#anti literally everything this could possibly apply to

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Psycho Analysis: Seto Kaiba

(WARNING! This analysis contains SPOILERS!)

Every good anime revolving around a game, sport, or competition needs a great rival to antagonize the main character. A rival is a character who helps push the protagonist to their limits, and forces them to apply what they’ve learned in order to beat them. Now, a rival like that typically isn’t someone who is going to get a Psycho Analysis, as most rivals are just garden-variety jerks at worst. For instance, Gary Oak is a bit of a snot, but he’s literally a child and he turns things around and becomes a decent guy relatively quick. Or hell, look at Miles Edgeworth; he spends most of the first Ace Attorney butting heads with Phoenix Wright in court, but he’s pretty quickly shown to be far more concerned with finding the absolute truth than any truly nefarious purpose. Ultimately, most rivals end up being genuinely decent people who just take competition a little too seriously and eventually develop into staunch friends and allies.

But imagine a rival who never changes. A rival dead set on being the most antagonistic douchebag possible, one who is driven solely by the sheer spite and hatred they feel at being second banana to someone else, someone who can’t bear that their massive ego is even slightly bruised. A rival who may help when the chips are on the table, but who is only doing so for their own selfish and self-centered reasons. That’s a character I could reasonably review on Psycho Analysis! And if ever there was a character who fits that bill, it’s Seto freaking Kaiba.

Now, to be clear here, Kaiba isn’t a villain. He’s an antagonist, he’s an anti-hero, but for about 99% of his screentime he’s not technically a villain. But just because the series is called Psycho Analysis doesn’t mean I’m literally only reviewng psychos, and it’s about time I broke out a bit and experimented in this new year by looking at characters who aren’t totally evil, but maybe are a little bit. And as you’ll soon see, no one is a better choice to break the mold than the second best duelist in Domino City.

Motivation/Goals: To put it simply, everything Kaiba does is motivated by his ego or by spite. This is a man who has done genuinely great things, from dismantling his father’s bloodthirsty legacy of profiting off of war to opening theme parks and creating new technology to make Duel Monsters more fun and engaging for all players. All of this on paper makes him look like the most ethical animated billionaire this side of Scrooge McDuck, but there’s one little issue: Nothing he does is out of the goodness of his heart.

Do you think Kaiba actually gives a shit about anyone affected by his father’s business? No, he just dismantled it out of sheer hatred for his adopted father who, to be fair, really was a massive cunt. Do you think he went through all the trouble to make massive strides in Duel Monsters technology just so people could have fun? No, he did it all so he could exploit it in some way to defeat Yugi once and for all.

And that’s one of the biggest things that drives Kaiba: His unquenchable desire to defeat Yugi and be crowned the true king of games. The thing is, every time they have a fair fight, Kaiba gets his ass handed to him; the one time he won was by essentially threatening Yugi with suicide. His sheer petty desire to one-up Yugi extends far into the future, where he names the loser dork house of the academy in GX after Yugi’s Egyptian God card Slifer, while the ultra-cool prestigious house is named after the God he got, Obelisk. And in one possible end of his story, he goes to the most insane and ultimate extreme to try and settle his grudge (but more on that shortly).

Performance: In English, there are two main voice actors of note who have portrayed Kaiba. The first is Eric Staurt, who outside of Kaiba is best known for his Pokemon roles of Brock and James. It leads to a bit of whiplash hearing someone who sounds so similar to the affable yet horny Brock be an absolute arrogant prick, but I definitely think Stuart is able to pull it off.

The other VA of note is Martin “Littlekuriboh” Billany, creator of Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series and the man who voices about 90% of that gag dub’s cast. His take on Kaiba is pretty much what happens if you cross Stuart’s performance with Solid Snake, and it works very well for a Kaiba who’s weirder and wackier yet somehow even more insanely egotistical.

Final Fate: Kaiba, seeing as he’s just a douchebag and not a truly evil person, doesn’t get any sort of major comeuppance save for constantly getting his ass handed to him by Yugi. There are really two possible endings for him, though if you want to be charitable they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive. The first ending is, of course, that he eventually goes on to found the Duel Academy, which means he helps kickstart the events of Yu-Gi-Oh GX in a way. Anyone even partly responsible for the rise of bisexual monsterfucker king Jaden Yuki is getting high marks in my book.

But the much more notable ending for Kaiba comes from Dark Side of Dimensions where, so consumed by his desire to duel Atem one more time despite the pharaoh finally being at rest, he leaves his company in the hands of Mokuba and goes to the fucking afterlife to challenge him. Whatever way you want to read it—that he actually used science to travel to the great beyond, that his tech killed him and he’s not coming back—Kaiba really cements his legacy as the most insane, obsessive rival ever created. If he still feels like he has something to prove by beating you, you ain’t getting your eternal rest; he will bust down the barriers of life and death to have a chance of whooping your ass. Absolute madman.

Evilness: So in this new segment, I’m going to establish how evil any given villain is and rate them on it, separate from how I rate them as a character overall. This score is basically just a reflection of how evil their actions are, with a 1 being “Barely a villain at all” and a 10 being a “Complete and utter monster.”

As we’ve already established a bit, Kaiba is more just an egotistical asshole than anything. In his early appearances in the manga you could definitely say Kaiba was a villain, and his first appearance as the starter villain of the anime definitely paint him as a dick… but after his mind crush, he definitely veers more into anti-hero territory for the rest of the series.

Normally, this would net him a solid 1, but that’s the thing. Despite the fact Kaiba frequently does genuinely good and helpful things and despite constantly aiding the heroes, he only ever does it because he feels like he has something to prove. For instance, look at his handling of the Big Five as he dismantled his father’s legacy; do you think he tore down the military dealings KaibaCorp dealt in out of the goodness of his heart? No, Kaiba did all that out of sheer hatred and spite, negative emotions that motivate just about everything he does no matter how nice it seems. Even if he isn’t actually evil by any stretch and even though he’s undoubtedly bettering the world with what he does, he’s doing it for impure reasons that mainly revolve around reasserting his own superiority. The only genuinely selfless things he does are for the benefit of his beloved brother Mokuba.

So for the first ever Evilness Score, I think Kaiba is going to score a 2/10, which denotes being a huge dick but not neccesarily evil. He’s not actually evil enough to warrant anything higher, but he’s too big of an asshole to get a 1.

Best Scene/Quote: Abridged!Kaiba gave the world “Screw the rules, I have money,” a line that perfectly summarizes a good chunk of Kaiba’s character in both the main and the abridged version of the show. But his best quote (and his very best scene) come during his duel with Ishizu in Battle City, where he decides to give fate the middle finger and beat Miss Ishtar despite her clairvoyance while giving her the following speech (in the dub):

“Hear me now! I won't be controlled! I decide my future! So now, I sacrifice my monsters! Obelisk and Gadget Solider, I send you to the card graveyard! You're so quiet, Ishizu. Where's your magic now? Or have you realized that there's no such thing as destiny? Now observe as I summon my Blue-Eyes! Show yourself!”

And more than anything, this sums up Kaiba: He has the most massive ego in history, the strength and cunning to back that ego up, and a steadfast and stubborn refusal of destiny. He plays by his own rules and follows his own path, and nothing will stand in his way. Not Egyptian gods, not prophecies, not magic or shadow games or what have you. He is unstoppable, implacable, and he won’t be denied that duel with Yugi no matter what anyone says. Not even the barrier of life and death can stop him.

Final Thoughts & Score: Unsurprisingly, as someone who grew up with Yu-Gi-Oh, I fucking love Kaiba.

Going into this, I knew he wasn’t going to be a straight example of a villain, because his evil is mostly relegated to the early parts of the manga and the start of the show, with his post-Mind Crush self being more of an anti-heroic jerkass with a heart of gold. But I think he’s just enough of an asshole to be worth talking about, and talking about antagonistic jerks opens the door to talk about characters like Toy Story’s Sid or the more hostile Pokemon rivals like Silver, Blue, and Bede here. It would have to be Kaiba blazing that trail, though; there’s no jerk more perfect to open the door to discussion of other jerks.

Kaiba is just genuinely fascinating in that, despite being incredibly static as a character, he never really feels shallow. Sure, he steadfastly refuses to change and never really becomes on the best terms with the Yugi squad, but his interactions with them are still fun to watch and he never gets flanderized to the point of being obnoxious. It’s honestly extremely impressive they were able to walk that tightrope of him never really progressing past being an asshole while still remaining a fun, likable character who it’s fun to see in action. I suppose it helps they gave him the most ludicrously badass backstory where he as a plucky little orphan boy manages to beat a businessman in chess to get adopted, fleeces him out of his entire fortune and company, and then dismantles said company’s military division to focus on gaming. And if that’s not enough, they have him do stuff like throw trading cards to jam guns!

Of course, his most appealing aspect is his single-minded obsession with defeating Yugi and proving himself as the superior duelist, a character trait for which there is quite simply no heterosexual explanation for (I’m half kidding). With most rivals, they don’t really get so consumed by their desire to defeat their opponent that they essentially kill themselves just to get another chance at beating them, but most rivals ain’t Kaiba! Really, I think the only rival I’ve seen who’s close to being on his level is Vegeta. Once again, they found a nice balance, keeping Kaiba from being too obnoxious even with his single-minded obsession with one-upping Yugi.

Kaiba is really a character who so easily could have been obnoxious or insufferable, but instead he quite honestly stole the show. Yes, Yugi and Atem’s trials and tribulations are crucial and all, but seeing the insane lengths Kaiba goes to ensure he gets another chance to summon his Blue-Eyes against Yugi’s Dark Magician is just a blast. You’re always wondering what insane rich guy nonsense the man is going to pull off next, and he rarely disappoints. Kaiba may not be evil, he may merely be an antagonistic rival, but I think he still deserves a 10/10 for being the egomaniacal asshole opponent every arch-rival should aspire to be.

#psycho analysis #Seto Kaiba #Eric Stuart #martin billany #littlekuriboh #yu-gi-oh

[qqueenofhades]

Think what strikes me about something like "we can't vote because the system is rigged! Ban the electoral college!" is the big underlying implication of it.

That there is no multiple solutions or paths, only the one correct path and everything else is worthless.

And that's incredibly frustrating because there are two levels of problems with it:

is the utter dismissiveness of anything other than their specific solution, which ignores how any degree of positive change cannot occur with only just ONE idea, it's usually the result of many ideas that lead to change.

The fact that it feels like they're skipping every step in between the current situation to this end result, or actively fixating on themselves having the correct solution, but only by literally getting everything in between completely wrong in the process.

Like, the latter point in particular is like a complex math equation: Just because you got the right answer doesn't mean you can just ignore every difficult step in between, or just assume that all of the WRONG processes become validated retroactively because you stumbled into the correct answer. You'd literally get failed and be forced to redo the problem if you tried that shit in math.

I saw a poll the other day claiming that support for abolishing the Electoral College had now reached 65% of all Americans. Now, I take all polls, whether good or bad, with a grain of salt, but this does reflect a growing awareness that the EC is a horrible racist anti-democratic dinosaur only applied to the presidential election and only used for electing Republicans who don't win the nationwide popular vote, and that there's a genuine groundswell of support to abolish it. See the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which could possibly collect enough state-by-state ratifications to go into effect into 2028 (in the best-case scenario). So even all the bitching about how "the system is rigged" (which. WE KNOW! WE KNOW! There's not a single Democratic voter going to vote like WOW I LOVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CAN'T WAIT FOR MY VOTE TO DEPEND ON HOW MUCH IT COUNTS THANKS TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WHEE OLD DEAD WHITE GUYS!) blatantly ignores that a possible seismic change IS possibly in the offing, because people put in the work to make it happen!!! The fact that the EC might soon be superseded or disempowered is FUCKING MONUMENTALLY HUGE!!! It has existed literally since the beginning of America and arbitrated every single presidential election!!! And let me tell you, the people working to make that change and fundamentally reshape American democracy are absolutely not the Online Leftists, whose grasp of civic and political theory starts and ends at "wah the system is rigged I do not vote I am very smart!"

This also reminds me of the recent idiots in my notes complaining that Biden was a) not "genuine" in supporting the striking auto workers, that b) Don't You Know He Broke The Rail Strike (the follow-up where he gave the railworkers what they most wanted with that strike was conveniently never mentioned), or c) that he wasn't "doing it for the right reasons" (whatever the fuck that means). Which accurately reflects their belief that the way you do politics, or praxis, or anything at all, is just by having the Really Goodest Mostest Purest Intentions really hard, and that's it. Like. Aside from the fact that it's impossible to prove why Biden is privately motivated to do anything, we have a long track record demonstrating that he is a person of genuine Catholic faith who has been moving more and more to the left overall, and has been the most pro-union, pro-labor president in American history. So first of all, complaining that "he's not GENUINE!!!!" in supporting the strikers is impossible to prove, and contradicted by actual evidence. But the Online Leftists gotta feel More Gooder Than Him somehow, so.

Likewise: as I said in one of my previous posts about Hillary Clinton: I do not give a fuck if she was privately the most Neoliberal Corporate Centrist Shill Ever To Shill (and as I also said, none of those words means what the Online Leftists think they do). I do not care about the American monarch president's personal feelings, unless they reflect directly on the policy that they make and the real-world effects that it has. I don't care if Clinton killed puppies (or dreamed about killing puppies, which for the thoughtcrime police is equally bad), as long as she appointed 3 new liberal justices to SCOTUS and throughout the courts, instead of the hacks that Trump forced onto the bench and literally everything else he did. In the same vein, Biden could secretly be like "hahahaha fuck all workers BIG CORPORATIONS FOR LYFE but I gotta support the workers and get them their rights so they'll vote 4 meeee" (not that I actually think he is, but still) and hold onto your hankies, children: I DO NOT CARE! Because the tangible real-world effects of that policy that he is working hard on making results in a better economy for those workers and substantial redistribution of capital away from the oligarchs for the first time in a generation! Not to mention, I kind of like the idea that a president decides to make himself most appealing to workers instead of bosses! But for the Online Leftists, if this action isn't done with the Sufficiently Pure Motives, it is Wrong and Bad and Not Good Enough and Blah Blah Biden Sekrit Republican.

Anyway. Yes. That. The end.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

[dw-writes]

Why are Stolas and Sins are being so kind to MC!Angel? Was it because she was a fallen?

Well, that and Stolas is a kinda person, so we've seen? So are the sins (sans Mammon).

The only times we've seen Stolas as mean or cruel is when I.M.P. was trapped in the human world, when Via ran away, and when he's fighting with Stella. He might be a demon, but he's not a terrible person. I think he'd really care about someone who literally fell in his lap in such a disastrous way.

The Sins, too. Theres some we havent seen much of at all, but besides Mammon, they're kind people. Bee wants Loona to loosen up and enjoy herself, she's about indulgence to a limit, but don't force yourself. And while Ozzie was mean to Stolas during House of Asmodeous, he's keeping up a front to keep a secret that he's terrified of getting out (that he later drops in Midseason Finale/post-2 Minutes Notice) so I can't see him being cruel to an angel. A little indifferent maybe, but also sympathetic (he'd feel some kind of way for the angel, because he sees a little bit of his Froggie).

And then there's Mammon who is greedy through and through. He'd capitalize on MC!Angel at the drop of a hat if he could, have the angel strung up in a cage Ye Ol' Freak Show style or performing (Glitz and Glam have wings, he's 100% figure out a way to abuse that from the angel).

Bel is mostly concerned. Bel is shown to be linked to medicinal things - medications, hospitals of all kinds, ect., but specifically those that could cause a slowing down or numbing feel (Stolas's anti depressants, the nurse at the hospital when Loona's taken for shots, etc.) so I headcanon that he's concerned. Later on, its possible for that to change (Concern into curiosity).

Satan knows how rage feels. He's literally the king of Wrath. And for him whats better than an angel exhibiting his primal sin? (This can also be applied to Ozzie in later chapters). But also that he knows how it feels to be set aside in such a way. He's mistaken for Luci far too often (as we saw from Mammon), and its not something to be brushed off as the sin of Wrath.

Levi is going to be a special case. I have VERY BIG PLANS for the Queen of Envy, and they all involve her getting as close to the angel as she can.

Please keep in mind, everything outside of Bee, Mammon, and Ozzie are headcanons, and Bel's is based on observation. Everything else is headcanon.

#dw speaks #hazbin hotel #angelic rip off series

[morastfrck]

Imagine if infamous delsin and corrupt Reggie

Reggie being a corrupt cop

And delsin a bio-terrorist

In the infamous route, and both of them are vicious

omfg anon

that would be sick af

1

but i mean, reg is already not doing half of his job by letting delsin run around and do literally everything he does

and i suppose since they have good relationship between each other, reggie never gave him any real punishment. even for graffiti before the whole conduit thing, bc i doubt that they would still be good bros after 1 year in jail, a massive fine, or whatever else punishments could apply to delsin

(trespassing, vandalism, possibly some other small crimes before the main story)

(well and straight up murder and terrorism later on)

also like, wouldnt it ruin regs career as well? delsin once mentions that reggie “pays the bills” and i suppose supporting a brother, who commited graffiti related crimes multiple times (even after the hypotetical legal punishment) would count as being associated with him (guess who pays for spraypaint if delsin is unemployed)

i dont really know about the law implications of such cases in the us but i doubt that reg would be able to move up the career ladder and become a sheriff without covering up majority of delsin’s crimes

+reg is legit worried about delsin and cares for him, so that might have stopped him from taking legal actions (that would result in del getting a crime record that could wrong him in that beautiful imaginary future of a lawful sitizen that reg wants for his brother)

so what i suppose happens is that he arrests delsin, scolds him, maybe makes him sit in the police station cell for a few days and thats it. No official records or anything.

also the fact that reg says that he is proud of delsin before his death in any karma route is remarkable, and i feel like he really means it.

The thing about his morals is how ready he was to leave and quit everything throughout the story just for delsin’s safety. In the beginning, when he was doubtful of the whole idea of going against augustine and taking her power (in his mind he apparently already buried their tribe and wasnt going to let his brother die too)

and later on, when delsin thought that he lost his powers. Reg was immideately happy for him and ready to go home. And i feel like the way he is ready to basically sacrifice their only chance for saving their family for delsin connects well with him loving and supporting delsin no matter what he does.

They are the only really close ones left for each other, and this fact really seems to impact reggie’s morals and choices.

and what i mean by all of that is that if reggie lived, he would probably stay beside delsin anyway, even in bad karma. He would find new and new excuses to forgive him anything he would do. (up to some breaking point probably, but still)

2

and, if we are talking [your] corrupt cop reggie, he wouldnt even have to make excuses. I imagine he doesnt even care, as long as its delsin. His bro can do whatever he wants and reg will use his legal power to make sure he wont get into trouble.

I suppose that in this scenario none of them would give much fuck about other conduits (similarly to how bad karma delsin puts himself above eugene and fetch, and how he only sees other conduits as free powers)

imagine delsin and fetch terrorising another group of anti-conduit protestants, and they call the police only for reggie to accuse them of uncoordinated rally or smth

also i feel like this is one of those scenarios where rowecest could work (if anyone is into that). Since they both would totally lack any morals (and i guess respect for other people lmao)

In canon, reggie was against conduits at first, but made an exception for delsin (the same way he did it with any other crime, like being agains all vandals, except for delsin, who got a free pass as his brother)

Corrupt cop reggie could behave similarly in the sense that he would make an excuse for himself and del. While all other criminals deserve the punishment, they are fine. How beautifully hypocritical of him would that be.

oh and yk this trope in mafia movies and such, where one of the family members is in the law enforcement, and half of the story we think that he hates the family (and vice versa) but then its revealed that he is still the same part of it all, and all the hate is no more then public facade. I believe that something similar could happen (as delsin’s actions would have to impact reggie’s reputation)

corrupt reggie would definetely make public statements about how he rejects his bioterrorist brother (and uh huh coincedentally would never fulfill his promices of doing at least something about the problem) to keep said reputation.

Also i feel like they would still talk in banter, but instead of bringing up the moral aspects, reggie would scold delsin for the way he is not careful enough, that reg cannot save him from everything and that he needs to be less reckless. (still insufferable lmao)

all of this could happen, if from the very beginning reggie had around the same morals as delsin. Either he became a cop to protect his brother and the tribe, or any other reason, seeing the structure from the inside would make him believe, that yeah, his mindset is completely normal

(maybe as a more responsible one he decided that work in the police would be beneficial for them as he would be able to keep delsin out of trouble)

#in short first part is about canon reggie not being as good of a cop #and second is strictly about anon’s idea #but fr i love this sm anon #dm me if you want to discuss it more or smth (or share your ideas if you dont feel like posting them) #and a little spoiler the next request in line is just for bad karma delsin #and now i kinda want to add a corrupt cop reggie to it #infamous second son #delsin rowe #reggie rowe

[workersolidarity]

Hey I’m not a hater (figured I would start with that because you seem to get a lot of idiots responding to you) I was wondering what the difference between anarchist communism and Marxist communism were. I’m very new to communist stuff and I get the difference would be one has no government and the other does but I am confused about the other differences? I hope this makes sense and I figured I ask around communists on their views on things. Also do you recommend any resources (for newbies) I could read? I’ve read the communist manifesto before.

Well the Communist Manifesto was a good place to start, but believe it or not, if you really want good summarization of Marxism, look no further than Stalin. Stalin's The Foundations of Leninism is a great place to start. I found no one is better at summarizing the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin into easily digestible novella size booklets than Joseph Stalin. Lenin's books are fantastic as well, though usually far more detailed than Stalin's works.

The essential difference between Anarcho-Communism/Syndicalism and Marxism/Marxism Leninism is that Marx, Engels and later Lenin, Stalin and others looked at revolutions, uprisings and revolts throughout history, and they came to the conclusion that a strong, centralized govt is essential to preserving a Socialist revolution. One cannot look at revolutions in history and not come to same conclusion.

It's really very simple, revolutions where the revolutionaries didn't immediately consolidate political power, seize the institutions of government, find allies, and immediately form a strong standing Military always fail. Whereas revolutions where the revolutionaries did manage to do all these things, were much more likely to succeed.

And it's not just in areas of govt or military that Marxists apply this way of thinking, they apply it to literally everything. That's what Historical Materialism is all about, applying the lessons of history along with the material conditions of society as they actually exist, to form a scientifically minded revolutionary Socialist movement that can, not only topple Capitalist governments, but replace them with a Socialist govt with the strength, will and power to survive and hopefully to thrive.

Of course, in practice, even armed with Historical Materialism and the lessons of history, actually surviving and thriving has incredibly difficult because in practice, the Imperialist powers undermine Socialist govts in every way possible. From dropping anti-communist propaganda over Socialist territory, to funding NGOs and News organizations to pump out anti-communist propaganda along with lies about the govt and Right-wing and Nationalist rhetoric onto Socialist airwaves and into Socialist academia, to funding Far-Right nationalists to attack the Communist govt and it's projects, to assassinations, threats, bribery, and blackmail of public officials in Socialist countries, and to even more horrendous crimes like sabotage of public infrastructure, and embargos preventing socialist countries from importing food, medicine and construction materials. Even forcing some Socialist countries like Cuba to go five decades with crumbing infrastructure, not because they don't invest in their country, but because the US blackmails the whole world into respecting their embargo on exporting goods to Cuba. For an island nation, an embargo is literally just a slow death without some kind of intervention by bigger, more powerful Socialist countries like China or (in the past) the Soviet Union.

So even a cursory look at the history of Imperialist Anti-Communism, it becomes painfully obvious to anyone but a lunatic that having a revolution, smashing the institutions of govt, and eliminating all hierarchies would immediately run into real world problems even if we excluded the threat posed by Western Imperialist powers. You would still be faced with issues like how to take the Private Property of the Bourgeoisie, how to seize the means of production and how to destroy the Bourgeoisie's monopoly of mass violence without the backing of any formal institutions of your own. And then, should you somehow succeed, what exactly do you do when the Bourgeoisie return to take it all back wielding the institutions of the Military and Security State?

Then when you've miraculously defeated all the obstacles to establishing this Anarcho-Communist region, the fact remains that the transnational elites and the Bourgeoisie of neighboring countries will ALL have an interest in defeating the new revolution. Neighboring Capitalist countries will immediately see an opportunity to seize land and resources for themselves, and their own Bourgeois classes will of course fear the spread of hope after a revolution. That hope, as they well know, can be a powerful motivator to other revolutionary movements and they will not hesitate to come up with an excuse to invade. And even if they didn't, the Western Imperialist powers will, just as they did after the Bolshevik revolution.

All of the evidence is overwhelming and Marxism, in particular Marxism Leninism, teaches us not to fantasize about utopias that will never happen, and instead focus our energy on changing the material conditions of workers. It's more than just an ideology, because it doesn't teach you to blindly accept their view without critical thinking. It teaches you to look at the history and material conditions you find yourself in and apply those lessons to deepen your political economic understanding of the world, and to use that understanding to build a Socialism that actually works, functions, survives and thrives.

And unfortunately, we do live in a world where any nascent Socialist revolution is nearly certain to come under relentless attack by foreign Capitalist govts, spy agencies, Corporate NGOs, nevermind an international economic, monetary and trade system designed to instantly strangle any country straying away from the Neoliberal consensus.

Marxism takes this lump of shit and tries to build Socialism within the constraints of the world we actually live in. It's not always pretty, it's not perfect, but it's the best alternative we got because it's actually grounded in reality. And actually look at the conditions of, for example, the Soviet Union, where the average citizen ate as many calories as the average American, where by 1985 they had had 45 years of 0 inflation, where food, healthcare and housing were rights, Unions retained the right to recall managers and block firings, workers had an average of 20 days paid vacation as well as sick days and paid leave, and a job was guaranteed right. These are NOT small victories for workers, and the Capitalist powers have made sure these facts aren't common knowledge.

Basically Marxism Leninism runs from a premise of an imperfect world, and says okay, let's build the essentials first, let's get our society defended from attack, let's bring order to the streets, let's build a political system more accountable to workers than managers, let's not give the enemies of Socialism a platform to espouse Anti-Communism to the Workers, let's invest in massive infrastructure projects, so we can form a foundation from which we can build our socialism, let's ensure our political system can no longer be coopted by the rich, let's build national healthcare, education and higher education, let's have land reform and forced cooperativization so corporations can no longer starve us by strangling the food supply, let's have massive investment in housing, education and Healthcare so the people are NEVER homeless, sickly or hungry again.

All these things take decades, billions and billions in investments, a slow cultivation of Socialist institutions, and above all else, it takes a strong State to defend the Proletarian Revolution from the greedy Capitalists within and the enemies without. Hierarchy to some degree will be necessary to ensure quick political responses to crises and defense of the revolution.

But the real end goal of Marxists and Anarchists are the same, the elimination of predatory hierarchies, inequality and the destruction of any institutions which retain the ability to produce illegitimate violence or coercive power on a massive scale.

But Marxists see this as a project and a process. The "withering away of the State" is seen as a byproduct of a healthy Socialist society which will occur over time as a Socialist State transitions into a Communist one and as coercive institutions become unnecessary to produce communal results and behaviors in the public.

Marxists see Communism as the goal, and a strong Socialist State as the vehicle to drive us there.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I'm terrible at explaining theory and have much much more to learn myself.

#good question #marx #frederick engels #lenin #karl marx #socialism #marxism leninism #socialist politics #communism #socialist #communist #marxism #marxist leninist

[innocentimouto]

Was Jet a racist?

I immediately thought of someone hating the monarchy. The Fire Nation isn't a minority, and Jet is not a huge danger to them. People try to give Jet more power than he has, so he can seem worse and more dangerous to others.

Which is eerily similar to how minorities actually face harm in the real world.

This is how I see it.

Jet antis: Jet is a terrorist, and racist, he didn't care about his own people, he'll never change. But Zuko is such a perfect boi

Me: Zuko did more though.

Jet antis: Zuko changed and apologized. If he hadn't, I'd hate him too.

Me: I know that's a lie. People go 'poor zuko, he just wants to be loved' in the earliest episodes.

Jet antis: Zuko always had a good heart!

Me: And Jet didn't when he offered protection and a home to other orphans who had nowhere to go?

Jet antis: Jet did horrible things!

Me: Arguably only 1. Zuko did way more.

Jet antis: Zuko made a mistake and changed.

Me: Are you including the terrorizing women and children, burning down a village, trying to give the avatar to the firelord to never be killed, Ba Sing Se? A mistake?

Jet antis: Zuko had a redemption arc. He literally changed.

Me: You say that, but you're so appalled by 1 thing Jet did and are so confident that he can't change over that 1 thing.

Jet antis: Jet was racist. He hated ALL Fire Nation people.

Me: Zuko was racist to the three other nations? That's what all the Fire Nation people are taught... Zuko saw all air temples, corpses most likely, and still wanted to capture Aang? None of that made him think the fn was wrong...

Jet antis: You clearly don't understand how redemption arcs work.

Me: It's not even about Zuko's redemption arc. It's about your inability to think outside of the narrative. You have Zuko and he wants to be loved and he's abused and his uncle just wants to help him. And because you got nothing for Jet, he doesn't get an ounce of compassion from you.

Me: I don't think you're trying to be colorist or an imperialist apologist. But you are. You're refusing to use any sense of imagination or even freaking common sense, about what an orphan would have to go through to survive in a war, simply because the show didn't give it to you. But you throw every trauma reaction you know and then some for Zuko and somehow do not recognize the hypocrisy.

I'm saying all this because I know when people say Jet is racist, they are not thinking about how in wars, both sides ALWAYS hate each other. Especially before easy access to the rest of the world, which atla didn't have.

Also the racist card is only ever applied to Jet and never to Zuko or any other Fire Nation character, despite that being canon. There's great discussions and fanon over how horrible Jet is because of his prejudices and how he can never let it go, and people really dive into real world things with it.

But with Zuko, they just switch to anything is possible and not that it would reasonably take anyone a long time to unlearn that. It's habit, an unconscious thought. I'm not saying Zuko would go around thinking how can I hurt this person in the worst way over their ethnicity. I'm saying Zuko would literally not know what he would be doing wrong.

Everyone around him did it. And that enables people. Especially if it's your father or uncle or adults you're trained to trust. If you were never taught, how would you know?

But people don't associate Zuko and racism. That's Jet's thing. Zuko had a GREAT redemption arc but we're not interested in any discussion of what else he could improve on.

Honestly the way the fandom treats Jet always makes me think of cops/government justifying any harm or lack of basic human rights given to minorities while other groups of people get everything and more. One group faces injustice and people rush to defend why they deserved it/it was unavoidable, and the other group faces injustice and there's public outcry.

Basically fandom tries to do anything to justify the lack of exploration or empathy for Jet in the show because then they have to reconcile with the fact that the Fire Nation should be held accountable and they weren't by the show and that Jet would have a lot of reasons to hate Zuko and Iroh and that maybe Zuko didn't have a redemption arc since everything he did got swept away in a few episodes.

#Jet #atla jet #zuko critical #zuko had a 'great' redemption arc #but we're not interested in discussing anything he could improve on

[2n2n]

a stinky post! smelly…. it's a little rough lately with, IRL stresses and you know whats a good distraction in specifically this circumstance ... being fake mad at fake things that are unimportant ... !

It's fun to think about the manga in any way.... (:

I feel like some dumb takes really live inside of you forever (which is why I do not look at much), as just so pants on head stupid … During the Hakubo/Sumire arc there were 100000 dumb takes, but among them was someone trying to assert the manga's theme was … abuse … (and you know in what way this was meant, in the same hamfisted way any young person talks right now) ... using benchmarks like, Mitsuba was bullied, Teru is abused, Amane was abused, Sumire is abused… but it's like, it didn't think whatsoever about every SINGLE instance of which there is 'abuse' and how characters feel about it, actually … if it was 'about abuse', it would do such a laughable job of it, and it would, half the time, be saying… the worst thing possible, which would be something like: true love forgives everything, including abuse; or, staying through abuse is something you can do to prove your devotion, or to endure in honor of someone else, or a virtue you stand for. There is a lot of suffering in JSHK, but people aren't typically surviving it and then applying it in a way you'd want to replicate. It's romantic in the more symbolic and extreme vein. I mean. Romantic in the vein of… a shinjuu… stay with me, here!

More BROADLY, individuals suffer from STRICTURES, and this is actually what harms Amane, Sumire/Hakubo, Teru, Mitsuba ... (and what harmed in Snow White and MDLD! the INSTITUTIONS of the church, and the royal families; tradition and virtues perpetuated on trapped people) RULES, collectivism, keeping your head down and behaving, serving a greater purpose (as a sacrifice, as a son of a legacy, as a mystery); often individuals hurting each other is forgiven and understood, or even appreciated... ? The things you endure in honor of some capital, in the idea of 'goodness', those are the sufferings ... the things you tell yourself to endure in honor of who you love, might be foolish, might be tied up in that, but they are presented in contrast. Teru does not do what he does, for the town. He loves his family brocon.

There is more to be said about love, endurance, devotion, loyalty, and in fact, all of those in the face of abuse; literally the opposite to what someone was trying to get at … Amane will forgive everything that is done to him, even if it makes no sense, if it's not justified, if it is something nobody else would or could or should forgive. He isn't STUPID for that, he's NOBLE! You couldn't get more poignant than Aoi STABBING AKANE, and him enduring it, swearing to still love her, even at her worst. Continuing to crawl towards her, refusing to let her get away. Amane can KNOCK NENE OUT, gaslight her, he can kill her friend-- under any definition, he is abusive to her, isn't he? She'll chase him down, every time. Even on a good day, he's touching her without consent, her verbally telling him to stop or shoving him off of her. But Nene-chan's role is to understand why, to forgive his transgressions upon her, and deep down, to like how he treats her. You just can't impose an anti-harm virtue in that, it prioritizes love.

For all the weardown methods in this manga (HanaNene, NatsuSaku, HakuMire, AkaneAoi....), you'd be insane to assert it has an anti-abuse message… or even really cares about that as a cautionary tale ... you can't keep looking at major long-built-up-to events as flops or mistakes or sudden, predictable creepiness out of left field, in contrast to your idea of virtue as if it otherwise maintains it.

Even with Mitsuba, you'd be crazy to think we're trying to 'say something about abuse', when Kou himself bullies Mitsuba… Kou's even quite rough, throwing rocks at him, and so recently, violently wrestling him. He'll call him stupid while doing it all! He'll call Mitsuba's suicidal urges STUPID! In what way isn't that 'abuse', if we compare it to anyone else arbitrarily held up to scrutiny? Where do we draw the line, you know? Shouldn't it never be a gag or bit or silly, if we want to coherently deliver a message of some artistic import to the author? Are AidaIro wanton?

It's like people notice "people get hurt", relationships are twisted, and then automatically assume "so the message probably is one that moralizes upon that".

What of how Sakura dehumanizes Natsuhiko, and how much he loves her anyway? She hits him, she declares he deserves no recognition. Does he 'deserve' it, for being a pest to her? I guess the argument is often that Tsukasa 'deserved' to die … does , Mitsuba 'deserve it' when he is bullied by Kou? ? Does Nene-chan 'deserve it' when Amane removes her autonomy ? if we start thinking about 'deserving misery', why doesn't Amane deserve the agony he's been trapped in? He definitely feels he deserves it. I suppose Hakubo deserved his end for his life of slavery, due to how he didn't fight it hard enough, or feel bad enough ?

You have everything from severe situations where characters, in pure love, endure anything, and you have comedic situations where you're not meant to take the slapstick seriously, and you have people sortof wantonly deciding that, well, the way Tsukasa acts, is abusive, but, then, Kou, isn't, for arbitrary reasons, not even following the guideline of how something is framed. Nene-chan can like, hit Amane. He can knock her out. Whether or not that's a problem to a rube is a toss-up (and usually, just if they like Amane, or like Nene. and usually, Nene's flaw to people is being boring, really :p).

But if you get hooked on the idea of the 'theme' being something like this, this relationship harm abuse thing, the story looks haphazard and meaningless and renegade. And then people get frustrated by headers where Tsukasa is a funny little mascot blowing bubbles and painting Mokke in chocolate … because it's disorienting, in THAT context. In the context of a story trying to unpack abuse, and take it seriously, Tsukasa's depiction becomes backwards, annoying, confusing. It's like AidaIro-sensei aren't taking their own story seriously! It's like they just want to pander to fans (what, on an unpaid for completely by her own volition banner, a thing with Aida-sensei used to playfully do for her and Iro-sensei's blog when they were teens together? Before even being employed at all?)

but you know,

In the context, "Tsukasa is someone still worth loving", all that depiction makes sense. Of course, you're meant to find him precious. You're waiting to understand why he is Amane's yorishiro. You're waiting to understand why he looks at him like this… even after everything.

Thinking about love, first and foremost, we understand why someone should adore Sakura, even as she threatens to destroy the world. Someone who would let her hurt them, any day, every day, and still see her as cute, caring, shy, lonely. What she really is.

We can understand why, even if Kou is stupid and violent, even if he can't express anything well, even if he lashes out with insults, someone should still want to give him a chance to help them.

We can understand why Akane can be rejected by Aoi over and over and over again, why he would forgive being stabbed through the body, why he would still want to kiss Aoi, even after she insists he stop loving her already.

We can understand why Sumire was never afraid of Hakubo's Oni nature, and could never hate him; not even after 100 years of quiet, imprisoned abandonment.

Characters really do feel devotion in… DANGEROUS excess, to BAD FOR THEM or BAD FOR OTHERS extremes (which sometimes, others comment on as absurd!!), maybe, most relevantly, this is true for our TITLE CHARACTER, who PARTOOK OF A LOVER'S SUICIDE. Perhaps it is DANGEROUS to love and be loved by Amane, perhaps it was DANGEROUS to love Tsukasa! Perhaps it is more dangerous than anything, for Nene-chan to dig deeper and deeper, when Amane wants to hide it all from her!

Should all of these people still love eachother? Should they wrestle themselves away, with some sense? It's too bad ... they simply will. Is it tragic that they stay, or is it beautiful? What does the story think?

All things told, just your boyfriend refusing to give you the details of his criminal record is not good….

Amane is surely scared he could not have Nene-chan's love any longer if she saw him fully.

But should we want her to run away from the full weight of it? Of course not … however bad it is, we can have faith Nene-chan could, and would, still love him. Even if it was stupid to. Even if nobody else would love him. Even if there's no sane way to justify loving him.

It is a little wild to me the situations of institutions and legacies of power, tradition, is just not perceived, either. Even though I think that is far more socially relevant and engaging a message even for the western audience ... More often these romanticized individual relationships are niggled and nitpicked to hell and back, as the Big Nasty Thing, but the greater shape of the Minamoto family, the institution trapping the Mysteries, the belief systems about Kaii and Human, the very conceit of social credit represented in rumors perpetuating expectations of harm and changing people into monsters, is just not seen as the actual 'Big Bad'. What hurts anyone? What forces someone to make a bad decision? All these trapped animals, poked in their cages ... what a misnomer, to watch the animals hurt eachother, and say, "that one is bad, and deserves to be killed to make the other animals safe". It's sweet that for all the biting and clawing eachother, the animals lick eachother's wounds.

I heard there is someone out here trying to break cages...

Anyway... as I mentioned a couple times ... It's not as if I think the writing is without a meaningful message, or as if it's only jerkoff fodder yandere soup for the SIMP's soul. You can think of rumors as representing expectations, stereotypes, prejudice-- perpetuation of belief, superstition creating paranoia, hysteria, harm… the Minamoto+Nagisa families as expressing how history is obfuscated and rewritten towards a chosen narrative, how something as noble as seeking control and safety can justify individual harm, how individual lives and freedom become nothing but collateral or fodder in pursuit of collective security (fascism, if you wanna go there... or just anti-collectivism if you wanna be less intense). The broader concept that seeking to protect something may provoke the destruction of autonomy. "You can't do anything, so it's better to forget, and be happy" is repeated constantly (and argued AGAINST!) too...

It's just never going to be a narrative in support of punishment, banishment, 'bad people do bad things' ... or else our title character would not be an imprisoned criminal, who hates himself.

#avvy's JSHK

[bitegore]

Thanks for converting me into a stunticon enjoyer. Because of you, I was able to imagine Motormaster being miserable. They’re the embodiment of “be gay, do crimes and I love them for it.”

i don't know if i'd call them the embodiment of "be gay, do crimes" - motormaster, especially not. They're trying too hard. They may be gay and they may do crimes but they're authoritarian losers and they do not have The Vibes. The Combaticons, though... they are be gay do crimes.

(the MOST be gay do crimes of all the combiners on the decepticon side are probably the terrorcons but i know them the least so shhh we're gonna ignore that for now, but they're like outcasts by choice as well as by nature and they eat people and are gay and sweet with each other so. they win)

anyway because i said i'd be writing essays I'm gonna break down exactly why i think that and you can't stop me. no cut because either you have post shortening on at this point or you can suck it up and scroll for a few moments <3 this is a pvp enabled zone and i am in control

A big part of my read on Motormaster specifically is that he is a goddamn tryhard and he doesn't know how to fucking chill. He wants to be perfect and he wants his team to be perfect and he wants everything they do to be better than everyone else and he will not take no for an answers. And he wants Megatron's approval. You can and should make a case for the Decepticons as a whole doing crime, but I don't think "desperately trying to follow instructions and reacting with over the top violence when his teammates won't" really qualifies as being gay and doing crimes. It's in the wrong vein. If you're only committing crimes because your daddy told you to and you're gay because it never occurred to you otherwise you're still an authoritarian follower loser without an anarchist bone in your body, and Motormaster (bless his heart) has absolutely never once in his life considered that the hierarchy he was built into could possibly go literally any other way.

Drag Strip would be be gay do crime if he weren't so much of a tryhard loser also. He wants approval soooooo bad, it doesn't work. He can't be anything but a poser because the minute you tell him he's doing a decent job and you think it's cool he will go full hog into doing whatever the fuck that is so hard that it immediately loops back around into being a painfully desperate attempt at not being worthless and that is very lame of him and embarrassing. If he were doing crimes and then stopped and then you complimented him enough for stopping he would immediately go take the straight and narrow road so hard that you'd be calling him Ultra Magnus 2 within a week. The vibes are wrong. He's too fickle about it and it doesn't work.

Wildrider could be be gay do crimes if he weren't too busy being a hyperactive destructive whirlwind of a guy. i love that for him but the vibes are different again. he's not an anarchist he is an arsonist. I think he's the closest, though.

Breakdown is gay but do you believe this man has ever comfortably committed a crime of his own volition. Do you think this guy goes out and does crimes for fun. Do you actually.

I like Dead End but like the same thing applies. I do not believe this man would shoplift and I do not believe this man would go out and do graffiti or even cheat at poker or something because I strongly do not believe that Dead End goes out for fun. And if he does he goes to like poetry readings or some other shit like that where he's not doing crimes unless the crime is "listen in from outside while being a car." Boring. He is not be gay do crime, he is be gay listen to Keats

OKAY now to the Combaticons. It still doesn't work so well because they're obviously not anti-authoritarian anarchist assholes (/affectionate, I am) EITHER but like at least they don't want approval from anyone but Onslaught. They had to be put in chains to be brought around to the Decepticon side in g1 and i am never ever ever ever ever letting that go, you cannot stop me.

Onslaught is not be gay do crimes. He is in charge and he likes being in charge and therefore he doesn't qualify but also this is not a guy who recreationally commits crimes because I don't think he knows what "recreation" is and if you asked him what he does for fun he would ask you why you think he is so pathetic as to do things for fun. Very boring. Totally wrong mindset. He is not be gay do crime.

Blast Off could be gay and do crime but unfortunately he also doesn't go out doing dumb shit for fun because it's a waste of time and he'd rather do something else that isn't a waste of time. and also hes a little too straightlaced to be Be Gay as opposed to just be gay. if you get me

Vortex is be gay do crime. His crimes are like "murder for fun" and "torture for fun" but they're still crimes done for fun and because fuck your authority and you can shove it up your ass. First one to qualify.

Brawl is also be gay do crime but his crimes are like "bar fight" and "blow up building without prior authorization" but they're still for fun and not because he just looks at a building and needs to see it be on fire immediately like Wildrider. Wildrider and Brawl together are totally be gay do crime though. also they should hold hands and maybe k*ss idk, one day ill finish that fic

Swindle would be be gay do crime if he weren't too busy being a salesman but instead he is like the 30 year old older brother of be gay do crime, be gay do unethical business practices. he is a mlm mlm (multi level marketing man loving men)

#red replies #your-exalted-grace

[corinthreean]

this is a really long ramble, babe, i am so sorry lmfao. but i've gotta rant about some fans for a moment ok.

seen a bunch of people on here say that it's illogical and bad writing for thomas to consider richard's marriage a breaking up moment because he was willing to turn a blind eye to phillip marrying mary in s1e1, and it's like ???

like idk if they're straight or if they're young or what, but as a lesbian in her 30s i have definitely noticed my feelings about closeted relationships change. when i was in my teens and early 20s i was completely sympathetic to girlfriends who were still closeted, who i would be just a "flatmate" to in the eyes of their family, who would only acknowledge our relationship in private. but nowadays i wouldn't even consider for a second dating someone in the closet. even if they were perfect in every other way, i could not face having to live a half-life and skulking around, walking on eggshells and checking over my shoulder in case her third cousin twice removed was looking at us before i held her hand. that would 100% be a deal breaker every single time at my age despite it being acceptable when i was younger.

there is no reason to look at 18yo (or whatever he is in s1) thomas being happy to live in secret with the duke and then assume that same thing still applies to thomas after everything he's been through since that time. he's been forcibly outed to everyone in his life. he's socialised with other gay men. he's nearly died at least twice. he's been arrested. he's living a life where everyone around him knows what he is and is fine with it. the idea of going back into the closet isn't going to be appetising in any way. like this is literally part of thomas' canon characterisation! he isn't foul! he doesn't need to change! society is wrong, not him! he wants his own husband, not a dirty little secret affair with someone else's husband.

and lol, i even saw one anti-guy person accusing people who liked the guy plot of being obsessed with the "sanctity of marriage" lmfao. like no! that's not it! we just think thomas needs the freedom to be himself openly to be happy, which can't happen if richard is married, not because we're all secretly conservative christians.

like idk why i'm getting so heated about something that doesn't really matter sjfhsjfs but omg i'm just so mad! they're all so dumb

Anon idk why you’re hiding because everything you’re saying is 1000% correct and you deserve to be getting the likes for this!!

Even aside from all your fantastic and true points, there’s a big difference between being with a married Duke as his valet (who will necessarily get tons of time alone with him / get to travel with him), and being with a married valet, who it’s going to be quite hard to fabricate excuses to spend more than a couple of hours a month with AT MOST. Unless he’s married an understanding friend, which the film gives no indication of seeing as it seems very clear he’s received a Dear John letter, it would be putting them at tremendous risk to see him with a wife knowing his business and probably rather keen he doesn’t go to hotels or b&bs without her, whether she thinks he’s seeing other women or men. And any likelihood of the domesticity and settled life he craves with the man he loves is gone.

That doesn’t make Richard a bad person, it makes him a person who clearly ended up feeling he had no alternative but to adopt the veil of normality a wife would offer. But is it fair to suggest Thomas could never possibly be happier than he would be as his secret lover sending him home to his wife at the end of their rare, rushed meetings? No, I don’t think so.

#thomas barrow #downton abbey #downton abbey 2 spoilers

[lemonhemlock]

The thing is if anyone says that Daemon and maybe Criston were possibly subjected to Alys' charms you will immediately be accused of being a misogynist. Just try suggesting that on Twitter or on Reddit, it will be like detonating a bomb in real time. Some will even lose their minds if you even dare to call her a witch. This is why nobody even tries to reason with those people anymore. Book readers who still remember the little that was being discussed online about all of this before the show know you could have a normal debate back then on what may have actually happened in the book with those two by analyzing every scenario the text implies but right now it's impossible to do so due to the fact that antis and crazies who only use the character to project onto her have hijacked this part of the fandom and everything they do is bully people with different opinions. As for Aemond's age, well, firstly I have to say I love how defensive they get when his young age is pointed out, be it 16 in the show which is the maximum he can be given the timeline (I also still believe they meant for him to be at least 18 and messed up, but alas, here we are) or 19 in the book. They'll just say it's two adults falling in love and end of story. This parallel was pointed out in the past by other anons I think but the relationship also reminds me of Nettles and Daemon. She is 16 years old when she first appears in the story (and yes, also an adult by Westerosi standards if I'm not mistaken?), but normally she would still also be way too young for Daemon and the whole affair is very icky, if she's indeed his lover and not his daughter, yet I don't see antis applying the same logic to them, instead they only use the relationship to point out that Daemon is a groomer. Not that it's not true, because it is, but you see the double standards. This teenager/barely adult young man x older adult woman ship? Good. The other one bad.

I myself had an anon at one point that I think was trying to suggest Alys being a witch is made up because of sexism, when I pointed out that this ship isn't viable, as Aemond cannot bring a literal representation of the supernatural with him back into the Red Keep.

I also believe they meant for him to be older, but messed up the maths or didn't realise the clownish implications it would have for future seasons, but, like you, I wish this debate would die already. Yes, Ryan specified the ages of 17-21 for them, but it's physically impossible for Aemond to be older than 16, with the time-jumps they themselves specified in the show - 10 years after ep. 5 and 6 years after Driftmark. I do not care what Ryan or anyone else says in this regard, confess that you don't know how to do basic algebra and just retcon it or whatever, but both cannot be true at the same time. This isn't Dark on Netflix, we're not time-travelling or in parallel universes ffs, Aemond cannot grow older when he has maximum 16 years of linear time to do so.

And even if we go by FB, where he's 19-20 and Alys is "at least 40 years old, that much is known", nobody would be peddling the argument that it's two adults falling in love. By all means, nobody is telling you not to ship it, just to stop insisting on this weird orwellian imposition that everything is fine and dandy between them.

In any case, this is a very complex discussion of power dynamics, as in this very specific case it is muddled enough that it's not entirely evident who abuses whom. On the one hand, Alys can be the manipulative older woman, who also taps into the paranormal and is empowered as a result of that, so not a person to be trifled with. On the other hand, Aemond, while younger, still has a tremendous amount of social, political and military power he can lord over Alys. He is a prince of the realm, he has Vhagar and he has the power to put her entire family to the sword.

Anyway, I expect that in future seasons daemyras and daettles* are going to go hard against alysmonds and throw the age argument right back in their faces. They're going to be warring over this aspect to the moon and back, when it's such a stupid hill to die on. Accept it as the problematic** ship that it is and live your life in peace. Glass houses/candles and all.

*or whatever the ship name is for daemon/nettles

**god, i h8 that word, but nothing better comes to mind rn

#ask #anon #riverdragon #anti alysmond

[bonmonjour]

Re: Anti-Theism

So, “anti-theism” seems to be the discourse du jour on Twitter and I’ve had the misfortune of seeing many takes about it on my timeline. Some are favorable, some are lacking, and some are just dismissive or dishonest. I usually don’t weigh in on these fleeting arguments, but this time I think I actually know enough to throw my take into the ring as well. Basically, I think that atheism -- the lack of belief in a deity -- is fine and cool and good. However, anti-theism -- being against religion -- has some problems. Maybe someone out there has had a better social media feed than me and has seen actually good, well-explained stances, but I have not been so lucky.

From what I’ve seen, many anti-theists still cling to a fundamentalist, or at least culturally Christian, mindset that colors how they view religion as a concept. Their criticisms often lack depth and come from a very specific, narrow view. That’s not to say there aren’t aspects worthy of scathing critique. I don’t for a second defend CSA or the residential school system. But from my experiences, many anti-theists or NüAtheists don’t go that route. Finally, even if you personally think that religion is false, or whatever your specific position might be, I think that you should still consider a leftist engagement with religion to be worthwhile.

Before I start, I have some caveats. I have done minimal research for this since I know the discourse is probably going to change tomorrow and I don’t have enough hours to write a formal essay. This is mostly just my opinions and thoughts; it's bad to let them fester so here they are in words. Also, the only religion I know in-depth enough is Christianity, so any examples I might bring up will definitely lean in that direction. This is not to say none of this applies to other religions; I simply have not done the research and don’t feel qualified to talk about it.

Anti-Theism is not Atheism

Fundamentalist Mindset

From what I’ve seen, so many self-proclaimed atheists have remarkably American fundamentalist mentalities. And I don’t simply mean the type that somehow treats atheism as its own religion with beliefs and practices when it is really the lack of belief in that, but whatever. What I mean is that, from the way that these anti-theists talk about religions (Christian or not) reveals that the literalism, dismissiveness, and proselytizing elements are still there.

Back in the heyday of atheism on YouTube, I was an avid watcher of many such channels. Looking back, I realize that so many of their refutations concede a literalist interpretation of scripture. Arguments like

“It says God created everything in seven days, but the universe is actually 13 billion years old.”

“There’s no way Noah could have fit all the animals on the ark. Imagine the logistics.”

“There’s no archeological evidence of a Flood.”

“It says being gay is a sin right there in Leviticus.”

“Did you know the Bible has lots of contradictions?!"

were/are prolific. This is nearly identical to the fundamentalist interpretation. The only difference is that instead of “The Bible says this; and it’s good,” the common ‘skeptic’ argument goes “The Bible says this; and it’s bad.”

And then there’s the utterly dismissive rhetoric of centering one’s own views and denying the possibility that others have their merits. This goes hand-in-hand with proselytizing. I lived in a small, conservative, majority-white, majority-Christian town for 8 years of my schooling. Not once was I ever preached to by anyone of any denomination. Of the two times anybody ever invited me to church, one was for a movie and the other was for a benefit concert. My point is that not all Christians, and certainly not all religions, flagrantly preach their own beliefs loudly to any passersby. The only people I have ever encountered like that have been fundamentalist, literalist bigots. Now, for some reason, and maybe this is a quirk of my feed, a lot of anti-theists love to get in people’s mentions or comments or make their own content espousing their beliefs to any passersby.

One more thing I’d like to bring up is the propensity for illiteracy among anti-theists. This is, granted, a much smaller crowd. But the way that fundamentalists (don’t) read the thing they’re talking about is mirrored by this bunch.

The OP makes this bold claim but doesn’t even bother to do maybe 5 minutes of ctrl+F ing. Had he done so, he would’ve found the verses John 13:34, 15:9 very quickly.

Another example, this r/atheism post title. Like, maybe go read some scholarship on the matter before deciding on that opinion?

Little known fun fact: literalism is not the only way to interpret scripture. Nor is it the most common way. Don’t concede to fundamentalists.

Cultural Christianity

Though maybe I shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. Many anti-theists were once theists raised with bad theology, or they were some other religion or maybe they were always atheist and their perceptions and notions of other religions came from absorbing pop culture. In any case, we all exist in this milieu of background Cultural Christianity, and that informs our mindsets and ways of thinking even if we don’t realize it. So many preconceptions about religion broadly are through these Culturally Christian glasses, and with Islam or Buddhism, Orientalism might play a part too.

The Whole of Religion

My absolute favorite mark of anti-theists is their absolute abuse of language. When they say “religion,” they are more often than not referring to a) right-wing White American evangelicalism and/or b) orientalist caricatures of Islam. Not every religion is about belief or faith. Not every religion has an authoritarian God. Not every religion even has a deity. Not every religion has hell. Not every religion is forced or congregational. Not every religion has texts or scripture. Not every religion is supernatural. Not every religion proselytizes. And I could keep going.

There is also the flip side where some atheists claim that somehow Christianity is uniquely bad and other religions don’t have that. The most common example I’ve seen this with is the belief that Hell only exists in Christianity and ‘better,’ ‘eastern’ (orientalism 🤮), like Buddhism, have no concept of hell. Religions are not monolithic and there are no objective value judgements.

Let me be clear, right-wing American Christianity and Islamists are absolutely deserving of scathing criticism. But when anti-theists say “religion is mind control” (real post on r/atheism) or things like that, they are casting that negative value judgment on the entirety of human religion -- a facet of every society since before written records. My firm belief is that there are very, very few things you can say that generalize to all of religion -- over billions of people and thousands of years -- and absolutely none of them are value judgments.

Criticism

In my Anthropology class, on the last day, my professor went on somewhat of a tangent about criticism and cultural relativism. It’s very easy, she said, to fall into either the trap of criticizing the culture of another from a place of superiority or the trap of not criticizing it at all. Just because they are the beliefs and practices of another culture (and by culture here, I am not restricting myself to ethnic groups or whatever. Even Wall Street bankers have their own culture) does not mean they are immune to criticism. At the same time, the criticism should not come from a mindset of “my beliefs are inherently better” or “we need to civilize those backward savages.”

In regard to the practice of honor killing, distressingly common in some areas of Pakistan, she outright denounced it. We can’t just throw up our hands and say “it’s their culture” and ignore the deplorable practice. However, the criticism ideally should not be one that treats Western ideals, rights, principles etc. as somehow morally superior or inherently or objectively better.

Instead, she said, we should pay attention to criticism that is coming from within the community. Honor killing is common in some parts of Pakistan, yes, but there are many people in those communities, both men and women, that are vehemently opposed to it.

With religion, go ahead and criticize, no one is stopping you, but don’t be stupid about it. Don’t work with just whatever preconceptions of religion or theists you might have but instead engage those people and their scholarship to find out what the actual state of things is. And when criticizing, don’t be like this commenter and act like your own beliefs are inherently morally superior.

Pay attention to internal struggles. Religions are not monolithic. The major religions have a billion or more adherents, and at least a few hundred different positionalities. There are Christian critiques of fundamentalism, Muslim critiques of jihad, Hindu critiques of hindutva, and so on.

Finally, be specific about your criticism. There is a very, very fine line between criticizing the beliefs or practices of a religion, the religion itself, and the people who practice that religion. And all too often, atheists cross these lines. Even Bakunin was pretty anti-semitic in his critiques. There is a difference between criticizing some belief of Islamic theology, Islam, and Arab, North African, South Asian, and South-East Asian muslims. Judaism and Hinduism present their own challenges by the fact that they are largely ethnic religions with deep ties to a specific people group from a specific geographic region and specific histories. If criticizing, be very specific otherwise you might end up being a tinge anti-semitic or sounding like a late-1800s British anthropologist.

Edit (making my position a bit more clear here): It is racist to claim that atheism is a uniquely western imposition onto inherently spiritual non-Whites. That sounds like a claim from Lévi-Strauss or any other racist old anthropologist. Non-white atheisms and critiques of religion obviously exist and it's important to listen to them. However, if your a(nti-)theism is advocating for the abolition of religion, then what about all the people who are perfectly happy with their religion? Abolishing religion would mean making them give up their religion, no? That sounds like a familiar foreign imposition.

(While I'm on the abolition of religion, I just need to point out how laughable that position feels to me. Like, you know that thing that's been an important aspect of pretty much every human society since at least Ice Age times? Yeah, we're gonna get rid of it, somehow.)

Common Arguments

Politics

The idea that religion shouldn’t be political is a really stupid one. I am sympathetic to separation of Church and State, but enforcing that is nigh impossible. Fundamentally, religion informs the way people live, who they interact with, what and how they think, what they practice, and so on. People do politics. Leakage is inevitable. There’s also the fact that religions, or at least religious-ish systems, pop up all the time. America has its own civil religion and you could even describe some views on AI and the Singularity as downright apocalyptic.

Religion has been around since before writing existed; since before cities existed. It has always had a role in politics, from the very earliest days of Egypt and Sumeria, through the Pax Deorum, the Mandate of Heaven, the Divine Right of Kings, and all the way up to today. You cannot dismiss the importance of religion when discussing political matters.

Science

The idea that religion is “unscientific” is, in a sense, true and also completely meaningless. Science, however much we love it, is a method for ascertaining information about the world we live in. It depends on measuring physical data about phenomena, coming up with hypotheses, and repeatedly testing those hypotheses to find the best one. Science does not prove; science comes up with better and better descriptions of reality with the understanding that better descriptions yet exist and what we are doing is not the objective truth of reality but our best guess at understanding it.

There are entire fields where science is not that effective. “How should we act towards each other?” is an important ethics question that readily applies to our lives but science is completely useless here. How can we measure data? How can we operationalize? What do we even measure? How can we test our hypotheses? Philosophy may not be scientific, but it’s not unimportant. Clearly, science is but a tool, and not the tool.

Logic and Truth

This one I’ve seen so many times: religion is false and illogical (or some variation of that.)

Where to even begin? My main criticism here is this opinion is simply too shallow to properly respond to. Flawed under what logic? Under what axioms? Flawed how? There is no universal logic that all of knowledge must abide by; there are many different systems of logic. In the end, logic is a way of arriving at conclusions from a set of axioms. If you change the axioms, you change what conclusions you can reach, you change what conclusions are valid or invalid.

Euclidean geometry takes as an axiom the parallel postulate (parallel lines stay the same distance away) and reaches a set of conclusions with that, e.g. the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180°. Hyperbolic geometry ditches that and instead says parallel lines diverge. This leads to the conclusion that the angles of a triangle add up to <180°. Both are entirely valid systems of logic (here, geometry); neither one is more objective or true than the other. A sum of 180° is wrong in hyperbolic geometry, while <180° is wrong in Euclidean geometry, but each conclusion is perfectly right in its own system of logic. Therefore, if you think of a religion’s philosophy having, as an axiom, the existence of a deity, then the conclusions reached in that philosophy are not illogical.

Furthermore, if the ‘flaws’ you’re criticizing are contradictions in the propositions, realize that contradictions are fundamentally unavoidable. This is just Gödel’s theorem. Even in mathematics, probably one of humanity’s best [group of] systems of logic ever invented, there are plenty of contradictory scenarios. The general guideline is that if a step doesn’t make sense under a set of axioms (e.g. what is 0^0?) then the solution is not to throw away the axioms.

As for the assertion that religion is ‘false’? Again, this is too shallow to properly address. Something important that I learned in Anthropology was that there is no objective truth. Every bit of truth came from someone, for someone, by someone, in a particular time and place; it’s all contextual. And of course, like Ehrman talks about, there are multiple levels of truth. In the end, it doesn’t matter if certain beliefs are literally, physically true, if it’s true for the people involved. And that belief has very material effects on the world. Quid est veritas indeed.

Finally, here are some of my opinions and arguments I wish I saw more of on my feed. The Church is undeniably involved in en masse child sex abuse, and some churches are well known for their cultish practices. The Catholic and Anglican churches did support the colonization of the Americas, genocide of Indigenous peoples, and the residential school system. That is blood on their hands. Missionaries are horrible people who perpetuate colonialism, prey on innocent people, and spread bad theology–killing Indigenous expressions in favor of homogenized European practices. Stoning, beheading, honor killings, and child marriages are deplorable practices that are found throughout the Islamic world, and jihadist theology just shouldn’t exist. (Note that none of these implicate “religion” in general.)

Blight of Evangelicalism

And let’s not forget the American special, evangelicalism. It’s been around since the First Great Awakening, well known for such theology as Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, and has unfortunately enjoyed a resurgence in America currently (and thanks to American global dominance and missionaries, globally). I don’t want to dwell on this upsetting subject matter, but yes, evangelicalism (especially the more explicitly right-wing/televangelist/megachurch type) has an abhorrent theology that preys on innocent people, traps them in cultish environments, spews vitriol towards anyone on the ‘outside,’ queer people being the main target in today’s political climate, and has an absolutely deranged fascination with the end of the world. Any explanation of US’ support for Israel would not be satisfactory without mentioning that the existence of the state of Israel is, in this evangelical cosmology, a necessary prerequisite for God to bring about the end times when they will be victorious and their enemies defeated. It is because of these kinds of people and their influence on the rest of Christianity that no amount of religious leftists will dissuade the majority of other leftists from being a bit wary, and rightfully so.

Important Front

Almost finally, there’s the undeniable fact that a majority of the world’s population are in some way, shape, or form, religious. Regardless of your personal views on religion, it's a terrible move to just abandon such a powerful tool for organizing people to right-wingers. One of the reasons (there are many) why Christianity is so heavily associated with right-wing politics in the US is because of the Cold-War era polarization between America's "christian capitalism" and the USSR's "godless communism." Neither the motto nor the pledge mentioned God until it became politically convenient for the capitalists to do so during the Cold War. And this is not just an American phenomenon. For example, in India, the right-wing is capitalizing on similarly uncontested religious fronts to advance their centralizing hindutva agenda. Not only is it deeply Islamophobic, it also affects "deviants," people who have been practicing their own religious practices for hundreds of years which are non-orthodox. As I previously talked about, religion and politics are deeply tied and always have been. As such, I feel it’s the height of foolishness to abandon an entire front for rallying people towards the goal of communism to reactionaries.

And it’s not like leftism and religion are fundamentally opposed. When two superficially contradictory things come into contact, there is the potential for great innovation. There are some prominent leftist streaks in the history of Christianity, though very few of the examples I’m about to give could be properly termed “leftist” since the left/right system came from 1700s France where the establishment monarchists sat on the right and the upstart capitalists sat on the left. After the capitalist revolutions (American, French) and the economic domination of capitalism, it became the right-wing and socialism and anarchism became the left wing. Other religions have similar streaks too, but I will only talk about things I have comfortable knowledge of.

A Few Thoughts on "Discourse"

As you can see, most of my complaints have not been against the idea of atheism or critiquing religion, but instead with the terminology and methods used. Far too often these takes are shallow and (accidentally? intentionally?) poorly worded. This makes for perfect discourse fuel, where lots of people see a fairly normal, if a shortcoming, take, get mad, and the whole community has a meltdown.

I also suspect a lingering element of yesteryear's cringe culture is behind these annoying discourses that always pop up. This anti-theism discourse apparently started when one user made a harmless little buzzfeed-quiz type of poll for her and her community. This image quickly leaked into the wider leftist community on Twitter, some people made a few (annoying) snide remarks and one-liners. And this led to my timeline being run over with just take after take. Anything something someone doesn't like gets labeled as cringe, and if it's cringe, then it somehow (to some people) justifies endless derision and harassment. It was like that with furries a few years ago; I don't understand this subculture therefore I make memes about shooting furries. On Twitter I guess it's more like, I don't like this lukewarm take therefore I must harass OP until they deactivate.

Further Reading

If you made it this far, congrats! These focus pretty much exclusively on Christianity, as that’s what I’ve delved into, but I’m sure you can find similar sources for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Podcasts

The Magnificast Ep. 216: Why Christianity and Socialism?

The Magnificast Ep. 230: An Episode for your Atheist Communist Mom

Videos

Sixty Symbols. “The Pope’s Astronomer.”

Tobiah. “The Left needs a Religious Strategy.”

Tobiah. “Sabbath as a Revolutionary Principle.”

Tobiah. “The Theological Case for LANDBACK.”

Books

Saba Mahmood. Politics of Piety.

Richard Holloway. A Little History of Religion.

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos. Christian Anarchism.

James Cone. The Cross and the Lynching Tree.

Cheryl Evans. What Does God Think? Transgender People and the Bible.

Damon Garcia. The God Who Riots.

Bradley Jersak. A More Christlike God.

Eugene McCarraher. Enchantments of Mammon.

Roman Montero. All Things in Common.

—. Jesus’s Manifesto.

Sarah Ruden. Paul Among the People.

Kathryn Tanner. Christianity and the New Spirit of Capitalism.

Gerrard Winstanley. Law of Freedom and Other Writings.

Basil the Great. On Social Justice.

Quotedump

Ambrose of Milan

How far, O rich, do you extend your senseless avarice? Do you intend to be the sole inhabitants of the earth? Why do you drive out the fellow sharers of nature, and claim it all for yourselves? The earth was made for all, rich and poor, in common. Why do you rich claim it as your exclusive right? The soil was given to the rich and poor in common—wherefore, oh, ye rich, do you unjustly claim it for yourselves alone? Nature gave all things in common for the use of all; usurpation created private rights. Property hath no rights. The earth is the Lord's, and we are his offspring. The pagans hold earth as property. They do blaspheme God.

John Chrysostom

…to grow rich without injustice is impossible… "But what if he succeeded to his father’s inheritance?” Then he received what had been gathered by injustice. For his ancestor did not inherit riches from Adam; some one of his many ancestors must probably have unjustly taken and enjoyed the goods of others… Tell me, then, what is the source of your wealth? From whom did you receive it, and from whom the one who transmitted it to you? “From his father and his grandfather.” But can you go back through the many generations and show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of it must have been injustice. Why? Because God in the beginning did not make one man rich and another poor. Nor did he later show one treasures of gold and deny the other the right of to search for it. He left the earth free to all alike. Why then, if it is common, do you have so many acres of land, while your neighbor has no portion of it?

Gregory of Nyssa

“I got me slaves and slave-girls.” You are condemning to slavery human beings whose nature is free and characterised by free will. You are making laws that rival the law of God, overturning the law appropriate for humankind. Human beings were created specifically to have dominion over the earth; it was determined by their creator that they should exercise authority. Yet you place them under the yoke of slavery, as though you are opposing and fighting against the divine decree. Have you forgotten the limits of your authority? Your rule is limited to control of irrational creatures. In scripture we read: “let them rule over birds and fish and four-footed creatures”. (Gen 1.26) How then do you go beyond what is subject to you and exalt yourself against a nature which is free, counting people like you among four-footed or footless creatures. “You subjected everything to humankind” declares the scripture through prophecy and it goes on to list what is under human control: domestic animals, cattle and sheep. (Psalm 8/7.8) Surely human beings have not been born to you from domestic animals? Surely cattle have not given birth to human offspring? Irrational creatures alone are subject to humankind. “He makes grass grow for animals and green plants for people’s slaves”. (Psalm 104/103.14) . But you have torn apart the nature of slavery and lordship and made the same thing at one and the same time enslaved to itself and lord of itself. “I got me slaves and slave-girls.” Tell me what sort of price you paid. What did you find in creation with a value corresponding to the nature of your purchase? What price did you put on rationality? For how many obols did you value the image of God? For how many coins did you sell this nature formed by God? God said: “Let us make human beings in our own image and likeness” (Gen 1.26). When we are talking about one who is in the image of God, who has dominion over the whole earth and who has been granted by God authority over everything on the earth, tell me, who is the seller and who the buyer? Only God has this kind of power, or, one might almost say, not even God. For scripture says that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11.29). God would not make a slave of humankind. It was God who, through his own will, called us back to freedom when we were slaves of sin. If God does not enslave a free person, then who would consider their own authority higher than God’s?

Basil the Great

Petr Chelčický

It was then and there that the net became greatly torn, when the two great whales had entered it, that is, the Supreme Priest wielding royal power with honor superior to the Emperor, and the second whale being the Emperor who, with his rule and offices, smuggled pagan power and violence beneath the skin of faith. And when these two monstrous whales began to turn about in the net, they rent it to such an extent that very little of it has remained intact. From these two whales so destructive of Peter’s net there were spawned many scheming schools by which that net is also so greatly torn that nothing but tatters and false names remain. They were first of all the hordes of monks in all manner of costumes and diversified colors; these were followed by hordes of university students and hordes of pastors; after them came the unlearned hordes with multiform coats-of-arms, and with them those of the wicked burghers. The whole world and its wretchedness have entered Peter's net of faith with these evil hordes.

Gerrard Winstanley

What are the greatest sins in the world? I answer. These two; First for a man to lock up the treasuries of the Earth in Chests and houses; and suffer it to rust or mold[er], while others starve for want to whom it belongs, and it belongs to all; This is the greatest sin against universal Love; this is the destroying sin, this is Achan’s sin; this is the action of Covetousness.  The second sin is like to this, and is the same in nature with the other; And this is for any man, or men, first to take the Earth by the power of the murdering sword from others; and then by the Laws of their own making, do hang, or put to death any who takes the fruits of the Earth to supply his necessaries, from places or persons where there is more then can be made use of by that particular family, where it is hoarded up.

In the beginning of Time, the great Creator... made the Earth to be a Common Treasury, to preserve Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Man, the lord that was to govern this Creation; for Man had Domination given to him, over the Beasts, Birds, and Fishes; but not one word was spoken at the beginning that one branch of mankind should rule over another, but selfish imaginations did set up one man to teach and rule over another.

Was the Earth made to preserve a few covetous, proud men to live at ease, and for them to bag and barn up the treasures of the Earth from others, that these may beg or starve in a fruitful land; or was it made to preserve all her children?

I demand whether all wars, bloodshed and misery came not upon the creation when one man endeavored to be a lord over another? …And whether this misery shall not remove …when all the branches of mankind shall look upon the earth as one common treasury to all.

The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land.

For what you call the Law is but a club of the rich over the lowest of men, sanctifying the conquest of the earth by a few and making their theft the way of things. But over and above these pitiful statutes of yours that enclose the common land and reduce us to poverty to make you fat stands the Law of Creation, which renders judgment on rich and poor alike, making them one. For freedom is the man who will thus turn the world upside down, therefore no wonder he has enemies.

Leo Tolstoy

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.

If people would but understand that they are not the sons of some fatherland or other, nor of Governments, but are sons of God, and can therefore neither be slaves nor enemies one to another - those insane, unnecessary, worn-out, pernicious organizations called Governments, and all the sufferings, violations, humiliations and crimes which they occasion, would cease.

Simone Weil

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.

No human being escapes the necessity of conceiving some good outside himself towards which his thought turns in a movement of desire, supplication, and hope. consequently, the only choice is between worshipping the true God or an idol. Every atheist is an idolater — unless he is worshipping the true God in his impersonal aspect. The majority of the pious are idolaters.

Eugene Debbs

During the brief span of three years, embracing the whole period of his active life, from the time he began to stir up the people until “the scarlet robe and crown of thorns were put on him and he was crucified between two thieves,” Jesus devoted all his time and all his matchless ability and energies to the suffering poor, and it would have been passing strange if they had not “heard him gladly.” He himself had no fixed abode and like the wretched, motley throng to whom he preached and poured out his great and loving heart, he was a poor wanderer on the face of the earth and “had not where to lay his head.” Pure communism was the economic and social gospel preached by Jesus Christ, and every act and utterance which may properly be ascribed to him conclusively affirms it. Private property was to his elevated mind and exalted soul a sacrilege and a horror; an insult to God and a crime against man. The economic basis of his doctrine of brotherhood and love is clearly demonstrated in the fact that under his leadership and teaching all his disciples “sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need,” and that they “had all things in common.”

James Cone

Christ is black, therefore, not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor, the despised, and the black are, disclosing that he is with them, enduring their humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberated servants. … The “blackness of Christ, ”therefore, is not simply a statement about skin color, but rather, the transcendent affirmation that God has not ever, no not ever, left the oppressed alone in struggle. He was with them in Pharaoh’s Egypt, is with them in America, Africa and Latin America, and will come in the end of time to consummate fully their human freedom.

According to the Bible, the cross and resurrection of Jesus are God’s decisive acts against injustice, against the humiliation and suffering of the little ones. Indeed, it is because God disclosed himself as the Oppressed One in Jesus that the oppressed now know that their suffering is not only wrong but has been overcome. This new knowledge of God in Jesus grants the oppressed the freedom of fighting against the political structures of servitude which make for pain and suffering.

Gustavo Gutiérrez

The underdevelopment of the poor countries, as an overall social fact, appears in its true light: as the historical by-product of the development of other countries. The dynamics of the capitalist economy lead to the establishment of a center and a periphery, simultaneously generating progress and growing wealth for the few and social imbalances, political tensions, and poverty for the many.

In the Bible poverty is a scandalous condition inimical to human dignity and therefore contrary to the will of God.

Leonardo Boff

“In liberation theology, Marxism is never treated as a subject on its own but always from and in relation to the poor. Placing themselves firmly on the side of the poor, liberation theologians ask Marx: 'What can you tell us about the situation of poverty and ways of overcoming it?' Here Marxists are submitted to the judgment of the poor and their cause, and not the other way around.”

#twitter is where nuance goes to die #own post

[thundergrace]

Please take a step back from the situation, because we are dealing right now with a series of bad choices: The US State Department and whatever private attorneys or negotiators are involved have called for silence: no grassroots movement, no international uproar, no upsetting what they clearly see as a delicate situation. Their strategy has brought us to a point where Griner is facing years at a labor camp. The need to switch strategies and the need to let Russia and Putin know that the whole world is watching when Griner finally sees the inside of a court room May 18 has never felt more pressing.

[...]

Yes, it’s time for the rallies, the hashtags, the petitions, and the press conferences. Does the State Department truly believe that raising up Griner’s name will make the situation worse? How much worse can it possibly get? By raising Griner’s name up to the light, at least we have the hope of creating an untenable situation for Putin as he continues a war in search of an off-ramp. It’s not just democracy that dies in darkness. Political prisoners quite literally die when their names are swallowed in our throats instead of shouted to the heavens. Free Brittney Griner. Bring her home. Stop the sports media blackout. And end the tactical silence.

Read the whole article. Please.

America is dangerously "out of sight, out of mind". The silence isn't just potentially a way for Russia to do what it wants with Brittney because we're clearly not paying attention, we're also not applying ANY pressure to the State Department with this silence. We're trusting them to do all they can to get a queer Black woman home??? People talk about how much BG is a symbol of everything Russia hates, did they forget America is anti-Black and homophobic, from the top down or...?

I understand the silence as a strategy to prevent her from becoming a pawn but was it ever considered that if the US appears not to care about her she's useless as a hostage? Useless hostages don't just get sent home.

Also, American citizens are not being silent about a queer Black WNBA player being held as a political prisoner as a tactical strategy, they just don't care. They never needed to be told to stop talking about her, rallying for her freedom, writing about her, posting about her, they just..... never were. And those that do care well, the distractions are endless and something awful and terrible is in the news everyday. That's where journalism is supposed to come in and remind us all that we have a woman in a very dangerous situation, in a very dangerous place.

#brittney griner #hell of an opening sentence lol #*sigh* okay #wnba

[dreamgrlarchive]

Self Care 101 🦋

In this post I’ll be outlining my current routines as they relate to self care. I’ll cover everything from head to toe making sure not to skip your spirit. You cannot be a girl of ANYONE’S dreams if you aren’t taking care of the most important person in your world: you.

mornings:

wash face with gentle cleanser from curology, tone with organic Mamonde rose water and finish with rich moisturizer and spf30

brush teeth with activated charcoal toothpaste by Crest and baking soda for whitening and gum clarity

take vitamins : woman’s one a day, hair skin nails, biotin, vitamin c

drink glass of water then a cup of tea

black tea, raw cane sugar, a lemon slice, ginger

good for energy, immune function, and detox

showers:

this may sound so extra (😅), but depending on my hairstyle, I sometimes like to let the shower run for about five minutes with the door closed to create a sauna effect. this is especially if I have a mask on my hair.

my showers usually are about 20-30 minutes

I have a back brush, pink exfoliating gloves, a loofah, and tree hut body scrubs and I use them ALL.

I wash first with my dove beauty bar to assure clean skin before washing with EITHER my OGX Shea So Soft body wash or Dove Renewing Peony and Rose Oil body wash to add scent or silkiness to my skin.

hair removal:

I haven’t yet mastered the art of waxing myself so I’m still riding the shave wave. *when I do I’ll make a post 4 that*

I exfoliate throughly before AND after shaving

I shave my entire body using Tree Hut Shaving Oil and a nice conditioner I’m not using. This leaves my skin super soft and silky and helps the razor to glide without skipping. I use Gillette Venus. no less than five blades, anything less is ASKING for nicks and a hard time.

when I don’t feel like shaving, I use Nair. use at your own risk. yes, I Nair my ENTIRE BODY. only leaving it on for about 7 minutes I rinse in WARM (not hot) water and exfoliate afterwards. it is imperative to moisturize after to avoid irritation. however, Nair is much easier to do than shaving and seems to last an inkling longer.

after shaving, once a month, I pull out my KENZZI. it’s an IPL device and it has helped to slow the growth of my hair. it’s noticeable for us long, thick haired chicks. I use the second to lowest setting as a melanated babe, as the higher settings could burn me.

I know many endorse the hair on women movement and I can understand it. But I personally love my skin silky, hairless, and smooth.

nights:

after eating dinner, I wash my face and apply the tiniest bit of glycolic serum and my curology night cream. my skin has been the best it’s been in a few years. then I brush my teeth and rinse with peroxide.

every four days I give myself a facial

my favorite face masks:

The Ordinary Salicylic Acid mask

The Ordinary AHA + BHA mask

all Tony Moly sheet masks *luvvvvv those*

GLAMGLOW SUPERMUD clearing treatment *fav*

Peter Thomas Roth Pumpkin Enzyme mask

Peter Thomas Roth Cucumber Gel mask

Peter Thomas Roth Irish Moor Mud mask

Peter Thomas Roth Rose Stem Cell Bio-Repair Gel mask

ORIGINS Clear Improvement mask

An at home honey and aloe mask

I apply a rich facial moisturizer and get to bed.

I then write in my planner my new plans and what I did that day if I hadn’t already. then after that I script and make mood boards in my diary. then I read a little. currently reading: Making Faces by Kevyn Aucoin, and Live Like a hot Chick by Jodi Lipper.

emotions:

I talk to my grandmother about my feelings, she helps me sort things out. please try to find one person you trust to talk to, my messages are always open. 💓 I often overthink. I suffer from anxiety and clinical depression. sometimes these things make me FEEL limited. these experiences wax and wane. I remind myself that the darkness is temporary.

I write in my diary what I feel and track my emotions for potential patterns. I don’t manufacture or sugar coat my feelings, I just talk.

sometimes you need a good cry. let it out. clean your slate. you’ll always feel better, sometimes great after a hard, deep sobbing cry.

I try to get out of the house and get some sunlight. it helps brighten my mood sometimes.

baths:

LOVE taking baths I don’t care what the status quo is about dirt. just rinse off. I love wrapping my hair up and soaking in warm-hot water.

first I run the water. as it’s running I add my bubble bath, then body wash, then my Shea Moisture fragrant coconut oil. it smells soooo good, literally yummy. then I inevitably scream from dipping my toe in the hot water. finally I get in, scrub down my body, emphasis on feet. then I wash, and just relax. I’ve even fallen asleep in the tub once, I was so zen.

careful not to soak too long or overdo it with your products. synthetic materials lingering in your lady bits for too long cause cause infections like bv or uti

some women add tea tree oil, acv, or even Aztec clay to their baths for wellness purposes. I love adding essential oils to my baths to relax and the natural scent is just great 🥺

when I get out I always put something that feels lush and soft on. *invest in super soft, comfy bath towels, they’ll make you feel so luxurious and soft after a nice relaxing bath*

flower:

the yoni is something sensitive that needs to be taken care of thoroughly, and differently than the rest of your body. it’s not recommended to use soaps down there, it can unbalance things and make you itch. also make you prone to infection. this is why I use clear warm water to clean. if I use soap it’s a sensitive, gentle formula. don’t ever try to clean the cavity. she’s a self cleaning vessel.

to shave, I trim my hair down as close as possible and use a FIVE BLADE razor with conditioner and take my time. making sure not to pass a spot twice, I apply moderate pressure and move slowly. when finished I rinse and scrub gently. I PAT not rub dry. to finish off I apply TendSkin, and salicylic acid to avoid ingrowns. once that’s soaked in I apply shea butter. very soft and pretty 🌸

⚠️ DO NOT PUT ON TIGHT PANTIES OR RIGHT PANTS AFTER SHAVING. it restricts the hairs and causes irritation and ingrowns. throw on some comfy loose shorts for a while, let it breathe

dietary needs:

drink plenty of water

cranberry juice

vitamin c

minimal red meat

probiotics

at home vagacial for the high maintenance girlies:

*make any necessary extractions with pointed and slanted tweezers *

scrub: 

brown sugar, tea tree oil, a little shea butter

exfoliating and anti inflammatory

mask:

baking soda, fresh lemon juice, vitamin e oil, papaya juice, gelatin

fixes discoloration and brightens the skin while softening

moisturize:

aloe vera gel, rose hip seed oil

smelling sweet:

ah yes, my favorite part. I love fragrance so much. I love to smell like you could literally break off a piece of me and eat it.

I find that using fragrant washes and oils make your scent more strong and help it linger. I already mentioned the body washes I use. the tree hut scrubs I use smell amazing also. I alike to add essential oils and man made scents like strawberry and chocolate to my Shea Moisture oil (so yummy).

I also use a fragrant lotion, eau de parfum, and fragrance mist.

here’s a list of some of my favorites:

perfumes:

jimmy choo fever

coach floral blush

yves saint laurent mon paris

victoria’s secret bombshell

victoria’s secret scandalous

valentino

fragrance mists:

victoria’s secret velvet petals, pure seduction, warm and cozy

bath and body works a thousand wishes, fiji pineapple palm, warm vanilla sugar, black raspberry vanilla

oils:

coconut

sweet almond

peppermint

chocolate scented essential oil

strawberry scented essential oil

orange

grapefruit

eucalyptus

sweetest combo ever:

vanilla extract, coconut oil, shea butter, and your favorite perfume. you’ll be smelling like a warm cupcake with extra sprinkles and icing 🧁

layering:

oil, lotion, eau de parfum, mist

pulse points:

inside elbows and knees, in between thighs, inner arms, behind ears, back of neck, ankles

hair:

it’s super important to keep your hair moisturized. quenched tresses move, grow, shine and bounce. dry hair is limp, lackluster, and extremely fragile

my fav diy deep conditioner:

a banana, half an avocado, three spoons of honey, an egg, a spoonful of mayo, a spoonful of coconut, olive, and castor oil each

strength from egg, avocado, mayo and olive oil

moisture from avocado and honey

cover damp CLEAN hair and scalp in mixture and cover with a plastic bag, then towel for an hour, rinse thoroughly, and seal in moisture

fav hair products:

castor oil

fusionplex conditioner and mask

Aussie conditioner

wella goji berry mask

coconut oil

style booster edge control

helpful tips:

when shampooing, concentrate on the scalp and wash thoroughly twice, as the suds will naturally cleanse your stands without drying and stripping them

rinse hair with apple cider vinegar every now and then. it restores your ph balance, smooths the cuticle, clarifies the strands, and adds shine

always add oil and leave ins to DAMP hair, never dry; this will ensure you’re sealing in moisture

try to use smooth fabrics to dry your hair, bath towels encourage frizz and breakage

hands and feet:

and last but not least, let’s cover manicuring and pedicuring.

it’s super important to make sure your nails are either DONE or filed, shaped, and smooth. at home maintenance is super easy. make a point to scrub your hands and feet well when bathing. make sure to stay on top of your cuticles by trimming or pushing them back. I like the look that pushing them gives. I use an orangewood stick, metal pusher and cuticle softener to make the process super easy and safe. after I’m done I add my pineapple scented cuticle oil. I do this on my fingers and toes.

invest in a rasp and pumice stone for your feet and use these gently every two weeks after soaking them in warm foot salts. rough usage can cause cuts and irritation. in between treatments keep your feet soft by slathering them in a moisturizing foot cream, cocoa/shea butter then oil to seal it all in. buy some soft thick aloe infused socks and wear them to sleep. you’ll thank me 😉

for info on how I do my nails click this

well, that’s all I’ve got. I truly hope you enjoyed my post! it’s always fun sharing my advice with you all. any feedback is appreciated and question is welcomed ♡

#my posts #self care #high maintenance #the prissy girl agenda #dream girl journey

[rangarlamamicado]

//tw: Drugs

Okay... I can tell that recently many of us can easily think of what's extremely ironic about the recent Ace Attorney Chronicles Anti-Weed PSAs.

If you haven't already heard despite it being the totally holy year that is 2021, the titular story character and plot anchor, Sherlock Holmes, while not a weed smoker, was actually a common cocaine, opium, and painkiller user! Doesn't that explain a lot?

The erratic behavior... the dangling from walls... the mood swings... EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS MAN. THIS MAN IS LITERALLY ON HARDCORE DRUGS. 24. 7.

If you already know or wanna skip my analysis of this, go ahead... but if not, allow me to start it from the top.

In Conan-Doyle's original writings of the Sherlock Holmes series, as well as at the time of the writing of the original Sherlock Holmes series, places known 'opium dens, were a common thing. At the time, it was associated with Chinese imports and the like since this was an age of discovery and all, but the dens themselves would act as places where you could not only buy the drugs, but use them in the same place - hence the den part.

As for where the tie-in is, at the time,, these places got big, and it was a time where their harmful effects had yet not been discovered (albeit, it would happen later on and actually have an impact on the later editions of the stories of Sherlock Holmes.) Regardless of what we know now, at the time it was the fad thing to do hard drugs, and Sherlock Holmes, as we all know, is commonly depicted with a pipe, as are most stereotypical detectives, most of which deriving this trope from Holmes as well...

...But, however, what you might not know is that, in stories such as "The Man with the Twisted Lip," it actually becomes known in some instances that what he's smoking is actually opium! Yep. And he's done all these other drugs in the past too, despite the author being a medical professional like Watson.

Sir Conan-Doyle's father actually struggled with alcoholism that landed him in an insane asylum, and despite learning and applying the studies of Sigmund Freud, who is also a quack who did drugs that happened to get a few things right, Conan-Doyle stood with the side of reason, making sure to depict Holmes' struggle as realistically as possible, likely leading to his writing's acclaim.

At first impressions with his addictions, Watson and Holmes' family were quick to judge - and rightfully so - But most of all, Watson in the stories described it not only as "A distraction," but ALSO "The answer for what a genius' brain likely does to do away with his boredom," that which Holmes in TGAA CLEARLY does seem to have in common with the real Holmes - Have a disdain for boredom, and boring people, logic, or boring behavior.

What's more troublesome, however... in the later issues of the original stories, when it became clear that these drugs were EXTREMELY detrimental, it becomes clear in the writings that Holmes' addiction is taking control of his life, and Watson personally addresses him about this, saying that it's a "major threat to his thriving career."

So... while several other instances and adoptions of Sherlock Holmes may choose to omit this glaringly unspoken characteristic and addiction, it seems that Holmes in TGAAC still blatantly displays several instances of depressions, angry episodes, and hyperactivity... so while on screen he may seem like a himbo with an over-the-top personality... let's just say Capcom knew what they were doing for once... until now, that is, though I guess they could always use a quick buck or two from the government for the fuck of it. As one does.

... and as for the implications of where Iris fits into this... yea, I don't wanna know.

BUT ANYWAYS!

That's been my extended explanation of the irony I'm finding in the use of TGAA's characters in the recent TGAAC anti-drug PSA in the Osaka Prefecture, as we can clearly see, considering they're friends with a world renowned detective... who's also a struggling drug addict, despite singlehandedly being the key to these characters' success.

So yea! If you know, you know.

#tgaa #tgaa2 #tgaac #dgs #dgs2 #ace attorney #phoenix wright #apollo justice #ryunosuke naruhodo #susato mikotoba #sherlock holmes #herlock sholmes #iris watson #iris wilson #drugs tw #drugs #drug psa #the irony of it all #cruel irony #the irony is real #oh the irony #today i learned #capcom #i love this himbo #character breakdown #character analysis #analysis #essay

[considermygenderminecrafted]

So Techno isn’t a hypocrite, and Ranboo isn’t a class traitor /rp

This post will hopefully explain why having things is not inherently bad.

This posts comes from expecting people to have basic understanding of anarchy, if you wanna know more about anarchy and how that works on dsmp, it'll be in the links in an hour or so [1]

Okay so why is being rich bad

Let’s get this out the way I’m Wildly anti-capitalist. 1% redistribute ur wealth challenge. As in stealing from supermarkets is morally correct anti-capitalist.

But the reasons I hate rich people is not because they have things, it’s how they got those things.

The issue with the 1% is not that they have items, it’s that the way they got all that stuff was by exploiting peoples labour, and it’s at the cost of the climate, and people’s lives. The things they own are made by other people, and the money they have is off of other people’s labour. IRL there is no way to earn the wealth that say Jeff Bezos has, because there is no amount work possible to do to that will justify the amount of wealth they have.

For example Jeff Bezos could earn $1,000,000 every day, from the day Jesus Christ was born, and he would have to work another 716 years before he would have the same amount of money he has now. So obviously, that’s insane. Of course he hasn’t simply worked hard enough that people just wanted to give him $1.7 trillion, he hasn’t just produced $1,000,000’s worth of value every day for 2737 days in a row. So how’d he get that money? [2]

He owns factories, and forces people to work themselves to death in those factories, says ‘well you’re in my factory so I own that thing you just made’ and then sells it to us and keeps all the money. The people in that factory don’t get to keep the stuff they made, or the money Jeff makes from selling it, they get paid a wage, which is the lowest they can get away with it being.

The issue here, is not that Jeff Bezos has $1.7 trillion, it’s that he got that money by exploiting people. The issue is that he has stuff at the expense of the rest of humanity, he is not bad because he owns things, he’s bad because he has never and will never be able to produce enough value for humanity to acquire that much money, they only reason he has money is because he works people to the bone and then lets them die while paying them so little they are on food stamps.

Now Jeff Bezos is an extreme example, but this applies to all people who make money by owning things. People who make money by owning things (the capitalist class [3]) do so because they pay people less money than they “should” make. That’s how you make a profit by owning factories, you pay people less than what you sell the thing they make for, you unfairly compensate them for the value they produce. That’s why capitalism is inherently exploitative.

You will notice, that people having money is not the problem. People who get paid a high wage are still exploited, because they will never be fairly compensated for the value they produce.

Why is Techno and Ranboo having things not bad.

Well it’s because they worked for the things they have. They didn’t exploit people for it, they didn’t steal from people for it, they went out and mined the resourced, built the beacons, killed the withers.

No really, it’s that simple. Like they didn’t get those things at the expense of others, they are not hypocrites for having items, for being rich. They are not rich at the expense of other people.

Where Bezos could not in any way have worked for 2737 years everyday producing $1000000s worth of labour each time, Techno Ranboo and Phil have all literally mined their wealth out of the ground themselves.

Seriously anti-capitalists can own things. Like I don’t have to give up everything when I realise I agree with anarchy.

Anarchy?

Sure! So like another reason anarchist don't like rich people is that they use their wealth to influence things, politics, markets, other people, you know, rich people thing.

From an anarchist perspective this is bad, because we don’t like coercive hierarchies, power dynamics where one person can get the other person to do things they don’t want to do. This is different from trade, where two people exchange things they perceive to be equal value, its exerting control over another person by having wealth where they do not, its wielding power over people, using implicit or explicit threats to get people to do what you want.

No one in the syndicate use their wealth to pressure others, or use it to threaten people, or try and coerce people into doing things they don’t want to do. They don’t use their wealth as a means of control. So nope, they aren’t hypocrites from this angle either

I think a lot of people have rightfully internalised the idea that te 1% are bad, eat the rich ect, but no one’s taken the time to explain *why* rich people are bad. It’s to do with how they acquire wealth, what they do with that wealth and who is it at the expense of. It’s not as simple as: having money = bad, it’s about the harm it does. They could never earn it, only get it through

Tl;dr:

Anarchist can have things

Rich people are bad because they exploit people

Phil techno and ranboo haven't done that to acquire their wealth

#dreamsmp #dream smp #technoblade #ranboo #philza #anarchy #long post

[i-make-fun-of-spn-characters]

I feel like you've given most spn related things some lil spice but I always love the spice on this : hot spicy take on the "Dean is the most horrible character and ruins everyone's life and Sam and Cas are poor little meow meows who only do bad things sometimes because tyran Dean farted in their direction" takes that are not really only said by anti-Dean peeps ? Obsessed with that incredible thesis and would love the added spice ❤

SPICY HOT HOT GHOST PEPPERS CAROLINA REAPERS HELP I'M BURNING

I really try to respect other people’s opinions, and I believe there are a wealth of ways to interpret a story, and I think that’s a deeply beautiful thing. This applies to interpretations I don't agree with and outright dislike as well. That said, some opinions are simply and objectively bad, dishonest, and/or demonstrably false, and I truly do not believe you can sit down and honestly watch through the show with an open mind about all the characters, truly pay attention to what they do, say, and believe, and come to the conclusion that this show is about an evil manipulative abusive man terrorizing his pure and sinless brother and friend. It is an interpretation built from cherry picking facts to suit an ugly, miserable theory, making Mount Everest out of a bunch of the tiny mole hills, making the worst possible presumptions of feelings and intentions, and holding characters to completely different standards in order to neatly divide them into "abused" and "abuser" in a way that, frankly, fetishizes the abused person. I despise this interpretation of the story with every fiber of my being, and I have absolutely no respect for the opinion of anyone who peddles it, regardless of who they cast as villain/victim (because people have also done this with the others—it’s just more “popular” to do it with Dean... I mean... does anyone else remember how people were shitting on Sam after his emotional reaction in 14.12? Calling him an evil abuser? Because I do).

The thing that always gets me about this take isn't just how dishonest, unfair, mean-spirited, and compassionless it is in its treatment of Dean’s feelings, circumstances, and intentions... but how deeply reductive and offensive it is toward Sam and Castiel, sucking away their identities to turn them into effigies to mourn for their sad, Stockholm syndrome-esque attachment to their "abuser". Further, it grips the heart of the show—the relationship between Sam and Dean, and then the relationship among TFW as a whole—in a tight, uncompromising fist and pulverizes it. It literally rips out the heart of the show (the RELATIONSHIPS) and replaces it with something unprepossessing of any merit: A miserable, 15 years long story about a malicious abuser getting away with terrorizing those closest to him for his entire life, while his poor abuse victims suffer through until they die for him/happy to be reunited with him because they “don’t know any better” and never ever learned better, I guess. What a stupid, sad sack of a story.

Castiel is a thousands of years old celestial being who has literally beaten Dean into the pavement under no form of mind control, and has shown over and over again that he will do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of whatever Dean thinks about being sidelined. If he thinks whatever he is doing is in Dean's best interest, he literally does not care how Dean feels about it. He will nod and smile and then fly off and swallow thousands of souls with Dean begging him not to, shove Dean out of the way to attack the big bad, leave Dean alone in Purgatory, refuse to come out of Purgatory so he can self-flagellate, fly off with the angel tablet, help Sam with the Book of the Damned, let Lucifer possess him without anyone's knowledge or agreement, come into Dean's room under the guise of apologizing for ghosting him so that he can steal The Colt out from under his pillow and murder someone, decide not to murder that person and still prevent Sam and Dean from helping by knocking them both unconscious, get himself killed, make a deal to trade his life for Jack's and never tell anyone, hide information and worries and ignore phone calls, ghost Sam and Dean, and bicker and fight with Dean as if they are a married couple. Love sickness and feelings of worthlessness (which Cas has a wealth of reasons to feel—many of which aren’t even related to Dean but to his heavenly family) are reinterpreted as the result of some sort of constant, terrorizing emotional abuse. Power and authority that Dean does not actually have is forced into his hands by these fans. Maybe listen when Cas says, “Hey—not everything is your fault.” Maybe listen when he says “I loved the whole world because of you”, calls Dean a role model, says he enjoys their conversations, offers to die with him and dies for him multiple times. Maybe treat these feelings as genuine and valid and HIS and not as the delusions of some poor manipulated baby. 

Sam is framed this way even more often than Cas, and it's a damn shame, because what I typically see is this: Sam’s development into a mediator and peacemaker is twisted and reinterpreted as coming from a place of weakness and/or fear. Rationality, maturity, wisdom, and compassion are not the traits of a scared, powerless child. They are the traits of a mature adult, who has been beaten down by life, and fought and raged against his circumstances, and somehow come out of it with more kindness and understanding and strength instead of less. He has made his own decisions whenever it was possible, within the set of circumstances doled out to him. From telling his dad to go fuck himself and going to college, to getting back into hunting to avenge Jess (NOT because of Dean—Dean took him home without complaint at the end of the woman in white case), to continuing to hunt after their father died because he wanted to feel close to him (Dean was actually weirded out and sort of disgusted by this), raging and fighting to save Dean from his deal against Dean’s wishes, continuing to hunt and working with Ruby (directly against Dean’s dying wish), drinking demon blood, jumping in the cage, leaving hunting to go be with Amelia, coming back to hunting to save Kevin, fighting with Dean over what he had with Amelia and threatening to leave if Dean didn't shut his mouth, leaving Amelia to go back to hunting (Dean ultimately suggests he go back to her—Sam chooses to stay), trying to kill Benny, demanding to be the one to do The Trials and saying he is going to SURVIVE them—that being the ENTIRE POINT, losing that resolve in a fit of depression but choosing to drop the knife, demanding space from Dean (and being given it), fighting to save Demon Dean who didn’t want to be found or saved, using the Book of the Damned against Dean’s wishes, telling Charlie that this is what he wants—that he used to want normal but now all he wants is to hunt with Dean and that he doesn’t know what he’ll do if he can’t have that, unleashing the Darkness in his desperation to keep Dean with him and even saying, “I would do it again” in the aftermath, saving the town being destroyed by Amara, getting into The Cage with Lucifer, leading a team against the British Men of Letters, nurturing Jack, punching Dean in the face when he was going to sacrifice himself, leading more hunters, wielding a gun against Chuck... and that’s just some highlights. Sam Fucking Winchester does not need your bullshit about him being some sad, scared, helpless baby lorded over by mean old Dean who has never let him do anything he wants. 

Yes, in the text itself, there is jealousy and resentment at times, and there is legitimate and righteous anger on Sam’s part on a few occasions. There is blame cast on Dean by Sam for some of these choices/circumstances. Some of those moments where Dean is blamed are legitimate, and some of them... frankly, are not. Within the framework of the fucked up dynamics of the way they were raised, Sam and some fans bristle when they feel Dean is casting himself as the parent he is not, but Sam also has been guilty in the past of trying to reframe himself as Dean’s child when things got tough. Neither of them is responsible for the origin of that dynamic, but they BOTH have responsibility to change it, and they both, ultimately, succeed in doing so. For Sam, his part comes in recognizing and learning to fully own his own choices. Recognizing that he is not a child, and he is certainly not Dean’s child, and it isn’t just “Mummy—loosen the grip”, but Sam has to too—not claim independence only to blame Dean for his choices when his own decisions have an ultimate outcome he is unhappy with. That is a legitimate arc that Sam goes through imo, but he comes out the other side of it, and he and Dean relate to each other much better as peers from then on—and I’d like to note that throughout the entire series, when they don’t relate as perfect peers and teammates, it isn’t always Dean “bossing Sam around”, but Sam also trying to sideline Dean and yes—boss him around. And when they lied and hurt each other and yes, even manipulated each other, Dean most certainly wasn't always the one doing the lying and hurting and manipulating. Always, always, ALWAYS, they both had an understandable point of view, and it was complex, and you could understand why they made the choices they did, even if you thought of those choices as being wrong ones. 

I also would like to point out (because this is basically what I see all of the time) that Dean being hurt by someone or simply voicing his feelings or opinion is in no way abusive or manipulative. Dean is certainly charismatic and loved and his returning love and respect is often deeply desired, but he is not an actual siren, who bends people to his will simply by speaking or being. People are, in fact, able to tell him “no”, and frequently FREQUENTLY do. Further more, no one is owed his affection, his unwavering loyalty, or his trust. He has a right to his boundaries, regardless of if it makes some poor sad sap feel deprived of the “wellspring of coveted love” while he works through things. He can be hurt and angry, and he can wear his heart on his sleeve at times, and he can be flawed, and broken. [Insert Castiel's speech from 15.18 here]. So can Sam. So can Cas. None of them are manipulating each other by virtue of getting angry, feeling hurt, being traumatized, needing space, or having differing opinions or feelings. Sam didn’t punch Dean in the face in 14.12 because he's a cruel, manipulative abuser trying to force Dean under his thumb. He didn’t work behind Dean’s back with Ruby, insist on doing The Trials, beg Dean to use Doc Benton’s alchemy, use the Book of the Damned to cure Dean, pump him full of blood to cure him of being a demon despite the fact that it might kill him, or scream at him and fight him for wanting to get in the Ma’lak box because he “doesn’t respect his autonomy” and “wants to control him” and “doesn’t respect his right to his own body”. He did it because he loves him desperately, and Dean could stand to fucking hate himself less, and he fiercely wanted Dean to live even when Dean didn’t want to or couldn’t picture what that could be like. He didn’t force Dean to do anything simply by opening his mouth to voice disagreement and swaying Dean when he did so. Now reverse that. 

Cas didn't beat Dean into the ground in season 5 because he wanted to terrorize him into never going against Castiel ever again. He didn’t go behind his back dozens of times, sideline him, go MIA, all because he wanted to manipulate and control Dean and punish him. He didn’t throw sassy remarks at him to shatter his self-esteem. Now reverse that. 

*Breathes*

Anyway, fuck "X is abusive” interpretations. 

#being serious for 5 seconds #RANTING RANTING RANTING #spicy spicy ghost pepper extract #mail