Avatar

Fierce, Gitaxian Librarian

@fierceawakening / fierceawakening.tumblr.com

bite my shiny metal ass

Sudden thought which makes the Phyrexia arc more interesting than it was canonically:

Elspeth had as little choice in her transformation as the average Phyrexian has in theirs.

Like. Maybe this is not what the story says. I don’t remember.

But.

As if Serra would have let her walk away. As if she would have let herself.

She was as stuck as most of them are. It would have destroyed her inwardly to just let herself die.

I kind of wish it had been pointed out, though I don’t think Norn would have been able to say it. To say that much she would have had to openly admit she was oppressing and violating her people.

But man. Poor Elspeth. Like I get that she’s the hero of the narrative but if you look closely at it she seems as doomed by it as anyone else. She was just some kid some Phyrexians messed with because they could and now she’s as altered as they are.

In conclusion, Serra and Yawgmoth are both dickheads. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

Another thing I think I agree is cultural christianity because I have asked people to explain and I am baffled so I guess it's my upbringing, sure, is:

Family: We keep religious traditions because we like making God happy.

Wee Fiercelet: That makes sense. I like making people happy.

Family: Society's traditions are kind of a mixed bag though. History has mistreated black people and women, for example.

WF: Or disabled people like me.

F: Yeah.

WF: So always ask if a tradition is good! And if it is you should keep it but if it's not you should throw it out! Good. Okay.

Slightly Less Wee Fiercelet: ...I don't think there's a God.

SLWF: But if there isn't a God, then not doing these things that make God happy doesn't matter, because nobody's watching.

SLWF: I'm doing this to make MOM happy.

SLWF: That is a bad reason to do a thing every week. Fuck this.

Fierce Many Years Later: Wait.

F: I like some of those traditions! I'm going to keep some of them, but some of them are kind of eh.

Church People: Yeah, we all do that, we just don't say so.

So the following confuses me:

Fierce: What are you doing?

Jewish Atheist: Keeping traditions.

Fierce: Oh! Okay. To make God happy?

JA: No, I don't think there is one either.

F: Then why keep the traditions?

JA: You know, I don't know. We just do.

F: That one over there seems kind of silly.

JA: Don't start! We argue all the time.

F: So you... also... think it's... kind of silly?

JA: I mean, I don't like this conversation, but... if you're asking in good faith... well, sure.

F: Then why do you keep it?

JA: Because that's what you do.

F: No other reason than that? It doesn't have value to you personally or anything? It isn't something that you--not ancient rabbis, you--decided made sense to you?

JA: No, not really.

F: ...I am Confused.

Not Jewish so take with a grain of salt, but I got the impression from Jewish people that it's like, sharing and keeping traditions is a way of having a community. The details of the tradition itself might not matter, but knowing and keeping it gives you a point of commonality with all other Jews.

It's like if a family has Movie Night Wednesdays. There's no special reason it has to be a Wednesday, but the fact that they always do it on this day feels like a ritual of home, comfort and belonging. Maybe on Wednesday everyone wears a little paper hat, and you kind of think the hats are silly, but you're not going to throw out all of movie night and sour it for everyone else by refusing to wear the hat, because feeling like a family is more important. And besides, it gives you an excuse to make jokes and references about Movie Night Hats, and that's also a fun bonding activity.

In a world where Jews have been persecuted for basically as long as there've been Jews, having that kind of link, that connection back to a shared heritage, I can imagine feels vital. But also, that's a piece of personal trauma that someone might not want to discuss with people outside that community. And if someone is making noises along the lines of "I don't like this conversation", it sounds like a hint that there's some personal emotion there that you don't get to be privy to, for whatever reason. Maybe because they think you won't understand, or will poke fun at something that's been healing for them, actually. Or maybe because they don't really know themselves, haven't unpacked it or examined it that much, but they know it's a sensitive spot.

That makes sense, yeah. It's just really foreign to me as a person who has been part of a lot of groups that turned out to be Not Great that people would not think about "well but is this thing The Group is telling me to do actually, y'know, worth doing?"

Like we all seem to be mad at Evangelicals that they don't seem to think about the stuff said at their pulpits... but then people are like "well, but only SOME religion should be questioned, MOST religion is good!"

And I'm like, I'm super glad that has not been your experience, but if you're not questioning your traditions how did you GET there?

Like I read those posts and they seem grounded in this weird assumption that Christianity is uniquely fundamentalism adjacent, but there are plenty of fundamentalist Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists in the world too. Maybe there aren't many fundamentalist Jews! Like sure perhaps that is a thing, and if so it is worth talking about why, and if we are talking about why, the tradition of arguing makes sense to bring up.

But like. MOST ideologies or religions or WHATEVERS that turn fundamentalist ALSO have an argumentative or debatey or syncretistic streak. The fact that that exists does not seem to render everybody immune, any more than all of us growing up told over and over "democracy good fascism bad" prevented everyone from going MAGA.

So like, how are these people getting from "dude, my synagogue is not like that at ALL" (which I can easily believe of pretty much any religion. Hell there are splinter Scientologists who think the religion is cool but the scamming is not and will audit you for free from what I can tell) to "my religion doesn't do that" (I'm pretty sure all of them CAN, and at least a minority DO)?

Another thing I think I agree is cultural christianity because I have asked people to explain and I am baffled so I guess it's my upbringing, sure, is:

Family: We keep religious traditions because we like making God happy.

Wee Fiercelet: That makes sense. I like making people happy.

Family: Society's traditions are kind of a mixed bag though. History has mistreated black people and women, for example.

WF: Or disabled people like me.

F: Yeah.

WF: So always ask if a tradition is good! And if it is you should keep it but if it's not you should throw it out! Good. Okay.

Slightly Less Wee Fiercelet: ...I don't think there's a God.

SLWF: But if there isn't a God, then not doing these things that make God happy doesn't matter, because nobody's watching.

SLWF: I'm doing this to make MOM happy.

SLWF: That is a bad reason to do a thing every week. Fuck this.

Fierce Many Years Later: Wait.

F: I like some of those traditions! I'm going to keep some of them, but some of them are kind of eh.

Church People: Yeah, we all do that, we just don't say so.

So the following confuses me:

Fierce: What are you doing?

Jewish Atheist: Keeping traditions.

Fierce: Oh! Okay. To make God happy?

JA: No, I don't think there is one either.

F: Then why keep the traditions?

JA: You know, I don't know. We just do.

F: That one over there seems kind of silly.

JA: Don't start! We argue all the time.

F: So you... also... think it's... kind of silly?

JA: I mean, I don't like this conversation, but... if you're asking in good faith... well, sure.

F: Then why do you keep it?

JA: Because that's what you do.

F: No other reason than that? It doesn't have value to you personally or anything? It isn't something that you--not ancient rabbis, you--decided made sense to you?

JA: No, not really.

F: ...I am Confused.

like 80% of evangelicalism is banking hard on the idea that there is spiritually some completely unambiguous and distinct difference between men and women, that this somehow reflects the nature of God, and that men and women adhering to Proper Gender Roles preserves some crucial reflection of divinity

no one has been able to break down what this difference is or why gender existing somehow reflects God (the christian God, who famously is two things that do not overlap, instead of the single deity of a monotheistic religion). Otherwise intelligent and thoughtful theologians will black out and say shit like "you know how boys naturally like trucks and girls naturally like dolls? yeah. that means uhh. God"

and if you're like "well I'm a girl and I never really liked dolls but my brother did" no one can read suddenly

Strangely I bet if you were like "ohhhh so the Trinity is a little bit like gender, where there is one single nature like the whole human species, but there are multiple distinct natures within it, but each of those individual natures fully contains the one original, and they can also be both at once, neither at once, or an intermediate, just like you can be a guy who's a girl who is some kind of man in a feminine way." people would get mad.

wait the trinity thing was a joke but i feel like i'm onto something here now

Anyway if men and women are fundamentally spiritually different, the basis of Christianity falls apart because Jesus, a man, would not be able to fully represent humanity. If Jesus's sacrifice saved the souls of female humans even though he died as a dude, that means being a man didn't stop him from fully representing women in his nature. this is my opinion

I continue to love this post.

There are quite a few examples in the Christian holy text of gender being ignored or gender roles overlapping or it being pointed out that God blessing or communicating with women should not be seen as weird because women are people.

Yet these bozos pick the like, three places one dude said “genders are different” and base their whole ass worldview on it.

??? Whyyyyyy

“God is several things at once and this is perfectly reasonable…

…but you, Little Human, are not.”

??? Says who exactly. SHUT UP FOREVER

Given that “Elohim,” one of the terms frequently used for God in the original Hebrew text of the Bible, is plural (singular would be the masculine noun “eloah,” which comes from the same root as the Arabic word “Allah”), and does not indicate a specific gender, you could legitimately argue that God’s correct pronouns are they/them.

I mean, yes? But a lot of Tumblr Jews say it’s a tenet of their religion that they’re monotheists and we aren’t.

I mean, they’re allowed to think that. I don’t even think there is a god so it’s kinda silly to even ponder. But I find it completely baffling.

Like to me it seems like the fish clade problem.

I can see how one could claim both religions are monotheistic (ultimately, God has one essence of some kind that remains unchanged, thus there’s only one god) and I could see how one could claim both are polytheistic (God takes on multiple forms, which are technically different, so that’s plural, so poly). But not how you could claim that God, for example, has a masculine and feminine aspect (as I gather at least some of Judaism argues) but that having THREE aspects is forbidden and Wrong.

you know, there's a lot about the whole "cultural christianity" thing that makes me head tilt but one thing I do think is absolutely culturally christian of me is how much it confuses me when people say that the idea of the trinity is polytheistic

like if anyone could be more than one thing at once it would be god

it should not bug me, but whenever I read that that is somehow Not Monotheistic Enough it triggers the same "stop being a jerk" reflex as the one I feel when someone says "you're not non-binary, everyone can only be one gender at a time"

says who, when, and why are they worth listening to

(FWIW I do not think there is anything wrong with polytheism EITHER, I just have a strong reaction to "you're polytheistic because I refuse to believe you saying you're not." Twigs me. Seems like if it’s ambiguous (“is this three gods, or is this one god with three avatars/costumes/drag personas?”) the answer should come from the people who believe the thing, not outsiders looking in.)

That’s how I understood it too.

God: base form. Mortals can’t look at it directly, hence the thing where God showed Moses only his back (note that I am not claiming Jews teach it the same way, just that this is how I understood the story as told to me.) Angels can I think, and maybe the dead.

Jesus: Fleshsona. Can be hurt or killed (which is part of the point) but is not a separate entity. When killed, then God stuff just comes out and goes back wherever, and then is put back in the body (the resurrection).

This is going to happen again, presumably with the same skin suit, but don’t ask me where it’s being stored or how it currently smells.

Holy Spirit: Not the fleshsona and not the full splendor that kills you or burns your eyes out either. So like a little piece of God that talks to you, the sort of whisper you hear when “talking to God” sorts of things are going on.

It baffles me when people call this polytheism. If there’s one all powerful god of course he can put himself in things without not being himself any more.

you know, there's a lot about the whole "cultural christianity" thing that makes me head tilt but one thing I do think is absolutely culturally christian of me is how much it confuses me when people say that the idea of the trinity is polytheistic

like if anyone could be more than one thing at once it would be god

it should not bug me, but whenever I read that that is somehow Not Monotheistic Enough it triggers the same "stop being a jerk" reflex as the one I feel when someone says "you're not non-binary, everyone can only be one gender at a time"

says who, when, and why are they worth listening to

(FWIW I do not think there is anything wrong with polytheism EITHER, I just have a strong reaction to "you're polytheistic because I refuse to believe you saying you're not." Twigs me. Seems like if it’s ambiguous (“is this three gods, or is this one god with three avatars/costumes/drag personas?”) the answer should come from the people who believe the thing, not outsiders looking in.)

Anonymous asked:

Re: end-otw-racism

I’ve read their manifesto.

One red flag that popped up for me is one of the causes they are championing is for ao3 to address “off-site coordinated harassment of AO3 users”. This is something that seems unrealistic and not something ao3 could even act on.

So I go to the case that cause them to ask for this.

“someone naming a fandom scholar who criticized their Nazi omegaverse fic in the tags of the fic specifically to incite harassment to the scholar”

Ok. Sounds bad initially. But I’m iffy on that, because it also sounds like it’s a public person complaining about a response to stuff they are publishing. If the person experienced any racism in response it is definitely bad though.

So I want to take a look at the fic and it’s tags. There was a bit of link hopping (manifesto tumblr post>a general post stich’s blog), not a good sign .

And I find out it’s an author I’m familiar with.

They write (well written) run-of-the-mill historical Omegaverse. I’ve read some of their work and there wasn’t any racism in those.

The fic itself, one that I hadn’t read before, seems like a Schindler’s list inspired original work with a Nazi omega main character.

The author has also added a note in the beginning clarifying that it’s meant as a condemnation of Nazism.

After brief skim of the first chapter, it does look like it condems Nazism.

In the tags there is a “That “Fandom Scholar” Lied About This Fic” tag.

Going off of stitch’s blog, the tag used to be “[fandom scholars name] Lied About This Fic”.

Not good, but it has been changed to remove the name.

But - after googling the name (that stitch uses on her blog), it seems like the person uses their full name on Twitter, and has published stuff (under the OTW even) under their full name. So it definitely seems like public person territory.

I don’t have all the info of the situation (since it’s drama that happened in 2020). But I’m working off the info end-otw-racism is providing.

And in this case it looks like AO3 acted appropriately.

(And it’s a good reminder to look at citations)

I think the idea is that even writing anything set in the Holocaust, and double for anything that has a Nazi character who is sympathetic (even if the story is a redemption arc) is fundamentally disrespectful.

I’m not sure I agree with that myself. I’m not for telling anyone what to write pretty much ever.

But I do think it’s probably a good idea to consider whether or not you want to POST it, given that a lot of people are going to see it that way, rightly or wrongly.

Personally I think it would be better if everyone could just acknowledge that people have wildly different intuitions about when it is or is not okay to be inspired by real world atrocity. I don’t think humanity as a whole is EVER going to broadly agree on that one.

Which is why I think it’s right for AO3 to host it. Because people will always make it, and the people who do will always think they’re not doing something wrong.

I believe that AO3 should remain neutral on things like that that will just… never be settled as long as humans have different intuitions about what it’s okay to make. That is, forever.

AO3 hosting it should be taken as an acknowledgment that it does and will always exist, not an endorsement of it.

like 80% of evangelicalism is banking hard on the idea that there is spiritually some completely unambiguous and distinct difference between men and women, that this somehow reflects the nature of God, and that men and women adhering to Proper Gender Roles preserves some crucial reflection of divinity

no one has been able to break down what this difference is or why gender existing somehow reflects God (the christian God, who famously is two things that do not overlap, instead of the single deity of a monotheistic religion). Otherwise intelligent and thoughtful theologians will black out and say shit like "you know how boys naturally like trucks and girls naturally like dolls? yeah. that means uhh. God"

and if you're like "well I'm a girl and I never really liked dolls but my brother did" no one can read suddenly

Strangely I bet if you were like "ohhhh so the Trinity is a little bit like gender, where there is one single nature like the whole human species, but there are multiple distinct natures within it, but each of those individual natures fully contains the one original, and they can also be both at once, neither at once, or an intermediate, just like you can be a guy who's a girl who is some kind of man in a feminine way." people would get mad.

wait the trinity thing was a joke but i feel like i'm onto something here now

Anyway if men and women are fundamentally spiritually different, the basis of Christianity falls apart because Jesus, a man, would not be able to fully represent humanity. If Jesus's sacrifice saved the souls of female humans even though he died as a dude, that means being a man didn't stop him from fully representing women in his nature. this is my opinion

I continue to love this post.

There are quite a few examples in the Christian holy text of gender being ignored or gender roles overlapping or it being pointed out that God blessing or communicating with women should not be seen as weird because women are people.

Yet these bozos pick the like, three places one dude said “genders are different” and base their whole ass worldview on it.

??? Whyyyyyy

“God is several things at once and this is perfectly reasonable…

…but you, Little Human, are not.”

??? Says who exactly. SHUT UP FOREVER