#So much of ''christian'' culture is alien to me... so much of it I hate with a deep fervor...

[a-story-teller]

Seriously one of the most confounding things in the world is pop-Christian moralizing.

"Is ASMR ok for Christians?? 🤨🤔😧" I'm not sure in what world it would be sinful to listen to soothing brushing, ocean sounds, and tapping, yet someone felt the need to ask the question, and someone else felt the need to make a YouTube video answering it. (I didn't watch it, so I don't know the verdict, but somehow you're trusting the verdict to a rando on YouTube and not Discernment from God?)

"Christian facials" because having a hot towel on your face and putting on serum is in any way aligned with a religion or lack thereof, and therefore needs to/even Can be made Christian?

"Christian-friendly sex positions" and the only difference is it's stick figures instead of realistic drawings, and instead of male/female or penetrator/receiver, it's husband/wife. Because you know those goofy health-book illustrations were distracting you from the righteous goal at hand: eating your girl out. But you can't call her your girl, you have to make it clear to everyone seeing you have sex (which... is just the 2 of you, right?) that you're having Good and Not Sinful sex, because you, a Husband, are Married to your Wife. Side note: the stick figures actively make it harder to figure out the intricacies of any of the positions and therefore are objectively shittier at doing what they're made to do.

Christian soap, christian mints, christian calendars, christian music, christian curtains, christian fiction, christian restaurants, christian news, christian shops. There are things in the world that are OK being secular. The fact that your soap does not have an icthus sign etched in that washes away in 3 days anyway does not make you a bad person, or even a bad christian. Your home does not need something Christian™️ in every room for people (or yourself!) not to forget you're christian... I assume?

The king who must say he is king, etcetera. This kind of mindset is so boggling to me, and reeks of nominative faith and deeeeep insecurity. Retail therapy but instead of buying temporary happiness you're buying temporary grace. Being so beholden to the dogma of organized religion that you go to any person feigning authority on the subject rather than using your own brain to make a decision. The idea that things can only be okay to interact with if they're explicitly christian, as though interacting with it as a christian doesn't inherently put it through a christian lens; as though you can only get things trickled down to you from church authority figures with robust enough constitutions to judge what's ok for you because you don't have the ability to think critically; as though you should stay away from what's "sinful" rather than, LIKE JESUS, be able to go into it and be a good example; as though instead of learning to be capable of handling it, you should be as weak to sin as possible; as though you have to go through the world with kid gloves because touching something dirty would soil your soul (which, of course this implies, is sparkling - impossible, arrogant, and kind of denying God, lol [actually, not lol, I'm expanding on that. Denying God by refusing to admit your own sin. Denying God by refusing his grace because you won't admit your own sin. Denying God by acting like his power couldn't absolve something as simple as being exposed to sin, let alone if you did end up making a miatake. Denying God by keeping yourself in Good Christian spaces and not being there for people who need outside help. There's more but I digress]).

Also, the childish áffect of refusing to say things as they are because that would be bad, but referring to it in euphamism is fine - or, transversely, that using colloquialisms is bad, but medical speak is fine, depending on what breed of crackpot christian you're dealing with. "Hanky-panky" just say sex. "Adult drinks" just say wine, beer, liquor. "Flower" for the love of all that is holy just say vulva/vagina/virginity. "Breasts" is fine to describe your chest but "boobs" is not. You can say "buttocks" but not "butt". Discussing bathroom activities is decisively not cool but if utterly necessary you must say "urine" and "feces" because pee and poop are too pedestrian.

Like, entire side tangent, but the weirdly widespread christian-ism of not discussing things frankly or discussing them super detachedly, but both preferring to never discuss them at all, regarding anything "potentially sinful" or "not spiritually uplifting" (usually boiling down to "anything physical") is so whack to me. Do not discuss your period, even in female spaces, because it's tmi. Don't talk about your health issues if they're not Clean enough subjects, even as something to pray about (like breast/prostate cancer, shitting diseases). Don't ever talk about your sex life except to wiggle your eyebrows at your kids when they're old enough. Don't hug your male friends, daughter. Don't play with your little cousins, son. Sex is so so bad but everything is about it, actually. Sex is so so great which is why you should feel guilty about ever wanting it. All nudity is sexual. Dress so they know you're a woman but also that you're a lady. Fart jokes are not allowed. You must remember that all men are looking at you with lust at all times but you can't hold that against them. All things that get you sweaty or muddy are bad. Hair on women is unnatural but just dandy for men, except we can't talk about pubic hair so you're just going to have to figure out on your own if it's less sinful to not think about your vag enough to do anything to it or to ensure you're free of all sinful hair. Here's how to do makeup in a god-honoring way, because you couldn't know on your own, and you must both jump through this hoop to be acceptable to your men but not have enough fun and personal expression with it for it to become anything other than a chore. It is wrong to kill, which is why we support the troops. We are supposed to help the poor, which is why I drive past the beggars that are dirty and ragged and smelly. We are supposed to celebrate God with our bodies, which is why my most spiritually moved state equates to slightly raising my arms.

I can't close this post without including my oft-quoted favorite example of this weird-ass pop-Christian phenomenon translating to real-life people in real-time thoughts: my mom saying she had to take into account "which ice cream flavor is most glorifying to God" at a froyo shop. Either it's raspberry, or she chose sin that day.

#to be SLIGHTLY fair to my mom she was trying to give an example of ''having God as priority 1 all the time'' to middle school me #Who thought (correctly) that there are plenty of things which God has no direction relation to or care towards #What color you wear or what sandwich you eat having no impact on your relationship to God #And mom tried to illustrate that it's about the intention to be mindful of God 24/7 by using the most batshit method available #thus cementing my point and giving me the best example of the effects of this thing to date #christianity #christian #theology #in which I read a book with a really problematic fanbase #religion #So much of ''christian'' culture is alien to me... so much of it I hate with a deep fervor... #I will raise my kids to be okay with the fact that they are physical beings with bodies #I will raise them to make their decisions themselves based on their own interpretations and direction #And I will raise them to know that the world will not sully them without their consent - that to be good does not mean to be free of sin - #and that they take from the world what they bring to it and can face ''bad'' things without turning to stone

[tuulikki]

I have a problem with that list of things that make a person 'culturally christian' as the post couples it with the implication that one can cease being culturally christian while still doing some of the things on that list.

I'm probably misunderstanding shit but it bugs me. Several things on that list are unavoidable in daily life, and thus my Jewish friend (and the Jewish poster who made the list) fall into the culturally christian category because they use a christian calendar and buy chocolates on valentine's day. And yet the poster says 'those of us who are not culturally christian' which contradicts their own argument? No? I'm an atheist and I'm absolutely aware of other religions, but the world around me doesn't care, I have to say it's 2022. And it doesn't bother me, tbh. I don't say AD anymore, that's on purpose. But that post...I don't get why it assumed the OP didn't understand that these things come from christianity. The assumption that all victims of religious abuse are living in culturally christian environments, or that they don't know other religions are different from christianity...i really don't like that attitude. It sounds like implying that they haven't found the better religions yet and that's why they're atheist, but not even fully so because their culture remains influenced by christianity. It's condescending. (be gentle, i'm not looking for a fight, and it's ok to not respond if what I'm saying pisses you off because it misses the point.)

Hey, thanks for the ask! I hope I can explain things, and if there’s anything you find frustrating at the end of it, please send another ask and I’ll try to do better—it’ll likely be due to my not being coherent 🥲

The key misunderstanding here is how massive “culture” is.

Using a Christian dating system or observing aspects of Christian holidays doesn’t inherently make any person culturally Christian. Those are byproducts of dominant Christian religion in a culture. But the person who has never felt their own culture subordinated and othered by that culturally Christian default is the cultural Christian. Many culturally Christian people may be deeply alienated or flat-out hate religious Christianity, but the culture we inhabit is culturally Christian and it is our culture. It can be hard to spot how much you’re a product of your culture, but the fact of it remains.

It’s like being raised by a family: it defines what you think “family tradition” means but will also affect little things like what food you want to eat when you’re sick. It’s not that who you are is determined by your family. But you are shaped by the experience of being raised in that family. You can’t erase that history: what you choose to reject or continue from your family legacy is a conscious choice informed by what you’ve experienced. And you can’t assume that the way your family works has any universal applicability, or that that cutting your family out of your life makes you a blank slate, or that your way of rejecting your birth family is universal.

If you are from a culture that is historically Christian, you exist as a part of that culture. People who aren’t culturally Christian can of course be members of a culturally Christian society because participation (and belonging!) in the society is not defined by adherence to the religion. The culture is, however, shaped by centuries of that religion. And people who aren’t culturally Christian are forced to accommodate the majority culture in ways which people who are culturally Christian will not. (The classic example of cultural Christianity is the culturally Christian neopagans/witches who try to argue that the winter solstice is “inclusive” because it’s not Christian. As if “Christian” or “not Christian” are the only ways you could measure exclusivity and inclusivity!)

The OP of that post wrote the phrase “being an atheist is a valid belief system.” That’s some raw cultural Christianity. It presupposes the following:

religion must have a deity (how else atheist?)

atheism is primarily defined as an absence of belief in a deity (rather than omitting a particular act or social practice)

atheism and religion are both defined as being determined by personal belief. The belief in question is in a system of some kind.

adherence to a system of belief determines a specific identity label, which an individual will apply to themselves. This label marks them as a member of an identity group whose members are defined by such individual declarations of belief.

belief systems can be valid or invalid (and it’s worth arguing about)

None of these things are universally believed by all cultures. But a culturally Christian society absolutely assumes those things to be true.

So my point is that atheism in culturally Christian societies is overwhelmingly defined in dialogue with and in reaction to the core tenets of the various Christianities that have dominated those societies. That’s what we’re trying to say when try to tell culturally Christian atheists that they are culturally Christian. I don’t want to be condescending, but the fact that some culturally Christian atheists don’t seem to be aware that they are products of their culture and that they enjoy a baseline level of membership privilege in that culture is… very challenging to me? We’re not accusing them of being crypto-Christians, but since their definition of “religion” is still so Christian, that’s what they hear. They use a narrow, culturally-bound definition of religion when they say “l’m not religious”—and they assume their definition isn’t derived from that culturally Christian experience.

You can’t surgically separate the history of dominant religious traditions from the cultures that practice/d those religions: the culture shapes the religion, the religion shapes the culture. A culturally Christian atheist from England is a different kind of atheist than a culturally Buddhist atheist from Mongolia. You can’t exist in a vacuum.

Deprogramming yourself in this context means acknowledging the fact that you have privilege. This privilege is something you get by default whether you want it or not. It’s not merely knowing that other systems of belief exist or writing “C.E.” at the end of the year. It’s accepting that you are the product of a certain culture that is not universal, even though its dominance can make us feel like it’s a natural default.

Culturally Christian privilege doesn’t invalidate any person’s religious Christian trauma because culturally privileged people can be abused within the social structures they benefit from at the same time. There isn’t a moral binary here. No one is assigned a static moral category. Someone telling you you’re benefiting from cultural Christianity is not them saying “gotcha, you’re irredeemably problematic! #cancelled!!” It’s an invitation to ask yourself if you’re being held back by what you’re trying to reject. To put it in terms we all understand too well: “cultural Christianity” isn’t a sin, there is no shame attached to it, and there is no pressure to be pure and cleansed of it because that would be impossible as that’s not how people and cultures work. And the fact that some of the worst of it still lives in our heads does not mean that we are bad, because there’s no one judging our thoughts, only our actions. The fact that we have a term to describe what lives our heads—which allows us to be aware of it—is a gift, not an accusation.

#long post #Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo stick but that’s a long post #if anyone reads it then good on you #cultural christianity #religious studies #opinions

[abigail-nicole]

DS9 Watch Notes

“Star Trek Deep Space 9: What if the Nazis ran a shopping mall but now they're gone and you have to be in charge of the mall” - my spouse

Season One

I grew up watching Star Trek my entire life. Even like Discovery and Enterprise which no one but my mom liked I’m pretty sure

but somehow my parents, white christian conservatives, didn’t watch DS9……hmmmm

anyway I finally in 2024 started DS9, and we start with an intense hot mess in opposition to every other well-ordered utopian Star Trek

DS9’s instant cast of marginalized characters, a chaotically destroyed space station, Sisko hating Picard??? strong writing choices

“When governments fall, people like me are lined up and shot” -Quark

“Never trust ale from a god-fearing people” - Quark

So DS9 came out in 93-99 … vs 87-94 for TNG, then 95-01 for Voyager. And TNG got all the star trek money because DS9 sure didn’t. Man these special effects are bad

Cool that Sisko and Dax, neither of whom are Bajoran, get to go on a Bajoran spiritual journey. Not weird colonial appropriation vibes at all

Tumblr really wants me to ship garak & bashir and quark & odo…. fine

Julian so excited Garak came and talked to him he went and told all his friends, who all think he’s annoying with no coping skills

I knew Julian was autistic bc tumblr but I wasn’t prepared for how much he’s exactly as annoying as a second year medical student

ACAB includes Odo

You could absolutely do something interesting with the ferengi, because a culture that puts an explicit price on everything and doesn’t believe in the implicit value of things is a great way to do social critique of what a culture implicitly and explicitly values. Too bad Star Trek never does this

For how much there’s Gender in this show, don’t think S1 of DS9 passes the Bechdel test

The best part of DS9 is when the holodeck fantasies come to life and Bashir’s sexy submissive version of Jadzia Dax meets real Dax and she smirks and goes “I understand, I was a young man once”

Odo defines himself in relationship to Quark. what is a cop without his criminal. he wakes up & thinks “what is Quark doing right now.” girl love yourself

I’m really enjoying the cardassians. Aliens on Star Trek tend to be one note. Vulcans love logic, Klingons love honor and battle…. Cardassians are just humans. Plus the cardassians get to be played by good actors and have complex character arcs

The way half the characters say “bazhoran” and “bay-zhor” and half (incl Kira, but not all Bajorans) say Bajor and Bajoran

Jake & Nog friendship is the future liberals (me) want

#star trek deep space nine #ds9 #ds9 liveblog

[creekfiend]

Just wanted to say thanks for "people from culturally Christian backgrounds" because that seems like a good way to phrase it, and I'm going to try to remember to use it when I'm talking about this sort of thing. (I try to not be a dick to people, when possible, and trauma's messy and complicated.) I'm sorry that some people are being horrible in this whole discussion, and I hope you are doing okay.

I'm doing fine! I really sympathize with most of the people involved in this tbh (except the outright antisemites of course lol) bc like I HAVE seen a lot of reactive and reductive and unkind blanket statements about this by some jumblr people in which they are condescendingly explaining other people's realities to them. Which is my LEAST favorite thing. Jumblr can also be really... umm, dog pile-y in a way that I find frustrating and unproductive. However. I think it's also fairly obvious that most of these reactions are trauma responses, and while that isn't an excuse it is an explanation and provides additional context that I do not feel is irrelevant. For jews we have constantly been told 'well simply stop being jewish' like all the time by everybody, often at gunpoint. So like, when I see nonjewish atheists assert that stuff jews are TELLING you they have gone through "literally never happens" that ALSO REALLY SUCKS. like so so bad. Cannot overstate how much that sucks. Cannot overstate how much it sucks to see ppl I sympathize with deeply wrt their mistrust and hatred of like, organized religious authority, align themselves with people who refer to jewish atheists as "religious nationalists" for refusing to divorce themselves from their ethnic backgrounds/culture/community/traditions. That rhetoric is Just antisemitism in a form that has been used to cause real and violent harm to us in living memory.

Also really alienated by the idea that one must be This Vitriolically Angry About Religion to "count" as an atheist. Like what? That is bonkers. I do not understand why the people making seemingly reasonable posts about "actually here's some interesting writings by people from Islamic cultures or majority Hindu cultures or orthodox jewish cultures outlining the ways that the authorities in these societies have used religion to cause harm on a systemic level" (objectively true) seem to be aligning themselves with people who are doing the SAME THING TO JEWS that they resent being done to them -- e.g. condescendingly explaining to us that our negative experiences with a certain type of atheists Don't Exist or Don't Count or cannot possibly be rooted in antisemitism.

I find the whole thing depressing and troubling. I don't tend to follow jumblr because of the aforementioned issues I have w it but this backlash seems to me to be disproportionate and really hateful in a way that... combines poorly with the increased antisemitic sentiments being lobbed at jews from all ideological sides recently. I wish we could all be more congizent of 1. the role trauma is playing here for everyone and 2. the inherent lack of productive discussion that can be had when two parties are simply Trauma Responsing at each other back and forth endlessly.

Then there's the people who just get super aggressive about people "believing fake things" but I'm not sure there's any help for them. Sure wish that the nonjewish atheists who are not like that would disavow them though! I certainly am more than happy to say "acknowledging a cultural/societal dynamic that privileges one religion and culture as default and that existing in thay culture might cause people to have unexamined assumptions about other religions and cultures" should not be weaponized against individual people in order to bully them by insisting they are a thing that they manifestly are not (atheists aren't Christians. The fact that atheists from Jewish backgrounds will have Jewishness shackled to them regardless of their degree of identification with Being A Jew is actually bad and a function of antisemitism; it is not an aspirational dynamic we should be applying to other people simply because their cultural background is privileged over our own in our society.)

Like can we stop talking past each other and try to understand where people are coming from

People are expressing a lot of hurt and anger about atrocities and systems of oppression that I ultimately feel are totally interconnected. Because of this hurt and anger most people are not being precise in their language or prioritizing connecting or actual dialogue about this and instead focusing on dogpiling and gotchas. It's discouraging.

I'm a secular humanist jew with complex feelings towards both jewishness and atheism as concepts and movements. I want to understand and connect with people based on our common ground.

This is I guess all me being a big baby who is unsuited to internet fights but this one specifically feels really hurtful to me because I feel like my reality is being ignored and denied. I suspect a lot of people are also feeling that way. Which might be a good place to START the discussion to be honest.

#jewish #u ever just write a whole essay #anyway try loving people more and maybe youll calm down

[ludinusdaleth]

i agree! it's very frustrating that so many people insist it's "ludinus is right, kill them all!" versus "they're all 100% good"

im glad to hear the support, anon. i feel like the cr fanbase has gotten more into theorizing & meta this campaign than last, which im deeply happy about, but i feel like it's come at a cost of not many actually.... analyzing well, beyond their own biases, which is vital.

something interesting to me is how i feel like the very story of c3 itself is partly about how vasselheim is so utterly focused on ludinus as a threat (which, he is undoubtedly one) that they have repeatedly enforced worse & failed in their efforts against him (literally occupying & preparing to obliterate marquet via airship just to get to him and getting eviscerated, kiro's rage about ludinus making her accuse orym of being with him which leads to our current mess). continually vasselheim refuses to assist or care for any other country or party that isnt wholly aligned to their goal. meanwhile in similar nature, the fandom is so completely sure that lud is a liar & a loser that anyone with an idealogy a few degrees south of his is seen as a threat instantly - the fanbase is so mad that this campaign is "anti god" that they're missing the most poignant pro faith statements characters have because they aren't paladins in shining armor plunging a spear into da'leth praising bahamut as they do so - but rather common-people as they try to embrace faith despite trauma & actual godkilling times. and it's at times frankly deeply uncomfortable, considering the characters deemed threats & whose views on faith have been cast aside have been deanna & frida (who have absolutely been treated weirdly to points of racism to their actors), & pagan natives oppressed by what matt outright stated were missionaries.

but in the same uncomfortability zone are people so consumed by their own personal biases with very obvious culturally christian religious trauma (i say this as someone with it too) that they cannot realize ludinus is partially metaphor for everyone who escapes christianity, thinks they're superior for it, but never for a moment unpacks the colonialist doomsday mindset that came with it. i admit i see this far less than the other side, so i dont see it as so much of a concern, but when i do it is unsettling - ludinus is so clearly showcasing far right tactics of alienation & preying on trauma to get people to join his cult, and real people are falling for it. matt has said that religion & art are connected & vital - when aeor fully stepped away from religion it became almost artless. you cannot strip something so important to humanity's core away because of your own experiences - your personal trauma is important but does not mean your bigotry or bias is justified and i feel that message is radiant in c3.

i think this campaign poses some of the most interesting questions on forgiveness & responsibility because, while it's impossible not to draw similarities in how mortals deal with religion, the exandrian pantheon itself cannot be viewed through our world's lens. the gods were warlords who nuked an entire city (that was fighting amongst itself!) to nothing because a few mages posed a threat to them. but afterwards they receded, & locked themselves away. what does that say about them? what does it mean now? do they deserve to be saved? does art surpass its creators? i want to explore these themes so much, and i love that campaign 3 is trying to in vibrant ways - i just hate that so few people want to embrace it & the changes to the fictional world that will come with it, because it's impossible to look past our own noses & embrace more than our own perspective even regarding fiction.

#sorry this is so long #long post #van speaks #critical role meta #campaign 3 #critical role #please no one be weird on this post #asks

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Published: Jul 12, 2023

A few months ago my doorbell rang unexpectedly. In the spirit of curiosity, I went downstairs to see my surprise guests, who quickly revealed that the purpose of their visit was to share with me the good word of the Lord. I graciously expressed my lack of interest, and thanked them for stopping by. To their credit, they left agreeably, and neither tried to make me feel like an unrepentant sinner, a hateful reactionary, or someone who was actively obstructing their ability to exist. We went our separate ways without conflict, something only possible in a culture that values freedom of religion.

Which includes our culture, for the most part. It’s a standard tenet of classical liberalism: you believe how you want to believe. Even for those who see the United States as a “Christian nation,” most are content to let others have their different faiths, so long as they’re not proselytizing or engaging in acts of violence. Live and let live.

Door-to-door evangelism is a kind of activism I can respect, even when I disagree with the message. Compare this to the kind of activism happening at Kellie-Jay Keen’s ‘Let Women Speak’ events: people screaming at and physically assaulting people with whom they disagree. Even if we aren’t completely aligned on exactly how much free speech we should tolerate in a civilized society (shouting fire in a crowded movie theater? I say no!) and whether there is a meaningful difference between objectionable words and physical violence (I say yes!), it remains true that every person has a right to express their thoughts and feelings. Likewise, opponents have a right to express their disagreement. But they do not have a right to respond with physical violence.

The question of “when is violence justified” is out of scope for this essay. However, I think most people would agree that when those Jehovah's Witnesses showed up at my door and tried to persuade me to join their church, neither of us possessed the right to bring physical violence into that conversation.

Gender identity ideology, the belief that there is a gendered spirit that exists separate from the body, is a religion in all but name—and its successful penetration of our institutions depends on it not being seen as a religion. What makes it a religion and not ‘a natural progression of enlightened thought,’ as gender activists claim, are three things:

1. A hysterical disregard for evidence-based, reproducible research. ‘Children are dying! No time to wait for studies!’ 2. The levels of initiation (like Scientology), in which one can ascend up the ladder from ‘cis ally’ to some variant of ‘trans’ (or chic alternative), often combined with increasingly complicated and risky “gender-affirming” surgeries. 3. Resistance to any kind of critical inquiry (of even its most extreme positions). “Trans voices” have unquestionable authority and must be treated as gospel.

Understand that I'm not attacking religion here. I’m saying that gender activists framing their belief system as the only morally justifiable worldview and calling for all unbelievers to be shunned is the type of thing that religious fundamentalists would do, not civil rights activists.

Nor am I attacking gender identity ideology. I just want it to be understood for what it really is. As an increasingly alienated leftist, I’ve seen too many of my own friends absorbed into this leaderless cult, suddenly unwilling to contemplate or discuss any other perspective. Whether they’ve adopted it intentionally or through community osmosis, the believers argue that gender identity ideology is true, has always been true, and to express anything other than wholehearted support is equivalent to injury.

I do think it's possible for people to believe in gender identity without resorting to intolerance or the worst excesses of the self-appointed revolutionary vanguard. But those people, quietly trying to live their lives, are not the theatrical attention-seekers who publicly delight at forcing ideological compliance. Part of my motivation in writing this is to inspire a more nuanced conversation about "trans rights" in the culture wars. It is a legitimate subject worthy of discussion. What rights do trans people have, and not have? In what cases, if any, are their rights more important than the rights of women who want to have single-sex spaces? If the gender identity activists truly want to create long-term change that actually benefits their demographic, they will need to do politics instead of just bullying their neighbors into submission.

It is the lack of willingness to have discussions about the thorny areas where their wants come into conflict with the wants of others that make this such an intolerant movement. And the one message we keep hearing is that if you do not believe as the gender activists do, you are a problem, and your lack of proper belief justifies the use of violence against you. This is a textbook example of religious extremism.

What is the significance of it being religious in nature? Because religion occupies a special niche in our culture: it shapes our ideas of the sacred and the profane. But even though there is widespread disagreement on the specifics of what constitutes each, we've managed to form some kind of common ground along the lines of respecting each other's personal freedom to act and believe as we choose, so long as our actions and beliefs don't interfere with others exercising their own freedom. ‘The Golden Rule,’ if you will. Most people, I think, would argue that people are free to worship however they choose. Of course, this ideal picture of tolerance is not always the case. History is full of crusades and jihads and persecutions for heresy under various names. Human society has a long relationship with the virtues and the horrors of religion. We know what it is, even if we still struggle with it.

So we can recognize, understand, and even empathize with a person motivated by religious fervor. We can respect the passion shown by a person in a state of religious ecstasy. But none of that requires that we unconditionally lower our psychic boundaries and adopt their beliefs at gunpoint. If such a person can accept that they will not convert you, and go their own way, there is no issue. But if that person threatens you with social repercussions or even physical harm for not assimilating, that is extremism.

Therefore, we hold religious people to certain standards. We accept their idiosyncrasies, while reserving the right to arrive at one’s own faith uncoerced. If we see gender identity ideology for what it is—a religion dressed up as a civil rights movement—we would be much less willing to entertain those ideologues in our schools and institutions. Also, in the United States, thanks to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, the legal standing for gender identity ideology in government goes away completely once it is accurately classified as a religion. 

Gender identity ideology as a religion further means that we can (and should) have reasonable boundaries around how children are exposed to it. Here's a fun thought experiment: Would you be OK with a devout Christian, Jew, or Muslim going into your child's public school kindergarten class to lecture them about Jesus, Moses, or Mohammad? Probably not. If you were at the grocery store and you ran into a 6-year-old wearing a crucifix who told you that you were going to hell unless you devoted yourself to the church, you'd probably walk away from that encounter thinking, “well, that was weird and disturbing." But right now, gender disciples around the world are perfectly on board with a 6-year-old girl telling them with complete certainty (to the extent a 6-year-old can be certain about anything), "I am not a girl, I am a boy." No need to critically examine the circumstances, because it is a holy sign. Even the Abrahamic religions have a concept of Age of Majority, but in the world of gender identity, no age is too young to be sacrificed on the altar of hormones and surgeries.

Here's another thought experiment: next time you read the words “transwomen are women,” imagine it says “Jesus is Lord” or “Praise Allah.” It’s the same thing! 

The most important difference between gender identity ideology and other religions is that it has no concept of the divine. There is no greater power at the center of the belief. The highest authority of gender identity ideology is the self. Thanks to social media, never before have young narcissists been able to organize with middle-aged narcissists so effectively, and then claim to speak for all queer people. The rest of us are not given the choice to opt out. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are forcibly conscripted into this doctrine, or we are excommunicated.

Humans are social animals. We are deeply influenced by each other. It’s one of the reasons that politics and religion exist. So, considering this kind of cultural dispute isn't anything new, why is the conversation about transgenderism so fraught?

Because the issue of men trying to be women (and vice versa) mirrors the central, much larger conflict in our society right now: the issue of humans trying to be God. There is a mischievous aspect of our nature that seeks to be subversive, to upend conventions, to do the impossible. This inclination to push against our limits has brought us the great technological gifts of the modern era. Yet this mischievousness is a double-edged sword, like so many other aspects of human nature that walk a fine line between adaptation and maladaptation. The only way out of this unsolvable predicament is to put down our fantasies, and to stop the foolish exercise of insisting to be that which we are not.

Am I anti-trans? No. I am anti-delusion. I want to live in a world where people are free to play with gender expression in self-love and with full, conscious acceptance of their bodies. The notion that anyone could be born in the wrong body is among the cruelest ideas to emerge from the unholy marriage of postmodernism and late-stage capitalism. There’s no profit to be made in teaching us how to love ourselves, but every gender-nonconforming person that embarks down the pathway of medicalization becomes a prisoner of the gender industry, and a customer for life.

We can argue all day over how much of the self is caused by nature versus nurture, but understanding the mechanics of our own existence is secondary to finding the ability to live at peace with one another, and to share in both the joys and hardships of life. Let us not be children, demanding that we submit to each other’s capricious, imaginary worlds. Let us be adults, willing to talk to each other as living beings worthy of mutual respect.

The author is a bisexual man living in the Northeastern U.S.

==

I don't participate in other people's delusions. Of any kind.

#LGBT Courage Coalition #gender ideology #queer theory #narcissistic personality disorder #narcissism #gender identity #delusional #reality denial #religion is a mental illness

[katyspersonal]

I am feeling so ill. My mental pain keeps translating into physical one, like something that keeps poisoning me from within, and it can last from very morning to very evening at times. I wish I stopped being reminded of the backstabbing, of how much that person has been lying to us, and how she threw away her empathy and common sense in an instant, as soon as she got enticed with the prospect to feel like a """victim""". When everything was explained and even forgiven prior.

For a Christian, she sure is a terrible one, and really should pray to her God for forgiveness. Because that's sin of vanity if I've seen one. Her sorry pro-lifer ass that can't even use they/them pronouns because it is "not correct in English" and has been following Mico herself before he deactivated must be satisfied with people around with whom she has to censor her true opinions, I suppose? She had all context, she had explanation and apology, she faked having accepted that apology too, lied about not really caring about the "drama", faked patience and lied about always welcoming me back - only to latch at the first chance to backstab me and my friends she got. And the way she conveniently ignored how I took my words back, too.. I don't know what is WRONG with people who think that when a person that has been stalked and harassed for a year lashes out upon feeling threatened - they've shown their """true face""". Nobody is more alien to normal human emotions and reactions than Americans. I guess for them you are either physically incapable of anger, fear and fucking up OR you are a vile dangerous monster.

But the real question - what did she want to ACCOMPLISH? She didn't really feel like a star and gain sympathy like a victim of the """horrible mistreatment""" that me lashing out when she defended my STALKER was - that I also TOOK BACK. From my knowledge, she kept herself anonymous. And of course instantly blocked me, because like a coward she could not answer for her lies. She also lost other friends too - one HATES liars and hypocrites more than anything, another has similar emotional problems to mine so no longer feels safe, third straight up was harassed by that person as well.. "They are still lovely people" she says. And I am not a "lovely" person, of course. Because "lovely" people just smile and shrug off being stalked, harassed and talked untrue shit about for a year, I suppose? Because "lovely" people don't become clingy for someone defending them so loud and proud?

My only theory is that she just secretly harbored hatred towards me all along but was forcing the facade of patience and understanding, until one day finally came what looked like a good justification to drop it. But then why sending me all that emotional support when I fell for suicidal road back in spring? Why write at least two essays to Alfred-chan about her right to interact with me and about how I deserved kindness and compassion? Why acting flattered when I said I loved her (platonically) when in reality she was creeped out? Why bothering to explain me how she did not blame me and always would welcome me back in the blog? Following me for a decent time and all that interacting. Was feeling like a poor victim that fell under attack of the "monster" for like 5 minutes without even revealing her name to the world and losing more likeminded people worth it? Was it worth it? How? How mad you should be at someone for getting attached more than """acceptable""" and for lashing out before learning why you'd defend someone that harassed us, that you'd resort to backstabbing and break all your prior promises? She even told me stuff like "ratting someone out is very condemned in my culture and I'd never do that". Then what DID she do, when she showed the moment of weakness I had 40 days ago, to a deranged ableist that has been condoning harassment and canceling for hell knows how long and she could tell wished me harm?

I want to ask whether it was worth it, but clearly she didn't lose anything of value. One of those "but internet connections are not REAL uwu" people.

I so badly want to say that this is my fault for trusting someone who is not only American but also a Christian, double combination of hypocrite and all you know. Because I just want to find a reason. I want to know WHY, even if the answer is something as shallow as nationality and religion. But this is just not fair to people who are one or both of these things but have common sense to not lie and not be cut throats. I guess the real reason is that some people are just too easily enticed with the chance to feel like the "good" guys, to mark category of people that do not deserve any empathy, human bonds and understanding because they are "evil and dangerous". It is just easier. You feel justified to mistreat a certain category of people because they are "bad" - all while the criteria for why they're "bad" is growing progressively absurd. But this coming from a person that preached kindness and acceptance. Yet she sided with the people that punish me FOR having shown that kindness and acceptance to someone else, and never intend to stop. Why following Mico yourself, then?

I have no skill of forgiving people that do not feel remorse, I am not that kind of a person. It just hurts until I forget or find another thing to worry about. I don't know where to turn to, what superior power to pray to for faster healing from this, because betrayal like this is the worst thing you can do to me. It is fine to refuse to forgive someone's mental breakdown, but why not tell me off in private? Why run under the skirt of the person with bad faith that only supports neurodivergence in the form of being quirky about one's special interests and not for what problems it really brings? Does she really think it is victim's fault when they develop bad trust and abandonment issues upon a creepy stalker trying to ruin their life? The cunt would've doxxed me if they could only over the fact that I said I was gonna reblog from who I want - again, something she herself kept getting harassed over. So was that okay, then? She never meant her words, then, and only flexed her "I interact with who I want" for weird flex of herself as a hero, and not for our friends group?

Well, yes. It has to be that. Until she saw an opportunity to switch sides and find a more compelling "enemy" to stand against. The final punch in the gut is that she assumes my friends are okay with the betrayal either, just goes around as though nothing happened, as though having betrayed someone and still writing them down as vile and unremorceful even after they apologised to her two times was nothing. Yeah, why? If a person failed to meet her personal mark of forgiving, tolerating and shrugging off harassment - then they deserve to be backstabbing and thrown to those cultish ableists. That's her logic.

And I just want to vent all this in a sorry effort to remind myself: "See, she is so petty and callous that she doesn't deserve crying and hurting over! People like that are below you, Kat, just forget it and move on!" But in the end, I just can't stop asking myself why. She did not feel like that type of a person. My other mutual also said it was not expected, since she had that 'wise', thoughtful exterior all along and acted as though she was trustworthy. At this rate I was right in my accusation of her being brainwashed, I guess... The only thing I was wrong is the TIME when it happens.

#/vent #personal #honestly she is arguably worse than other two #they are just bad people from the get go #but she? she CHOSE to be bad. like. deliberately. #that's worse.

[trickstarbrave]

i really hate the fact the nord pantheon was just thrown to the wayside in favor for the imperial pantheon and any discussions i see of it are unsatisfying or even sometimes frankly stupid.

“it was 200 years” yeah a lot can change in 200 years but you mean to tell me i will have dunmer lecturing me at random going “oh btw we dont worship the tribunal anymore back to the good old good daedra for us :)” but absolutely 0 fucking explanation of how this happened. im just expected to know it. with the dunmer its kinda silly bc anyone who played thru all of morrowind to know enough about the tribunal worship in detail can probably infer it on their own and don’t need it spelled out for them. and people who haven’t probably wouldn’t know enough to think it was unusual. but sure go ahead and have that in to explain the lore as though my random 25 year old nord dragonborn pc would know anything about dunmeri customs and religious history. but the explanation for the widespread adoption of the imperial pantheon in favor of the nord pantheon???? just completely fuckin gone??? okay fine whatever

“well scandinavia was christianized in like 200 years so things change” the christianization of scandinavia is messy and unusual (and also took longer than like 200 years fully). they were converted mostly peacefully due to the relationship nordic people have with dieties--based on convenience. gods are like people you have relationships with, and sometimes those relationships are business relationships. also it was politically motivated to get some extra manpower from christians for various political battles and scuffles. the nords, while based loosely on pop cultural depictions of vikings, don’t actually follow this. they are people deeply rooted in tradition. change happens, and takes centuries to fully shift. two centuries may in theory be enough time to do that--but not without adequate explanation and see the above on that. they are prideful and at times arrogant. at best i could see them adopting a few compromises for politics, but the thing is imperial pantheon was already the compromise they were tolerating and not really adopting.

“well they needed unity for the great war” that means then that this change is around like, what, 40 years old at the most if i give them 10 years of hindsight for the great war happening. the great war started 30 years before skyrim began. it was not some monumental battle at the 200 years ago mark that would kick start the political shift. could i see it happening? yes. but that would mean ulfric--who is older than the great war very obviously--would probably be MUCH more politically motivated to instead be championing the adoption of the old nord pantheon the imperials tried to stamp out for political unity. in fact, this would be an even better motivation for his direct hostilities with the empire, because that means their religious persecution of nords was LONG before the fucking white gold concordant. but that isn’t what happened. instead this would have to mean 40 years ago at most (probably more around like, what, 32???) the empire forced the imperial pantheon down every nord’s throat, banned their worship of the nord pantheon effectively, redid all their shrines and temples during the war, converted a bunch of people to loving talos through propaganda, and then after the war ended said “nevermind you can’t worship talos anymore” and ulfric was ONLY mad about the last part. right. sure.

also frankly the religious diversity made the world of the elder scrolls more fucking interesting. it was cool to see it. it was interesting to see varieties of faith, different creation myths, complex religious history and shifts of faith. it was cool to see how these cultures evolved and changed through their history to be something alien and weird and to see other cultures react in universe to those differences. keeping the nordic pantheon would have made the game more interesting. but it also would have involved making a world that required more thinking on the part of the player to understand instead of turning off their brain and just thinking this is oblivion with vikings. rich lore previously established is gutted and ignored, only vague place names remaining. is saarthal inthe mage’s college about uncovering the mystery of the attach by snow elves on the atmorans? no its about the eye of magnus. okay, uh, are we gonna learn about the elven god magnus? no, just go to this old nord ruin that was the center of the dragon cult to retrieve an artifact to stop it. oh are we gonna learn about the dragon cult? no you idiot it became a training ground for archmages in disjointed puzzles, go kill some zombies draugar, fight a lich king dragon priest, get the artifact, and come back with no explanation of the arcane mysteries you’ve experience and take your prize of being the archmage now that everyone else is dead. don’t you feel satisfied and like you’re in a real living breathing world and role playing in it?

#skyrim #the elder scrolls #the elder scrolls lore #playing morrowind is a real treat if ur someone who loves world building and lore #and then going back to skyrim makes it hurt all the more afterwards

[2xplusungood]

I feel like something that isn't talked about enough is the fact that the reason why so many youths are drawn into this sort of "everyone sucks" sort of mindset is that when you grow up being taught by conservatives, sure there may be a point when they realize just how horrid the political views of their family members are, but have inadvertedly swallowed the slow poisoning against the left over their formative years.

This can be especially harmful to people who fall outside of cultural norms as for so many years they have been at best constantly criticized for who they are or at worst straight up ostracized by friends and family.

They grow up feeling like shit for who they are while being fed conservative talking points about the left and the seed is planted to make them believe that EVERYONE is like that, right or left. Then they see these fringe cases of extremists on the left who also demonize who they are (usually just for other reasons) and it reinforces that idea that its all just hate from all sides.

They are so used to the conservative playbook that its hard to imagine otherwise. Like of course you're gonna buy and internalize the lie of "Those leftists will demonize you unless you are part of a marginalized group" when you are already so used to being demonized if you aren't the "good Christian boy" your family wants you to be, because to you thats just how life works.

Alone this is already bad but it can also get so much worse as having this mindset is when the radicalization begins to seep in. Hategroups LOVE to downplay the absolute fuck out of how the conservative mindset affects our culture while overplaying the effect of people outside that political ideology.

Heres an example: Early 2010s saw a rise in critique against things like sexism, racism, homophobia and lack of representation of marginalized groups in video games. People began treating video games are more than just a leisure activity you turn your brain off and enjoy and more like a serious art form.

On the other hand, gaming had become just about synonymous with this exact group of people. These critiques to them felt like a coordinated attack on gaming (And these sort of people by extension) from the left, and do you know WHY that is? It is because for DECADES there HAD been a coordinated attack on gaming from the CONSERVATIVES, who believed things like "Games cause violence" and were 100% fully IN SUPPORT of censorship.

These people were already so used to the conservative playbook that "Game developers should be more socially conscious" became "Games are sexist/racist/homophobic and should be banned" because they were so used to dealing with "Games are Violent/Satanic and should be banned" because the very idea of being critical of something out of a place of wanting it to improve vs being critical of something because you hate it and want it gone" was so ALIEN to them. Hence near CONSTANT comparisons of Jack Tompson (A lawyer who repeatedly lobbied congress for the banning and censorship of video games) to Anita Sarkeesian (Someone who made videos and WORKED WITH DEVELOPERS as a consultant to HELP their games be better)

Now here comes the Far-right. "Hey buddy heres some talking points to absolutely DEMOLISH the SJWs! Trust me Im just like you Im ostracized by both the left and right. Dont actually think about it too hard. After all it completely DESTROYS them and reinforces the idea you're being attacked"

Suddenly the Alt-right is born out of the lie "Both the left and right are BAD but the left is SO much worse" being left to fester. After all, if you spend enough time learning to "defend yourself" against the Leftists, your views are probably gonna start to align with the conservatives who were all too happy to join your fight against the "SJWs who are trying to DESTROY your hobby."

I think thats also why there are a surprising number of transpeople who held previously reprehensible views in the past, because they grew up ostracized and demonized while also having a bitter hatred to the very people trying to HELP them because all they know is abuse, but eventually they managed to heal from this mindset and get them help and support they need.

Not a day goes by that I don't feel utter CONTEMPT for the person I used to be, but I suppose the reason Im writing this to more fully understand what had lead me to become that person, so that I can hopefully help people avoid making the same mistakes I did. Maybe its even for the better that I will always hate who I was, and that there is likely people out there who will never forgive me for my past. People change but the damage done cannot be undone and its not the job of the people you've attacked to work on seeing you any differently. They don't owe you forgiveness.

[theultimatenonbinarynerd]

Ok so I just have to get this thing off of my chest about the Mandalorian and seeing the whole religious philosophy debate. First of all is never cool to hate on religion but it's even worse to discriminate people outside of your religious beliefs and be a bigot.

I think Mandalorian is trying to address the debate of its important to respect everyone forge their own faith and not push your beliefs onto them.

I'm going to be addressing both sides of the coin here quickly. I'm Nonbinary Aromantic Asexual and have grown up all my life Mormon so unlike some people I can see why Din clings so hard to the way so much, he's willing to sacrifice his own life. I don't think people realise the damage of growing up somewhere and being told hey you can't stay anymore because your existence and actions is something I don't believe in. I'm still in church because I know without church I lose all the people I have known since childhood and have no one else because I'm neurodivergent and I'm terrible at making healthy support networks. I will leave my church and become agnostic when I'm ready but I need to rethink my faith first and what it means to be me and get rid of my religious guilt about my identity. Picture Din who has had nothing, he lost his parents at the age of 8 and the covert is the only thing he's ever known since they practically saved his life and raised him in their way. Would he have been different raised under the nite owls we'll never know but right now after losing his ship and almost his child, Din is clinging for his family, he still hasn't fully processed his truama. To him breaking the creed for the kid was a huge thing as it was like stepping into an alien world with no one to support him. Right now he needs the creed until he can let go of his parents and fully process that truama its what he needs. It's also what he needs so he can lift the Darksaber without it breaking his limb. Yes the armour and Paz are red flags but unfortunately there are bad people in every religion and its something that's not our problem unless it effects human rights as we have control of our faith.

I want S3 to be a middle ground between the religious traumatised peeps saying it's a cult and the religious people that are hurt and ashamed by people saying that. Mandalore will only be united if all the tribes can unite and respect each tradition. I never understood that to some religious people might interpret Dins helmet as a hijab or something else as I was looking at it through a Christian Catholic lense especially with the baptism ceremony.

But Star Wars is about interesting mortally gray people (Excluding the empire) and how not everything is black and white.

People forget Truama can bleed into how we read fiction so how do you think a ton of religious traumatised people including myself are gonna react when we see the tribes ways. I haven't seen the episode but the fact that they welcomed Bo and said she can leave anytime was humble and shows how again Mandalore can only be United if all believes are respected.

I think people's biggest problems are with this covert is that they judge their way of Mandalore as the truest and don't respect other people's ways we saw that originally with Din in season 2. Respect is the key thing its not their authority to claim who Mandalorians are. It's a bit rude to tell Mandalorians who were born and raised there that they are not Mandalorian. Mandalorians are only not Mandalorians when they choose to give up their armour. Its like Satine (still love her) calling Jango and Boba Fett none Mandalorians when they are as they are foundlings with their own beliefs. Its like trying to erase an essential part of Mandalorian culture (The warrior side) without a middle ground and I believe that's what the children of the watch and other Mandalorians need to do.

But that's just my thoughts please be respectful and not bigoted otherwise I will block you and disable comments. I'm just so tired of people looking at Children Of The Watch and Dins involvement in a black and white lense when not everything is like that especially in Star Wars of all things.

-Melody-

They/Them

#star wars #the mandalorion spoilers #mando spoilers #fandom criticism #religious guilt #din djarin #bo katan kryze #armour #children of the watch

[lettersfromthelevant]

As per your tags (which I love to read) I write fanfic about Mass Effect, a sci-fi fantasy game series. The player character, Shepard, has no canonical ethnicity or religion. You can headcanon it all in. However, there is a horrible trend in fics and fanart where Shepard (who can be any sex) teaches their alien lover the miracle of Christmas or the spirit of Christmas. I may have written a post about how much I hate these fics and art and got blocked by a lot of people. Out of spite, I wrote a Yom Kippur oneshot. So, for me, it’s not so much about taking a Jewish character and making them celebrate Christmas, which absolutely happens, but making the goddamn aliens Christian-adjacent too.

Ah, lol 😅 I'm glad someone likes my tag rambles. I had no idea people actually read those. I definitely feel you regarding fandom with the whole "human teaches aliens the spirit of Christmas" shit. It's frustrating as hell, especially when you relate to the characters and their situations and want to explore the connections to your culture.

I'm in the Star Wars fandom and in particular, the Jedi fanbase; the sheer amount of fics I read based around Christmas (or Christian ideals in general) in a universe where Christianity doesn't even exist is wild. Especially the ones where it's the Jedi--a community based on non-Christian religions, such as Judaism and Buddhism-- teaching (or more often, being taught) to celebrate Christmas, is actually infuriating at times. I feel like I never see fics relating Jedi characters to holidays from the cultures they are actually based on and the fandom is absolutely inundated with alien characters, or characters based on non-Christian cultures, being taught to 'value' Christian holidays and ideals. And like... it might not technically be erasure, but damn does it feel like it when it's the only thing you see. The normalization of Christian culture in situations where it isn't even canonically present is frustrating.

Also, I'm not in the Mass Effect fandom, but I do play the games and I would love to read your Yom Kippur oneshot!

#lucky.txt #fandom #star wars #antisemitism #(in terms of the normalization of jewish erasure)

[retrieve-the-kraken]

I just had a long debate about representation and inclusivity and the new trailer for The Little Mermaid, and I think I understand why so many people, who claim to not be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, are still against the re-telling of a story with a character being played by a person of color, being played by a woman, being presented as gay, being played by a trans actor, etc…

It might be because they feel that the new version negates the previous version. Like if Superman, who has always been white and male since the comics and in every media representation, were suddenly played by a black female actor, they feel that all previous representations as white male Superman suddenly cease to exist.

Yes, Superman was used as an example in the debate, and that’s when I realized what the issue was.

In this case, my argument would be that Superman’s story has always been more intrinsically connected to his skin color and gender identity than we think, and therefore if you changed the gender and skin color of the characters you would have to make A LOT of adjustments to the story, and then it wouldn’t be the same story, it would be different. Because if a black female alien landed on Earth in Middle America in the 1930s, I think Superman’s story would have turned out very different… Therefore Superman’s identity and story is a lot more related to how he is perceived as a white male in the time and place where he’s supposed to exist. This is a story that, although fictional, is heavily influenced by U.S. culture and political history, those two things give the fictional events of Superman a lot of context.

Meanwhile, The Little Mermaid does not have any of that. Even if Hans Christian Andersen wrote The Little Mermaid as a red-headed white woman, she’s still very much a fantasy character in a fantasy world where mermaids exist. The story of The Little Mermaid has very little do to with her skin or hair color, and everything to do with her being a little mermaid, again a fictional character in a fictional world, who wants to know what it’s like to live on land and be with this guy that she saw once. Basically she can be any color you want, the story is the same. In fact, I would actually hope that they, the makers of the new Little Mermaid, make the effort to include some kind of historical context for when the story is supposed to be set and how different it would be if the titular mermaid were black, make it a little more interesting, make it a slightly different story.

Which brings me back to the original point: people seem to fear the eradication of their beloved character that they grew up with. But the original Little Mermaid movie, with its animated red-headed white character is not going away, it doesn’t cease to exist. It’s still the first one, in fact it’s the SOURCE material more than the fairy tale (which is very different, it has a very different and very depressing ending and nobody sings beloved songs), and you can keep liking it as much as you want, while new generations get to pick from two versions (three if you count the original fairy tale). And they can like one of the them or the other or both. (For example, keeping with the Disney live-action remakes, I liked the remake of Beauty and the Beast, I still prefer the original animated Aladdin, and I haven’t even bothered to watch the new Lion King because I know I’m going to hate it, those lions look grumpy as heck).

And it makes me think that people don’t really understand how media works…? Because precisely the convenient thing about media is that you get to tell the same story multiple times, keeping it the same or making slight changes or making big changes… whatever you like. There have literally been four versions of Spider-Man in the span of 20 years…

And it makes me wonder if more people would benefit from reading fanfiction.

For example, you watch any of the MCU Spider-Man movies, they’re all great. But now you wonder: what if Spider-Man was gay and fell in love with a boy named MJ? What if Spider-Man was a trans woman this whole time? What if Spider-Man never had powers and met MJ whilst working in a coffee shop (hashtag coffee shop AU)? What if they didn’t meet in school but at uni (hashtag college AU)? What if they met because MJ texted the wrong number and got Peter instead (hashtag wrong number AU)? What if they went to Hogwarts (hashtag Hogwarts AU)? What if, what if, what if?????

None of those stories are the same, yet they contain the same core characters and exist simultaneously in the same universe in a way, and we get to explore different ideas, different possibilities for these characters, different scenarios no matter how fantastic, different romantic couplings, even crossovers with other media… And if you can’t find the story that you’re looking for, if your headcanon has not been written by someone already, then you get to write it yourself!

In fact, you don’t even have to read fanfiction to consider the alternate possibilities. They actually exist in popular media. Consider Spider-Man: No Way Home. Sure, all three Spider-Men are white male, but only one of them has been in love with a girl named Gwen, only one of them has been in the Avengers, only one of them has had the most iconic upside-kiss off all time, and all three of them have fought different villains throughout their stories. And then suddenly they team up and have the cutest, fan-servicing interactions! Like brothers! Look, they´re all pointing at each other, lol.

And don’t even get me started on Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse! Arguably the best multiverse movie yet, give me a live-action adaptation of that, I doubt that it will do any justice to the outstanding animation, but I kinda want to see Miles Morales team up with SpiderGwen, Jake Johnson, Peter Porker, Nicholas Cage and Peni Parker against Kathryn Hahn.

Or better yet, consider the show Loki, where actual variants of the same character exist, like fanfiction: what if Loki was a woman? What if Loki had remained with the Frost Giants? What if Loki was a child? What if Loki was black? What if Loki was a crocodile? Their stories are all so different, and all so real, and they all exist at once, althought not necessarily in the same universe. But we could explore every single one of them. Throg is real. Croki is real.

Or even better, consider the show actually called WHAT IF…? Where alternate scenarios for so many of the MCU stories already told are present. What if Peggy Carter took the supersoldier serum instead of Stever Rogers, so we get Captain Britain instead of Captain America? What if all the original Avengers were murdered? What if Tony never became Ironman? What if they were all ZOMBIES???

I do feel like originality seems to have come to a stand-still. Everything seems to be a sequel, a live-action remake, an adaptation, etc etc etc. There are THREE Pinocchio films coming out this year. All three very different (one is by Guillermo del Toro, which I’m looking forward to the most, it’s sure to be the most interesting, but the Disney one, although it looks to be a frame-by-frame adaptation of the animation, has Tom Hanks and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, so I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want to experience that), but ultimately I don’t think we need three… not in the same year, at least.

And now we’re going to have two little mermaids. If the adaptation doesn’t update it a little and make it a little more aspirational (I don’t know if I want to sit through a movie in which a young woman’s voice is stolen, and then she’s basically only valued because of her looks and then she gets the guy… wow, what a progressive story), if it’s only a frame-by-frame live-action adaptation, then it’s a lost opportunity to make the story into a little something more. But I get why simply the fact that the titular character being played by a woman of color is a step-forward, I would simply wish for something more. I’ll probably still watch it, thought. Whether I like it or not is yet to be determined (but it will be determined by the quality of the story, not by the skin color of the protagonist).

I do think that, if you want to do a remake of a story whilst changing the skin color or gender identity or sexuality of their original character(s), you do have, like with any other remake that does not make any of those changes, an obligation to try to do something else with the story, and a BIPOC character or a character with a different gender identity or expression or sexuality is the perfect opportunity. Make it more interesting, reinvent it, update something, etc. Don’t just keep it exactly the same and only change the packaging slightly. Then you’re just trying to trick people into giving you money for nothing.

What I can’t put up with is the double standards of people complaining that the little mermaid is supposed to be white and why are they now turning her black, when they don’t say a word when BIPOC characters continue to be whitewashed in media to this day.

#race in media #the little mermaid #representation #representation matters #inclusivity

[what-if-i-just-did]

Writing Realistic Future Names

You writing something with aliens? Dystopian future? Doctor Who fic? 'Humans are the Weird ones' post? Need names?

Are you, like me, tired of dystopian names which are normal names written dumbly, or futuristic settings with normal names (looking at you Star Trek), or absolute nonsense? Well here's some cool ways to get futuristic names that make sense.

Celeb and Fandom Names

Names like Draco, Hermione, Sherlock, Mycroft, Enola, Benedict, Castiel, Destiel, Jensen, Danneel, Spock, Katniss, Primrose, Teyla, Elsa, Anakin, Loki, Constantine, Jinx, Rhianna, Catra, Adora, Zendaya, Halsey, Misha/Mischa, Korra, Katara, Toph, Cardi, Mabel, Ariel, Whoopi, Madonna, Oprah, Usain etc are gonna become increasingly popular, like they already are, even more so once enough time passes that people stop associating them with certain pieces of media or certain famous people.

Other Language Names

Historically, in different times different countries have a total global influence, and that will effect names. Right now, it's the USA. During the Rennasaince, it was France. We're pretty close to having Japan and other Asian cultures become the next big influence, what with all the anime everyone globally is watching/reading. Now, depending on how far in the future you're writing, add global influence from other countries. Dutch names like Marjolein and Ninthe and Brechtje, pronounced to the accent of the setting of your story. Try to go with cultures who have potential to be big: don't choose some small country somewhere that nobody has ever heard of. Go for Native American or Mexican or Russian or Japanese or Egyptian.

Surnames

Use surnames for first names! A lot of names that used to be surnames are now gender neutral first names, such as Avery. Use surnames! Johnson, Harris, Smith. All of it!

Strange Shortenings

Shorten traditional names in unntraditional ways! Richard always gets shortened to Richie or (for some unfathomable reason) Dick. What about Char? Chard? Those are kick-ass names. Chris for Christian? Cancelled. It's Tian now. Cathy for Catherine? Wrong. Let's make it Rhine. Amy from Amelia? Let's screw with that, turn it into Ammy. You get it.

Pretty Words

People tend to call their children by name of something pretty, and then those names exist untill after the words have lost their meaning. Right now, most of our names are Biblical Hebrew and Latin and Old English/German. We're at the point where slowly, child names are gonna mean things in today's language again. It's already happening a little; Dawn and Hope and Autumn... but give me children called Justice and Fauna and Prime and Amethyst and Earth. Ash and Queen and Happy and Light and Feline. Give me twins called Sapphire and Sapphic, like we call our twins Catherine and Caithlynn or Tim / Timothy and Tom / Thomas now.

Spelling

Spelling is going to shift with the years, and you want your names to reflect this. This one pretty much only works for at least a hundred years into the future. Here's some guidelines of what spelling might become:

t / th = d

s / k = c

ee = i

a = e (sometimes)

y = i (sometimes)

ks = x

o = oe

h = h (add more often)

Examples: Katherine = Caderine, Timothee = Dimoedhi, Blake = Bleke, Susanna = Cucennah etc. Of course, you can do it your own way, or only use some of these guidelines if you want. Feel free to play around with it. If you chose to go for this, keep in mind that there will still be some names in old spelling, just like we still have towns called Kooperdeck and stuff like that. This technique sounds dangerously close to the "say names while your mouth is full of oreos" technique that some dystopian writers use that I hate, but because it's based on logic and what the future might actually be like, as long as you use this in moderation, it'll sound really cool. Out of these examples, Caderine and Bleke are better to use than Dimoedhi and Cucennah, because "Timothee" and "Susanna" have been pretty much lost. If that's what you're looking for though, then that's your thing, I just personally like to be able to see realistic names and eventhough those names are based on logical prediction, they sound made-up.

Gender

You need to pay attention to the percieved gender of names. You can use names that are gendered or slightly gendered right now as gender neutral names. But if you're inventing new names, do pay attention to whatever percieved gender they have in your universe. You can use Chard and Jensen for girls, Caderine and Sapphire for guys. In fact, you should definetly use names like Loki and Earth and Rhine as non-binary names.

Disclaimer: I haven't studied history, and most things I reference here as 'historically, x has happened and is therefore likely to repeat in the future' are just things I've picked up on and heard about and logically deduced, and they could be wrong. However, I consider myself very smart and I really really like history, so you should consider this as a fairly accurate depection. Just know that if someone who actually studied or researched this topic says I'm wrong then I'm probably wrong.

So there you go! How to write realistic future names. Have fun!

#writeblr #hfy #character names #future #writing #dystopia #tw star trek mention #fanfiction

[because-you-are-loved]

https://youtu.be/UNgGfkRKSIQ

To my fellow students, but especially my fellow members of the lgbtq+ community…

Please, read this post if you feel alone, misfit, hated, worthless, or anything else like it.

Hello, I am a student here at Cornerstone, and too much of my time has passed in fear of being ridiculed and attacked for my sexuality. I am an asexual gay man who came out just over a year and a half ago, and I still am not fully out of the closet. My family thrives on mocking lgbtq+ people, frequently crowning them with degrading comments and disgusting humor. That hostile environment stopped me from being willing to love and accept myself as the person I am, and that is not okay.

For so long, I denied the truth that I was gay. My church and my friends preached that gay people go to hell, and choosing to be anything but straight was an affront to God and defying His wishes for us. I did everything I possibly could to be straight, to find a girlfriend, and to live the heterosexual dream my parents so desperately want for me. Early into my sophomore year, I met someone who gently asked me about my sexuality, my wants, my hopes, my interests, and everything I had denied myself for such a long time. She helped me to question myself, deconstruct the lies I had built, and begin seeing myself for who I really am, and I owe her more than I could ever offer. She has continued supporting me unconditionally throughout this process of coming out and learning to love myself. With her help and countless hours of practice, I have gradually been learning to be okay with the person God always loved and known me to be.

It has taken me a very long time not to hate myself for having crushes on men and envisioning my future with one who loves me. Sometimes, I still hate my sexuality for making life difficult, especially as a Christian, but that is why I made this Tumblr. As I feel this cluster of emotions, I remember there is no way I am the only person who feels this way, and I want you to know how beautiful and valuable you are.

No matter if you're gay, lesbian, bi, trans, ace, aro, or any other part of the queer community, you are loved and purposeful. Psalm 139:13 famously says "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb." God has always known the real you, and the you who so desperately felt the need to hide from yourself, from your family, from the world. God created ALL OF US in His image, the imago dei, as loving, forgiving, creative, passionate creatures. You are no less of an image bearer than a straight person, or anyone else free from the burden you carry. YOU are loved. YOU are worthy. YOU are wonderfully made, and so am I. So are we all.

Cornerstone is a place whose leadership often fails to recognize the experiences of lgbtq+ individuals, aside from feeling like a personal failure and a disappointment to our Creator. Cornerstone, much like the larger church, often leaves us in the shadows. We are cast aside in favor of a more on-brand alternative. In her book, Talking Back to Purity Culture, Rachel Joy Welcher, a conservative Christian woman, criticizes the church for frequently putting the heterosexual married couples with children on a pedestal, as an aspiration and bar to reach, describing fitting in at church as being seated at a table (a common Christian motif). "The promises in purity culture," which most of us were bottle-fed, "include the majority who get married and have children. But they alienate those who don't fit into the heteronormative, nuclear family, making them the easy pick for the kid's table, with knees pushed up to the their chests, straining to hear the conversation happening in the other room" (p.68). Cornerstone, even unintentionally, can set an atmosphere whispering to lgbtq+ students they best be undetected lest they get in the way of proper Christianity.

I want you to know that is untrue. You are not disgusting, or worthless, or a mistake, or unholy. You. Are. Beautiful. And in the eyes of God, you are among the most sacred things creation has to offer, brokenness and all. You carry a story unique to you, and though others may have similar pieces, only yours happened the way it did.

I'm sorry you had to go through everything you did. I am sorry you were tagged as wrong, inadequate, failing, disappointing, or any other degrading descriptor, and I pray that whoever dehumanized you for not being straight has prepared themselves for God's response to slashing His beloved.

I won't reveal my identity (though some of you may already know who I am), but please know that I want to hug you tightly and tell you I love you. I love every part of you, and I want to know your story. I want you to have a chance to know the love God has for you, and I want you to know that no matter what anyone says to you, He will always love you. Always.

Please feel free to leave comments if you have anything you need to say or ask.

[blakelywintersfield]

Joyofsatan.org (JoS) is not based upon LaVeyanism, JoS is literally against LaVeyanism and atheistic Satanism. They repeatedly state this on their website.

JoS follows the Al Jilwah and the Qu’ret Al Yezid as their main texts, they don’t believe in the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. JoS is 100% theistic while LaVeyanism is atheist.

So like, what is all of this about then? Unless they just recently bogarted that site from this group described with sources listed? Nazism is referred to twice in the introduction alone, and multiple times in multiple sections. The founder of JoS was married to NSM chairman Clifford Herrington while she was a high priestess in the group. Nothing that you've said seems to line up with this sourced, up-to-date information (the oldest source being about 10 years old and referencing general parts of theological Satanism as a whole).

You can be a queer person of color and still be a Nazi -- "Uncle Tom" is a term for a reason in black culture. You can be a part of a group and still hate that group. We literally deplatformed Milo Yiannopoulos for being a gay man who was also an outspoken white supremacist. Internalized self-hatred is not a new concept and yes any minority can be guilty of it, including women, people of color, and queer people. As for Anton LaVey -- he has a long history of antisemitic preaching. It's in his books. It's in his speeches. It's in his social life. Being ethnically Jewish does not mean he cannot hold antisemitic views, especially if you're not raised Jewish (which he never confirmed what he was raised as, but it's been implicated many times he was raised as Christian). The religion also adopts "alien race" conspiracy theories into its basic ideology, which not only has heavy racist implications ("It's considered by Joy of Satan that most salient of his creations were the Nordic-Aryan race") but also reminds me a little too much of the notorious Church of Scientology.

I've gotta say, your view of Abrahamic religions is extremely Western Christian-based. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity can hardly be grouped together when you get to know some of the base beliefs -- calling any of them anti-gay and anti-women is just... well, a very Western Christian take, especially since there's also modern sects of these religions that are extremely pro-choice, pro-queer, etc. Judaism has its own literal magical practices, too -- saying the religion is anti-Pagan is its own form of ignorance. A lot of modern Pagan religions have appropriated Jewish magic (Wicca especially, but modern Paganism in general is bad about it) so damning the religion on top of taking from it is just. That's literally a core part of cultural genocide, y'know?

There's a lot to unpack here and I just don't have the mental energy right now to collect all the resources to go into this further, but like. Condemning full religions based on shitty sects condemns millions of innocent people in the process, and judging a group of religions based on your relationship with one of those erases the history and cultures of all the others you damn with it. I get it -- Christianity has a lot of very toxic traits that have hurt millions since its conception. The most aggressive forms of it seem to be here in the western hemisphere, too. But I will not denounce other religions I've never been a part of nor know enough about for having a distant relationship with the one that hurt me. I don't believe Satanism is inherently bad either, and I did even say in the tags I wouldn't assume anyone that's a part of the church to be overtly antisemitic, but the fact remains that antisemitism is a core part of JoS.

I'd also like to add -- if you're aware that Jewish people are an ethnicity (Judaism is an enthic religion; race is a social construct based on salient characteristics alone and has no scientific backing; an ethnicity shares history, culture, etc.) then you must be aware that damning Jewish people... is in itself a form of ethnophobia. One we have a specific name for -- antisemitism.

If you have to found your religion based on the hate of another religion, you're simultaneously continuing to let that religion run your life, and inviting violent extremism into your group. I'm sorry if you're a part of this group and just now finding out about its extremist views through a tumblr ask, but like. I'm highly against anti-theism. I'm not a fan of "all religion bad" takes, but I'm also critical of religion as a whole. One of my main drives for leaving Christianity was the fact that separating my personal views from the heavily Protestant, Baptist, and Fundamentalist views that permeate western sects was next to impossible. Even when I'd go into the details of sects I liked, there would eventually be things I'd not be comfortable associating with (in the majority of cases, antisemitism). I'm not about to damn an entire population based on the fact that one guy ties them together.

Judaism is nothing like Christianity, with what little I know about it (and I know more than the average gentile about it). Back before I started learning more about it, I did just lump it in with Christianity and Islam, but everything we're taught about Judaism is wrong. Unless you were taught about the beliefs by a practicing Jew, what you think you know about the religion is probably just. blatantly false. It's kind of fucked up.

I implore that you take a step away from your computer or phone right now and take some time to process this -- I'm assuming the original ask was originally in good faith (albeit a little strange) and that you're probably feeling gobsmacked by my response, and you were originally unaware of these things, which has you upset now. And understandably so! I'd be upset to hear about something as intimate as my religion having unsavory origins or core beliefs. (Hell I have had to deal with that in the past, both with Christianity and when I was in the introductory stages of Wicca.) I don't mean this in a "go outside" kind of way, or a "quit being overly emotional" way -- I mean like. It's okay, it's healthy to give yourself time to process these kinds of things. I say this from experience because my emotions can be so strong I might not fully understand what I say or do when I'm in the midst of feeling them.

I want to believe you came to me in good faith; I want to believe you're a good person, no matter how much of a stranger you are, and giving yourself time to breathe is important. Then do some research -- slowly, but thoroughly. Look at the Wikipedia article. Look at the sources. Check the biases -- the sources and your own. This isn't a misunderstanding or an unwillingness to learn on my end; this is the information I have from cited, peer-reviewed sources. I don't take any pleasure in telling people "this thing you hold close has an unsavory core to it" but I'm also not going to deny the truth. Organized religion is a landmine -- many that sound too good to be true are. This one is no exception.

#also: i do not feel comfortable debating ''why shouldn't we hate jewish people?'' that's not something to debate. #i can be patient with a lot of things but if you're wanting me to give ANY validation to hating jews you're in the wrong place #i'm of the belief that it's 100% moral to execute nazis on sight. the core belief of nazism is hating the jews. #unless you're a former practicing jew the claim that judaism has wronged you personally is dubious #and i don't know how the belief system could've damaged the world at all #sorry to all my followers that this is so long lmao

[automatismoateo]

r/Atheism from the perspective of a twenty-something Brit via /r/atheism

r/Atheism from the perspective of a twenty-something Brit Long time lurker on this sub. It quickly became clear to me that this was an overwhelmingly American space, but I stuck around more out of curiosity than anything else, and figured I would make this post. I am an atheist myself. My Dad and brother are atheists too, while my Mum is sort of agnostic but largely doesn’t care. To be honest, most of the people I know are atheists, especially young people. I can count the number of genuine Christians I know near my age on one hand and have fingers to spare. The list of genuine Christians I know among my older associates is only slightly longer. Culturally Britain remains a Christian country (which I’m fine with), but actual Christian faith is disappearing rapidly, and no one much cares. This is the relationship most people in Britain have with religion - we just don’t give a damn. This is why being an atheist isn’t a core part of my identity, as it simply doesn’t need to be. For this reason, I find the relationship between American atheism and American Christianity both fascinating and alarming. There seems to be a powerful Christian element in American society that is actively assaulting atheism and trying to destroy it. Perhaps my perspective is skewed somewhat by my bubble, but it seems like being an atheist in America, depending on where exactly you live, is genuinely difficult and even painful due to the hatred and vitriol you receive. It also seems like this has manifested in a vitriol in return - many people here seem to genuinely hate Christianity. There was even a post recently questioning saying Christian based things like ‘bless you!’ when someone sneezes. Questions like that are alien in the UK because no one even cares enough about religion to question it! This hatred of Christianity seems totally understandable given the treatment many people have received at the hands of Christians, it just saddens me to see religion causing such division in your society. Now why am I telling you this? It may surprise you to know that until very recently, Britain was a firmly Christian country. When the late Queen came to throne in 1952, a large majority of the population genuinely believed that she had been personally chosen by God. The decline of Christianity in this country has much older roots, but the actual collapse in faith has occurred very much within living memory. I know it seems like Christianity is only growing in strength in America and being an atheist will only get harder, but looking at the history of my own country I simply don’t think that’s true. You guys will get there, you just need to stick together. The last successful blasphemy trial in the UK was in 1977, just 47 years ago. Now here we are with religion at death’s door. There is very much hope, so don’t give up! Submitted January 01, 2024 at 04:15AM by tee-dog1996 (From Reddit https://ift.tt/XEGVpAh)

#reddit