#one dead tyrant doesn't stop tyranny

[idiotlittleme]

Just a reminder that both Hammas & The Israeli Government are unwanted by their own people.

This is not a war of and/or between people. This is a war of one tyranny against another.

Do not be mistaken by either propaganda. Palestinians are not Hammas. Israelis are not their government.

They want to make it seem like we all think like them, like it's black and white. But the truth is different and complicated. Do not buy this biased agenda of "it's either us or them". That's exactly what tyrants do. They make it seem like their way is the only way and if you don't think that then you are a traitor.

You are not a traitor just cause you hate killing. Just cause you don't fucking care if that baby's mom is Jewish or Muslim. Just cause you want to find another way.

And of course there are other ways. But they won't stay in power if not for the fear they are spreading amongst us. If not for the nationalist propoganda and all the racist bullshit that it's based on.

Call me naiive but I refuse. I will not die for this land and I will not kill for it. I refuse to be another pawn in their sick game. I refuse to give in to fear and hate.

We are all people here trying to make it through the day.

Are we equal? Hell no. There are a lot of work that needs to be done here. Legally, socially, culturally, and internationally. I don't want to sugarcoat it, so let me be clear - the reality is that the more white you are, the less Arab you are, you are going to get a better treatment. By the law, by the society, and by outsiders. The more Arab you are? You are considered more dangerous, less "cultured", and your education is always being questioned.

But you know what? All of these, all of these very vallid arguments about all the work that NEEDS to be done so fucking desperately, it won't change. And we can reach them with less dead bodies, less crying mothers, and less suffering and bloodbath.

The Palestinians National Authority should do their fucking job and take charge. I don't care if Hammas is allegedly more popular in Gaza, they are a terrorist group and not a state agency.

The Israeli governemnt should do their fucking job in finishing it all and not just make it all worse. No. It doesn't have the privilege to behave like Hammas - becase it's a state. Not a terrorist group. So get your shit together already.

All the other countries now getting involved - those in the middle east and those outside of it - they shouldn't aid with weapons, they should aid with getting all these maniacs to cease this and make some sort of progress that is not measured by guns and tanks.

God I wish this all will just stop.

#local perspective #gaza #palestine #israel

[freesidexjunkie]

8

Thank you!! This one is actually something I've tried to put some thought into so I'm excited to answer it! Based on Durge past life asks here.

8. What was their relationship with Orin like? Did it change at some point?

I had to do some googling again to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass and breaking canon but for the sake of this, let's just make some assumptions about Orin's age and (my) Durge's age. When Maevris' urges manifested and she killed her foster family, gets taken to the temple by Sceleritas, etc etc, Mae and Orin were roughly the same age (at least in terms of being children together and growing up together, differences of aging between races aside). With Orin being born and raised among the church and being the progeny of Sarevok, she probably feels as close to blue blooded royalty as Bhaalists get. And Mae, being raised in a relatively normal environment with no clue about her lineage, who goes from thinking she was an unwanted tiefling child to learning that she is the flesh of the god of murder almost overnight, is a little overwhelmed to say the least.

I see Orin as imagining she was taking Mae under her wing, in the same way the kid who's king of the playground might. She sees Mae as an equal in status, if not quite an equal in situation - after all, Mae is some pampered, quaking Baldurian child who can barely hold a knife at this point. Mae clings to who is probably the only other child around, probably the only person who isn't bowing to her unholy destiny. They're raised side by side as sisters, trained together the whole time. Over time that feeling of being Mae's superior in status probably starts to slip, with more people deferring to Mae over Orin and Mae rising to leadership over the church. This culminates in Mae becoming the Chosen of Bhaal - something that everyone, including Orin, expected, but it still stung nonetheless.

As they reach teenage years and into adulthood, they start to grow apart a little. No animosity between them, but not as attached at the hip anymore. Maevris has more responsibilities heaped onto her shoulders, while Orin is concerned more with her ideals of glory and her "art." Orin famously has much less self control than Mae and tends to put people outside the cult ill at ease, so she is often overlooked by her sister and by Bhaal for more serious matters. From her perspective, no one respects her anymore and everyone thinks Mae is somehow better than her; and from Mae's view, Orin has the freedom to do whatever she wants without expectation and duty holding her back. I don't think Orin blames Mae or holds this against her at this point, though.

Then Mae starts spending more time outside of the temple. Doing what? Who knows; she's so secretive about it. She brings back some torture racks that had been lost to the Gondians, sure, but doesn't seem keen to explain how she pulled it off. Slowly, she starts bringing up that she's been meeting with the leader of Bane's church. Does this mean we're allying with them? No, she insists, it does not; his support is for her to utilize. Odd, but the Dead Three have worked together in the past. And Mae is more composed than the rest of the Bhaalists to deal with...diplomatic relations.

Orin sees the difference in her sister, though. She sees concessions being made to the god of tyranny's Chosen where sacrifices should be made to Bhaal. She sees Mae withdrawing from the church, withdrawing from her. This petty arms dealer is clearly trying to lure her beloved sister away from her destiny, confusing her thoughts. She was always a bit too soft, too sweet, dear thing; it must be the Baldurian childhood. But the tyrant lord and his peons are strictly off limits; no one would dare to defy their god's chosen, his direct progeny on this cursed planet. That wouldn't stop Orin, however; she's just as much Bhaal's progeny as Mae is. She's got the same training, tutoring, the same bloodright as her sister. She doesn't criticize her publicly, but in private, Orin does little to hold her tongue. Mae doesn't listen, however. And once the Absolute plot is underway and the formal alliance between the Dead Three has taken shape, it only worsens. Mae isn't even bothering to hide the relationship (if you can call it such) between herself and Gortash. It's sickening to Orin.

Maybe she feels petty, or maybe she wants to send a message, or perhaps just testing how far her dear sister is willing to push for her external alliances. Orin stages a small attack on a group of people Mae has expressly forbidden. Not important to Bhaal's goals, only to her sister's little plaything and his own earthly goals. Bodies flayed and displayed, sacrificed to Bhaal (who is rather pleased with this, actually). Mae can do nothing but grit her teeth, but it's clear that the wedge is only being driven deeper between them. When Orin gets too close to Gortash, a warning strike of a few of his personal guards, is when Mae snaps. "You have everything you could want! Why can't you let me have one damned thing for myself?"

Everything she could want? From Orin's perspective, Mae has everything. Mae has the power, the respect, Bhaal's favor. Mae can do no wrong, even when she's flagrantly disrespecting their lord by bowing to the chosen of Bane. Mae is the one holding everything Orin wants in her hands, and she doesn't even deserve it.

And that's the moment that Orin snaps. There's no plan, no grand coup, no lying in wait or laying of traps. The pounce is quick, but the act itself is agonizingly drawn out. Orin flashes between different forms - Gortash, Sceleritas, Mae's shaking child self - anyone she thinks will drive the point home as she taunts and torments her sister. Because this tiefling, this ungrateful little orphan, her sister, has turned her back on her and on them all for a treasonous fling.

And when the Chosen meet the next day to discuss their plans, Orin attends on behalf of Bhaal. Casually, as if she was always meant to be there. Because she was meant to be there, she knows, as she carelessly twists an engraved gold-and-ruby locket in her fingers that she knows the lordling will recognize.

And while Gortash's anger and rage are plain for all to see, less noticeable is the shaking in Orin's hand as she paws at the necklace, or the quiver in her voice when Gortash demands to know where Mae is. The sneer in her voice as she answers the human's demands is easily mistaken for disdain of one so beneath her. "Your little playmate has lost Bhaal's favor," she answers outloud. Because you ruined her, she repeats in her mind. Because you took my sister away from me and you ruined her.

#oc asks #anon ask #durge oc #i love this one so much thank you for asking #it was so so fun #it also helped me flesh out Mae's backstory more in a part that I knew I wanted to be important #it's a long boy but I mean we all know im Verbose #ya girl can't use just one word where five could fit #maevris

[ignosticvoluntaryist-blog]

Fundamentals Of Voluntaryism

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

The Epistemological Argument

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, "No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence." Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, "You cannot shoot a truth!" The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force "is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion," and "if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak." Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

The Economic Argument

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions. Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, "controlled" economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the "unforeseeable and unpredictable." Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The Moral Argument

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn't guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of "better" on someone else, it protects us from having someone else's idea of "better" imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

The Natural Law Argument

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. "If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government." Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. "In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer."

The Means-End Argument

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one's rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

The Consistency Argument

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to "wage a war for peace" or "fight politics by becoming political." Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man's freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man's freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

The Integrity, Self-Control, and Corruption Argument

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life. - Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one's ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people's lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.