...

In Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, much of the content closely resembles Adler’s ideas. In other words, rather than being a strict area of scholarship, Adlerian psychology is accepted as a realization, a culmination of truths and of human understanding. Yet Adler’s ideas are said to have been a hundred years ahead of their time, and even today we have not managed to fully comprehend them. That is how truly groundbreaking they were.                

--

If we focus only on past causes and try to explain things solely through cause and effect, we end up with “determinism.” Because what this says is that our present and our future have already been decided by past occurrences, and are unalterable.                

--

Youth: You’re saying that the past doesn’t matter? 

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that is the standpoint of Adlerian psychology.                

--

Those who take an etiological stance, including most counselors and psychiatrists, would argue that what you were suffering from stemmed from such-and-such cause in the past, and would then end up just consoling you by saying, “So you see, it’s not your fault.” The argument concerning so-called traumas is typical of etiology. 

YOUTH: Wait a minute! Are you denying the existence of trauma altogether? 

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, I am. Adamantly.                

In Adlerian psychology, trauma is definitively denied.                 

--

Adler, in denial of the trauma argument, states the following: “No experience is in itself a cause of our success or failure. We do not suffer from the shock of our experiences—the so-called trauma—but instead we make out of them whatever suits our purposes. We are not determined by our experiences, but the meaning we give them is self-determining.”                

--

He is not saying that the experience of a horrible calamity or abuse during childhood or other such incidents have no influence on forming a personality; their influences are strong. But the important thing is that nothing is actually determined by those influences.                

--

Your life is not something that someone gives you, but something you choose yourself, and you are the one who decides how you live.                

--

So you are saying that one should always take the “people can change” premise? 

PHILOSOPHER: Of course.                

--

Why are you rushing for answers? You should arrive at answers on your own, not rely upon what you get from someone else. Answers from others are nothing more than stopgap measures; they’re of no value.                

--

Socrates spent his days having public debates with the citizens of Athens, especially the young, and it was his disciple, Plato, who put his philosophy into writing for future generations. Adler, too, showed little interest in literary activities, preferring to engage in personal dialogue at cafés in Vienna, and hold small discussion groups. He was definitely not an armchair intellectual.                

--

Adlerian psychology is a psychology of courage. 

Your unhappiness cannot be blamed on your past or your environment. And it isn’t that you lack competence. You just lack courage. One might say you are lacking in the courage to be happy.                

--

He can never find enough time to write novels, and that’s why he can’t complete work and enter it for writing awards. But is that the real reason? No! It’s actually that he wants to leave the possibility of “I can do it if I try” open, by not committing to anything. 

He doesn’t want to expose his work to criticism, and he certainly doesn’t want to face the reality that he might produce an inferior piece of writing and face rejection. He wants to live inside that realm of possibilities, where he can say that he could do it if he only had the time,                

--

Adler’s teleology tells us, “No matter what has occurred in your life up to this point, it should have no bearing at all on how you live from now on.” That you, living in the here and now, are the one who determines your own life. 

YOUTH: My life is determined at this exact point? 

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, because the past does not exist.                

--

What I can do is to get the person first to accept “myself now,” and then regardless of the outcome have the courage to step forward. In Adlerian psychology, this kind of approach is called “encouragement.”                

--

All problems are interpersonal relationship problems.                

--

The pursuit of superiority and the feeling of inferiority are not diseases but stimulants to normal, healthy striving and growth.                 

--

If it is not used in the wrong way, the feeling of inferiority, too, can promote striving and growth.                

--

You might think, I’m not well educated, so I can’t succeed. Put the other way around, the reasoning can be, If only I were well educated, I could be really successful.                

--

“In our culture weakness can be quite strong and powerful.” 

YOUTH: So weakness is powerful? 

PHILOSOPHER: Adler says, “In fact, if we were to ask ourselves who is the strongest person in our culture, the logical answer would be, the baby. The baby rules and cannot be dominated.”                

--

As long as one continues to use one’s misfortune to one’s advantage in order to be “special,” one will always need that misfortune.                

--

A healthy feeling of inferiority is not something that comes from comparing oneself to others; it comes from one’s comparison with one’s ideal self.             

--

Instead of treating the child like an adult, or like a child, one must treat him or her like a human being. One interacts with the child with sincerity, as another human being just like oneself.                

--

This is what is so terrifying about competition. Even if you’re not a loser, even if you’re someone who keeps on winning, if you are someone who has placed himself in competition, you will never have a moment’s peace. You don’t want to be a loser. And you always have to keep on winning if you don’t want to be a loser. You can’t trust other people. 

Once one is released from the schema of competition, the need to triumph over someone disappears. One is also released from the fear that says, Maybe I will lose. And one becomes able to celebrate other people’s happiness with all one’s heart.                

--

If someone were to abuse me to my face, I would think about the person’s hidden goal.                

--

First, there are two objectives for behavior: to be self-reliant and to live in harmony with society.  Then, the two objectives for the psychology that supports these behaviors are the consciousness that I have the ability and the consciousness that people are my comrades.                

--

Adler does not accept restricting one’s partner. If the person seems to be happy, one can frankly celebrate that condition. That is love. Relationships in which people restrict each other eventually fall apart.                

--

When one can think, Whenever I am with this person, I can behave very freely, one can really feel love. One can be in a calm and quite natural state, without having feelings of inferiority or being beset with the need to flaunt one’s superiority. That is what real love is like.                

--

Why is it that people seek recognition from others? In many cases, it is due to the influence of reward-and-punishment education. 

YOUTH: Reward-and-punishment education? 

PHILOSOPHER: If one takes appropriate action, one receives praise. If one takes inappropriate action, one receives punishment. Adler was very critical of education by reward and punishment. It leads to mistaken lifestyles in which people think, If no one is going to praise me, I won’t take appropriate action and If no one is going to punish me, I’ll engage in inappropriate actions, too.                

--

Wishing so hard to be recognized will lead to a life of following expectations held by other people who want you to be “this kind of person.” In other words, you throw away who you really are and live other people’s lives. 

And please remember this: If you are not living to satisfy other people’s expectations, it follows that other people are not living to satisfy your expectations. Someone might not act the way you want him to, but it doesn’t do to get angry.                

--

In general, all interpersonal relationship troubles are caused by intruding on other people’s tasks, or having one’s own tasks intruded on. Carrying out the separation of tasks is enough to change one’s interpersonal relationships dramatically.                

--

Think about it this way: Intervening in other people’s tasks and taking on other people’s tasks turns one’s life into something heavy and full of hardship. If you are leading a life of worry and suffering—which stems from interpersonal relationships—learn the boundary of “From here on, that is not my task.” And discard other people’s tasks. That is the first step toward lightening the load and making life simpler.                

--

Why are you worried about other people looking at you, anyway? Adlerian psychology has an easy answer. You haven’t done the separation of tasks yet. You assume that even things that should be other people’s tasks are your own.                

--

Conducting oneself in such a way as to not be disliked by anyone is an extremely unfree way of living, and is also impossible.                

--

YOUTH: Are you free, now? 

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. I am free. 

YOUTH: You do not want to be disliked, but you don’t mind if you are? 

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that’s right.                

--

The courage to be happy also includes the courage to be disliked. When you have gained that courage, your interpersonal relationships will all at once change into things of lightness.                

--

Living in fear of one’s relationships falling apart is an unfree way to live, in which one is living for other people.                

--

Do not cling to the small community right in front of you. There will always be more “you and I,” and more “everyone,” and larger communities that exist.                

--

One must not praise, and one must not rebuke.                

--

In the act of praise, there is the aspect of it being “the passing of judgment by a person of ability on a person of no ability.”                

--

The mother who praises the child by saying things like “You’re such a good helper!” or “Good job!” or “Well, aren’t you something!” is unconsciously creating a hierarchical relationship and seeing the child as beneath her.                

--

Whether we praise or rebuke others, the only difference is one of the carrot or the stick, and the background goal is manipulation. The reason Adlerian psychology is highly critical of reward-and-punishment education is that its intention is to manipulate children.                

--

Yes. The most important thing is to not judge other people. “Judgment” is a word that comes out of vertical relationships. If one is building horizontal relationships, there will be words of more straightforward gratitude and respect and joy.                

--

PHILOSOPHER: On the other hand, if one has managed to build a horizontal relationship with at least one person—if one has been able to build a relationship of equals in the true sense of the term—that is a major lifestyle transformation. With that breakthrough, all one’s interpersonal relations will gradually become horizontal.                

--

We do not lack ability. We just lack courage. It all comes down to courage.                

--

Having a firm grasp on the truth of things—that is resignation.                

--

Think about it this way. We can believe. And we can doubt. But we are aspiring to see others as our comrades. To believe or to doubt—the choice should be clear.                

--

I have discussed self-acceptance, confidence in others, and contribution to others, in that order. However, these three are linked as an indispensable whole, in a sort of circular structure. It is because one accepts oneself just as one is—one self-accepts—that one can have “confidence in others” without the fear of being taken advantage of. And it is because one can place unconditional confidence in others, and feel that people are one’s comrades, that one can engage in “contribution to others.” Further, it is because one contributes to others that one can have the deep awareness that “I am of use to someone” and accept oneself just as one is. One can self-accept.                

--

Adler does not recognize ways of living in which certain aspects are unusually dominant.                

--

“Work” does not mean having a job at a company. Work in the home, child-rearing, contributing to the local society, hobbies, and all manner of other things are work. Companies and such are just one small part of that. A way of living that acknowledges only company work is one that is lacking in harmony of life.                

--

Does one accept oneself on the level of acts, or on the level of being?                

--

In a word, happiness is the feeling of contribution. That is the definition of happiness.                

--

Why is it necessary to be special? Probably because one cannot accept one’s normal self. And it is precisely for this reason that when being especially good becomes a lost cause, one makes the huge leap to being especially bad—the opposite extreme. But is being normal, being ordinary, really such a bad thing? Is it something inferior? Or, in truth, isn’t everybody normal?                

--

You are probably rejecting normality because you equate being normal with being incapable. Being normal is not being incapable. One does not need to flaunt one’s superiority.                

--

But if life were climbing a mountain in order to reach the top, then the greater part of life would end up being “en route.” That is to say, one’s “real life” would begin with one’s trek on the mountainside, and the distance one has traveled up until that point would be a “tentative life” led by a “tentative me.”                

--

People who think of life as being like climbing a mountain are treating their own existences as lines. As if there is a line that started the instant one came into this world, and that continues in all manner of curves of varying sizes until it arrives at the summit, and then at long last reaches its terminus, which is death. This conception, which treats life as a kind of story, is an idea that links with Freudian etiology (the attributing of causes), and is a way of thinking that makes the greater part of life into something that is “en route.”                

...

Think of life as a series of dots. If you look through a magnifying glass at a solid line drawn with chalk, you will discover that what you thought was a line is actually a series of small dots. Seemingly linear existence is actually a series of dots; in other words, life is a series of moments.                

--

It is a series of moments called “now.” We can live only in the here and now. Our lives exist only in moments. Adults who do not know this attempt to impose “linear” lives onto young people. Their thinking is that staying on the conventional tracks—good university, big company, stable household—is a happy life. But life is not made up of lines or anything like that. 

YOUTH: So there’s no need for life planning or career planning? 

PHILOSOPHER: If life were a line, then life planning would be possible. But our lives are only a series of dots. A well-planned life is not something to be treated as necessary or unnecessary, as it is impossible.                

--

Among those who have danced the dance of the violin, there are people who stay the course and become professional musicians. Among those who have danced the dance of the bar examination, there are people who become lawyers. There are people who have danced the dance of writing and become authors. Of course, it also happens that people end up in entirely different places. But none of these lives came to an end “en route.” It is enough if one finds fulfillment in the here and now one is dancing.                

--

Suppose you are going on a journey to Egypt. Would you try to arrive at the Great Pyramid of Giza as efficiently and quickly as possible, and then head straight back home by the shortest route? One would not call that a “journey.” You should be on a journey the moment you step outside your home, and all the moments on the way to your destination should be a journey. Of course, there might be circumstances that prevent you from making it to the pyramid, but that does not mean you didn’t go on a journey. This is “energeial life.”                

--

If the goal of climbing a mountain were to get to the top, that would be a kinetic act. To take it to the extreme, it wouldn’t matter if you went to the mountaintop in a helicopter, stayed there for five minutes or so, and then headed back in the helicopter again. Of course, if you didn’t make it to the mountaintop, that would mean the mountain-climbing expedition was a failure. However, if the goal is mountain climbing itself, and not just getting to the top, one could say it is energeial. In this case, in the end it doesn’t matter whether one makes it to the mountaintop or not.                

--

We should live more earnestly only here and now. The fact that you think you can see the past, or predict the future, is proof that rather than living earnestly here and now, you are living in a dim twilight. Life is a series of moments, and neither the past nor the future exists. You are trying to give yourself a way out by focusing on the past and the future.                

--

When one adopts the point of view of Freudian etiology, one sees life as a kind of great big story based on cause and effect. So then it’s all about where and when I was born, what my childhood was like, the school I attended and the company where I got a job. And that decides who I am now and who I will become.                

--

Whatever meaning life has must be assigned to it by the individual. So life in general has no meaning whatsoever. But you can assign meaning to that life. And you are the only one who can assign meaning to your life.                

--

No matter what moments you are living, or if there are people who dislike you, as long as you do not lose sight of the guiding star of “I contribute to others,” you will not lose your way, and you can do whatever you like. Whether you’re disliked or not, you pay it no mind and live free. 

YOUTH: If I have the star of contribution to others high in the sky above me, I will always have happiness and comrades by my side. 

PHILOSOPHER: Then, let’s dance in earnest the moments of the here and now, and live in earnest. Do not look at the past, and do not look at the future. One lives each complete moment like a dance. There is no need to compete with anyone, and one has no use for destinations. 

As long as you are dancing, you will get somewhere.