which i do not believe are contradictory or opposed to one another

mynormalusernamewasalreadytaken  asked:

Do you know when "canon," like as a concept, became like a standard nerd thing?

The amazing thing about the term “canon” is that it didn’t bubble up from the undifferentiated mass of fandom (who actually knows who came up with memes?). We know exactly and specifically where the word comes from when used in this context: an essay written by a Sherlock Holmes fan in 1911, who compared the wild and crazy veneration that fanatical Holmes fans have for the original stories, to holy writ. Another name for the books assembled in the Bible was the canon, as opposed to other books that, for various reasons, were left out of the Bible and “didn’t count.” In other words, the term was originally used ironically and in a self-deprecating way to talk about the almost religious intensity of Holmes fans. 

Part of the reason the term canon caught on was because, even in the 1910s, the public was so mad for Sherlock Holmes that there were all kinds of illegal imitators and non-Conan Doyle authors and knockoffs, and yes, there were even amateur works that were distributed by mail (what today we’d call “fanfiction,” some of which even survives today), so a crucial distinction began to arise between the stuff that was “official” and the stuff that wasn’t. So, here we have the three things that we need to even have the concept of canon as we define it: 1) a group dedicated enough to actually care, who can communicate, 2) a necessary distinction between “official” and not, particularly due to the presence of amateur works (what today we’d call fanfiction), 3) a long term property that could sustain that devotion. 

Now, of the three, which do you think was the one that was absent from a lot of science fiction fandom’s first few decades? It’s actually 3. Canon only matters if it’s something other than just a single story, which the business model of the pulps discouraged. Like TV in the 1960s, every story had to be compartmentalized and serial storytelling was mostly discouraged.

One fandom, big from the 1930s to the 1960s was E.E. Smith’s space opera Lensman series. The Lensman stories were so popular that it received 5 sequels, all of which were planned from the outset. Some Lensman fanfiction from the 1940s is actually still available for reading. Part of the reason the Lensman stories were so popular is that it described a consistent world with consistent attributes: Inertialess Drives, aliens like Chickladorians, Vegians, Rigellians, pressor beams, space axes, Valerian Space Marines, superdreadnoughts, “the Hell Hole in Space,” the works. It was way easier to get sucked into this than it was with the usual “one and done.”  Take for example, this amateur guide to the Lensman series, with art by Betty Jo Trimble.

Canon “policy” as we know it today, as a part of a corporate strategy, started with Star Trek: the Next Generation. Before that, there was no “multimedia property” big enough to necessitate it; Star Wars just didn’t care, which is why pre-Zahn “expanded universe” stories like the Marvel comics were so bonkers. There was no reason to believe that the Trek novels, including good ones by John M. Ford and Diane Duane, were anything else than totally official. Roddenberry, though, was deeply angry about losing control of the film series, and due to his illness (hidden from the public at the time), his canon policy was enforced by his overly zealous attorney. In Star Trek canon, for a long time, the only thing that counted was what was on screen. And not even that…the Star Trek animated series, for several decades, was decanonized. (It wasn’t until Deep Space 9 that animated references crept back in, and today, it’s as canon as everything else).

I don’t want to scare anyone, and this is hearsay, but I’ve heard from three people who were there that Next Generation writers, at least as long as Roddenberry and his attorney were around, were encouraged to not think of the original series as canon at all. References to Spock and even an episode that had an appearance by the Gorn were rewritten.

The Star Trek canon policy was so harsh and unexpected that rules were invented deliberately to kick out popular reference sources, like the rule that starships could only have even numbered nacelles, which meant much of the Franz Joseph guides, published in the millions and praised by Roddenberry and others as official, were vindictively decanonized. 

Star Wars canon is interesting because it was entirely created by the West End Roleplaying Game. It was the only major Star Wars product printed in the Star Wars Dark Age, the 5-6 years between 1986-1991 when all toy lines and comics were canceled and the fandom was effectively in a coma or dead. The Roleplaying Game was the first place that information was collected from diverse sources like the comics and novels. Every single Star Wars novelist read the West End game because it was the only time all this information was in one place. 

Marvel Comics canon is a very interesting example because it was a harbinger of things to come: superhero comics were one of the earliest places in geek culture where the “inmates started to run the asylum”…that is to say, fans produced the comics, guys like Roy Thomas (creator of the Vision and Ultron) who started off as a fanzine writer. Because of the back and forth in letters pages, there was an emphasis on everyone keeping it all together that didn’t exist at DC, which at last count, had 5 (!) totally contradictory versions of Atlantis. 

Mikasa Ackerman and Historia Reiss

This review will be somewhat extensive, reading various analyzes of different people and my own 

Is obvious that Isayama has placed a few parallels between characters that are very different and shows in various panels.


Historia is similar to Ymir and Eren, but there is a symmetry in situations with Mikasa that separates them from the other two respectively and I think Mikasa is aware of this similarity, you could say that “they are like two sides of the same coin” ..

The whole life of Historia and Mikasa is about the basic cruelty of humanity.
But even the way to lose their mothers is so similar and contradictory at the same time.

In the case of Mikasa his mother died in front of his eyes trying to protect her, this was a fortuitous event by bandits.

In the second case Historia mother denied it with all her strength and before death I wish her death, this fact was something planned by the government.

Having listened to Historia story, I am sure that Mikasa is the one that more than any other person shown, would be familiar with that concept, human cruelty and obviously,

 I think that already felt something connected to Historia, because like She, she also had a special person in her life, this brings us to the next point:

Relations with your special person

Well as you know Historia is the girl who is always with Ymir (Mikasa herself mentioned it in 37).
Like Mikasa is the girl who is always with Eren.

Mikasa learned from Eren something that served him all his life “If you do not fight you do not win”, this would allow him to survive even without Eren as seen in Tross

Historia learned from Ymir something that would also serve him for his whole life “Living with pride every day” this allowed him to rise even without Ymir as seen in the Reiss Saga.

Even the scene in which Mikasa clings to Eren and when Historia clings to Ymir it is rather strange.

Are different in everything but at the same time that parallelism that was seen in the childhoods of Mikasa and Historia  persists, just watch

“When Mikasa sees him, he runs with a stunned expression, unable to believe it and instead opens without Titans.

"When Historia  sees Ymir dying she runs to her and starts to cry, not caring about the Titans.

"When Mikasa has him in her arms, she breaks down and burst into tears.

"When they manage to rescue Ymir, the queen holds her in her arms and holds her tears, and they take a sweet look.

At that moment Ymir was aware and Eren knocked out, and for the freckle that moment was everything for her and for Eren that moment did not mean anything for being knocked out.

If you came to this point you will see that this parallelism is something fascinating and I do not think it is coincidence

The truth is that this reflects many things and the nature of the two relationships.

Being honest, it is difficult to think that someone as wicked as Isayama wrote something so "Poetic”

Something that until recently I had not noticed is that Mikasa has sympathy for people who like her have a special person in their life.

For example a small thing that is seen in the manga and in the anime is not reflected well, is when Mikasa sees to Franks and Hanna and he listens to him when this one says to him “tranquilízate I will protect you” (this part of the review takes it from Another truth I saw it a few days ago I think)

In the manga it is more than clear that I wanted to do this with Eren and he does it but it did not go as she expected

The greatest example of this we can see in the Saga of “Clash of Titans”
As you know Mikasa is an extreme girl when it comes to Eren always protects what she loves and even though she dislikes killing she does it to those who oppose, without hesitation.

But none of her other opponents had ever found herself in a situation like Christa was at that moment, with which Mikasa herself could be identified.

Jean himself told him (not everyone is willing to die for Eren), but Historia was willing to do everything for Ymir and the freckle felt the same is something that Mikasa could realize even the moment in Udtgar will have reminded her when she herself I cling to Eren when he was reborn, for that kind of connection with a loved one is not something “easy” to find.

I remember when Ymir ate “Christa” all his comrades treated her as a traitor right there, Armin also but Mikasa looked more confused than the others by the action of Ymir 

The confrontation with Historia, is very well written and the truth reflects enough, their feelings of both and that so far are willing to arrive but in spite of the threats it was noticed that he was hesitating and did not have a real honor to harm them and I leave them Free.

Now let’s explore their relationship in the Reiss Arc

Now the development between Historia and Mikasa in this saga was very satisfactory, although to the beginnings of the sleeve they had no contact, since it is obvious that it was not seen around Historia because the future queen was a surprise character that the Much development In the arc of the insurrection

We can appreciate how Isayama to them two in the first chapters of the Arc Reiss put them in several panels together despite being centered in Eren and the royal family
In this arc there are things that happened were screen and is very easy to explain.

For example in that Arch it is obvious that Sasha will have asked his friends what happened to Reiner, Berthold, Annie, what happened to the people of Connie and Historia what happened to Ymir is obvious that they talked about this, but they are things that They are not necessary to show since you can deduce it after analyzing,

Now Mikasa and Historia is obvious that they also talked about what happened before (just when they are going to raise firewood and come back together)

It is obvious that Mikasa apologized for what happened and has an idea of what Historia is going through in those moments.

Mikasa in the last mission despite the dead was able to bring his beloved and his family alive, but the other could not and instead lived the worst nightmare of Mikasa, to be abandoned by his special person, to lose his “home”

Even Eren himself spoke of Ymir because he saw Historia very sad and downcast (knowing that he is very insensitive).

Another example of what I am talking about is in 52 When Eren and Connie are peeling potatoes while Historia and Mikasa are cooking

Connie starts to speak badly of Ymir and the little blonde intervenes defending her, saying at the end “I know her” before this Eren and Connie looks at strangers, but Mikasa looks at Historia, I think it’s impossible for her not to feel identified with this.

His reaction when Levi mistreated Historia is funny

The good thing about writing Isayama is that there are things that one has to interpret from the perspective of our characters and Mikasa is one of the deepest characters

Mikasa’s reaction to the news that Eren will die is very similar to when Historia is abandoned, even that emptiness in the eyes is so similar the way Isayama showed him his expressions and the feeling of loneliness.

Also if we think well both are suffering in the same way and that contradictory parallelism in their lives and relationships is present back, since Eren is with Mikasa for good or bad but at the same time is far away and away, while Ymir is Very far from Historia but at the same time this with her giving him strength is pure poetry xD

Historia can understand Eren and Ymir very well, as has been demonstrated in the manga but in spite of everything Isayama did something much more impressive with Mikasa, although the two have opposite personalities in the course of the 2 Months the queen was seen closer With Eren, Mikasa, Armin

Also with so many things that have happened including Ymir (his death announced in the letter although I do not think he is dead yet) and now with the future death of Eren by deterioration, you can deduce how your relationship in Time sky is obvious That they are going to talk about this since it is something that you can only talk to someone who has suffered the same as you and come to understand your feelings, this is one of the great reasons why I really think that between all of them have become More close and will be closer in the future by this connection

Well repeat something in a previous post

Although if they asked me if those two girls are alike, despite all my more sensible answer would be:

They do not look alike

Since one of the girls decided to live by herself for the only desire of his person appreciated and the other girl decided to hold on to that person he appreciated.

But both girls were the same, the two shared a look full of sadness.

This was a long review I hope you have enjoyed until the next

Polycentric Polytheism and the Philosophy of Religion

This post is a breakdown of the essay “Polycentric Polytheism and the Philosophy of Religion” by Edward P. Butler. Butler’s writing is notoriously dense and therefore pretty inaccessible for most. However, I think his ideas are thought-provoking and therefore should be made into an accessible post for people to read and engage with. This post by necessity is a bit lengthy but I made sure to include short breakdown summaries for people. That way the ideas contained in this paper should be accessible to many people.

(It’s worth noting now that Butler comes at this with a very particular view of divintity that not all will agree with. So go into this aware of that perspective. However, I hope this will give people something to think about regardless of their beliefs surrounding divinity is.)

In the abstract to his paper, Butler states that he sets out to do the following: Using Neoplatonist* theory, he seeks to establish:

  • that focusing on one deity at a time is not indicative of monotheistic tendencies
  • give guidelines for non-reductive cross cultural comparisons
  • a foundation for a polytheistic philosophy of religion

In addition, while not stated in his abstract, Butler also discusses how syncretic practices preserve the uniqueness of gods, how gods can have overlapping functions, how contradicting myths do not create falsehoods, and lays out the beginning of an historical defense for creating one’s own ‘pantheon’ set up.

* - Neoplatonism is a school of thought from 3rd century Greece. It is hard to give a summary of beliefs but the center of it revolves around the derivation of the many from the One. The One is beyond being and is what makes reality. As such for Butler, the One is equivalent with the divine. From the One and the divine come reality and existence. Other relevant Neoplatonist terms will be discussed through the body of the paper as they arrive.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

I loved your post-game tarot card for Isii, and I wanted to ask: what do you think all of the companion tarot cards are? Some are obvious (Dorian's default= The Magician) but plenty of them I can't figure out. What's your take?

Hope you were looking for a detailed examination of each of the companion and adviser cards and their meanings, cause that’s what you’re gonna get. :P

First, I’m so glad you like Isii’s post-game tarot card. I’ve been meaning to finish her starting card for quite some time now. As for the companion cards, I think some of them are stronger than others in terms of how well the card’s meaning matches the character it’s tied to. Images were sourced from this post where you can see scans of the entire DAI Tarot set.

One last thing: Tarot cards are highly interpretational based on context. That’s why you can shape a cohesive “narrative” from what is otherwise an arguably random assortment of cards. While the Major Arcana tend to have fairly well-defined qualities, the Minor Arcana does not possess the same consistency. (If you don’t believe me, go do some digging on tarot card meanings from different books and websites. You are likely to find completely different and sometimes contradictory meanings for certain cards, depending on the author.) Quotes used are sourced from ata-tarot


Beginning Card: The Hermit

The Hermit is a figure that has risen above emotion and disconnected from his desires - they are distractions that stand in the way of his journey. The Hermit strives for wisdom and seeks answers from within rather than the outside world. He can only depend on himself. He alone is immutable and he knows that any person who lends him aid cannot help him forever. Such alliances are temporary. “For true wisdom to emerge, there can be no distractions. Any preoccupations of the world, no matter how small or inconsequential they may seem, will be heard as shouts that drown out the still voice within.” The Hermit is alone, not only by choice but by necessity and is comfortable traveling through darkness if it means he will emerge in the light at the end. The Hermit may try to guide others with the lessons he has learned, but he is not a teacher. He knows he cannot teach what must be learned through experience. The appearance of the Hermit suggests that a mentor may appear in the subject’s life or that they must choose to help guide another into discovering their own truths.

Romanced: The Hierophant

The Hierophant is a holy man, one who holds secret or forbidden knowledge. Most often it is represented as a high-ranking member of the clergy, a symbol of the power of spirituality to shape the world according to one’s beliefs. Unlike the Hermit who moves alone, the Hierophant is a leader who others follow not because they have been coerced or deceived but because their faith drives them. The Hierophant is not an individualistic card - all is done for the betterment of the whole. The needs of the many outweigh his own desires. The Hierophant is tasked with the preservation or return to tradition and a rejection of its opposition. While this can sometimes be harmful (like the historical treatment of those who oppose Church teachings), it is usually beneficial. The Hierophant is a far cry from rebellion - his is a card of order and uniformity. If the Hierophant appears, it may foretell the appearance of a mentor; someone who will teach you his beliefs in the hopes that you will join him. The subject should be open to receiving these lessons. Something is coming and the subject lacks the experience to face it alone. Only he can provide that.

Ending Card (unromanced): The Tower

The Tower is a destructive force, though it should not be taken as something malicious. The crumbling structure needs to fall in order to be rebuilt. When wisdom and enlightenment are resisted, sometimes their influence must be forced. Old attitudes and beliefs have to be abandoned, whether you like it or not.  “You do not want to give up your ideals, and you cling to them like a child to his precious security blanket. This attempt at security ensures nothing, really, except a disastrous change that will painfully rip away that which you did not discard of your own volition.” The Tower is not a gentle card, but often necessary. It usually represents tearing away lies the subject has been telling themselves, facing harsh truths in favor of comfortable deception. The crumbling tower’s fall is inevitable due to its faulty foundation. Rather than waiting for it to collapse, The Tower gives it a sharp shove and lets gravity do the rest. Rather than focusing on the rubble, The Tower should be seen as a card of opportunity; it is like a phoenix, burning away the old and sickly so that something can be reborn in its place. When The Tower appears, the subject should prepare themselves for change and be ready to let go of what makes them feel comfortable and secure, otherwise the transition will be a painful one. If the subject ignores the warning and clings to the status quo, the are in for a rude awakening. Change will happen because it is needed and nothing they can do will stop it.


Keep reading

Type Spotting Guide

People want to type others for a variety of reasons but when you look around the internet for opinions about famous figures or fictional characters, you will often find very conflicting assessments. Sometimes this is because those doing the analyzing do not know enough or perhaps they identify too closely with the subject, and in terms of fiction, it can be due to complicated writing or inconsistent characterization. When you cannot ask someone for clarification about their behavior, the only thing you can do is look for clues and make guesses, which then opens up the typing process to error and misinterpretation. My approach to typing other people always involves “building a case” by methodically gathering details and analyzing evidence for/against all sixteen types.  

Keep reading

The exchange diary's proof

Vampire Knight Memories has been on the road to deconstructing why Kaname and Yuki’s engagment didn’t work out, and Hino has been doing this since ‘Life’ especially in the arena of Yuki’s thirst which defines the roles of the two males affecting her life.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but the problem comes when it clashes with information that has been revealed in the manga whether explicitly or subtly because she’s given us alot of clues to make a decision on whether or not Zero quenches her thirst completely.  The main chapter dealing with this issue is VKM 5 in which Zero makes a statement that, in face value, directly opposes some of Yuki’s own words such as wanting only Kaname’s blood at her awakening or desiring his blood [mixed with his feelings], BUT here’s where it gets contradictory giving Zero & Yuki supporters a reason to smile like a Cheshire cat—the same person who makes those statements is the same one who tells Kaname that his blood doesn’t satisfy her AND is shown to be in agreement with Zero saying that she has always (meaning at all times encompassing before and after Kaname becomes the forge) needed only his blood because it quenches her thirst.

*So what do we believe if Hino’s giving mixed signals?*

Your thoughts are your own, but I think it’s safe to believe the guy who doesn’t have to battle with any constant, 'beastly’ thirsts from the leading lady.  Yuki did tell Kaname back in arc two something she deems cruel due to his feelings and their relationship at that time; however, it is the truth so if Kaname can’t quench her thirst then the only other option is Zero because he’s the one she loves in chapter 87 and 'Life’.

Keep reading

might make some enemies with this, but i gotta say i find 99% of the discussion surrounding kurdish national liberation and its relation to Syria to be super frustrating.

am i in favor of kurdish national liberation? yes

do i think that it is more than a coincidence that u.s. leftists spend a hugely disproportionate amount of time talking one part of that liberation struggle that the u.s. military has a neutral-to-friendly relationship with? also yes

the u.s. has and will continue to coordinate with the YPG because the u.s. is still aiming for regime change in Syria. i don’t at all buy the narrative that u.s. support of Turkey (who of course are involved in their own efforts to quell Kurdish resistance) indicates that the u.s. is “pivoting” away from its support of the YPG. u.s. support of Turkey is nothing new and was the case before the civil war in Syria even started and has continued throughout the whole process. But from the perspective of the u.s. State, u.s. policy does not have to adhere to some logically consistent set of abstract principles. The u.s. has no difficulty supporting Turkey—even as the latter attempts to stamp out Kurdish resistance—at the same time that the u.s. supports the YPG because the u.s. will back any force that it perceives is going to forward u.s. interests in the region. The fact this results in a contradictory policy with regard to ISIS and really the broader project of Kurdish national liberation doesn’t bother the u.s. either—the u.s. is trying to keep its allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia happy while exacerbating instability in Syria in hopes of regime change there, all while “keeping a lid” on ISIS. It’s a messy strategy but just because it’s messy doesn’t mean the u.s. isn’t doing it.

And u.s. support of the YPG isn’t some cracked conspiracy theory, you don’t have to look any farther than what the YPG and its associated political party, the PYD, themselves say on the subject. These bodies have both readily acknowledged that they’ve coordinated on the ground with u.s. military forces. It’s not a secret that anyone’s keeping.

Pointing this out doesn’t mean you don’t support Kurdish national liberation either. See, the thing is, u.s. leftists throw around this monolithic picture of “the Kurds” and then they basically conflate “the Kurds” with the YPG and the struggle in Rojava. The YPG is however one body within an entire nation of people, and the liberation struggles in different parts of Kurdistan involve a number of different groups with different agendas and different politics. Acknowledging this is obviously an important part of actually treating Kurdistan as a real nation with its own political struggles which can’t be reduced to glossy presentations in western press. And what should also be obvious is that we can be critical and express concern about how the PYD and YPG seem not to believe u.s. intervention to be the greatest long term threat to their own liberation project—and how this puts the YPG in a position where it could end up in the aggregate advancing u.s. interests in the region—without condemning the whole notion of Kurdish national liberation. Kurdish national liberation is simply not immediately identical with the YPG.

At any rate, it’s not a coincidence that the YPG gets such a favorable presentation in u.s. media (and you’ve really got your head in the sand if you think this isn’t the case) and it’s troubling that u.s. communists mostly feed into that echo chamber without much critical analysis. I think it’s fine to draw attention to Kurdish national liberation of course, but there is a combination of things going on and it’s this precise combination that i think has a very negative effect: 1) in many cases the only liberation struggle people talk about is the one in Rojava (when there are many others around the globe that almost no one talks about), indicating that what people care about mostly follows what the ruling discourses dictate; 2) people share stuff about Rojava without any critical analysis of the overall balance of forces in the region and what role this struggle is objectively playing in the broader field; 3) people who object to presentation of the YPG as a stand-in for “the Kurds” and to the uncritical presentation of the YPG in general get shut down immediately. These three things together are what make a lot of the rhetoric in the u.s. left surrounding Rojava more-or-less just an amplifier for u.s. State apparatuses.

 Also, as a general point, i think it is inappropriate for communists in imperialist countries to try to send materiel support to Third World liberation struggles either in the form of donations, shipments of goods, or sending people to join the fight (there might be some possible exceptions to the latter thing but in general i think it’s bad practice). This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but really, people in imperialist countries have the luxury of sitting back and “picking and choosing” what liberation movements to “support” in this kind of way. This is not only arrogant but materially, it is also what Kae Sera and E. Tani called “false internationalism,” in the sense that it ends up being yet another way in which political forces in imperialist countries attempt to “direct” the flow of liberation movements in the global South (regardless of whether this is the conscious aim of the imperialist-country “supporters” or not).

There is however a way in which communists in the u.s. can materially support all liberation movements in the Third World and that’s to resolutely oppose everything the u.s. does around the world and to actively work against whatever rhetoric and whatever policy the u.s. is dishing out. This is what the u.s. left still seems to struggle with, and on the subject of u.s. intervention in Syria in particular it has a really bad track record.

c2-1728-works  asked:

Do I love your analyses? Oh yes I do. In Korean DR fandom aka my another primary fangirl habitat(?), there are many factors that trigger Debate scrum, but one of the most primary topic is Momota's supposed duplicity-how he said he believed Shuuichi and his action between chapter 4~5. People found that ironic and almost reached the conclusion that Momota was looking down on Shuuichi during whole game. I challenge you to whip up an analysis about that!

I’ve decided to combine these two asks because they both deal with the same sort of topic that I’d like to talk about! I hope that’s okay!

The whole idea of Momota’s “duplicity” is an interesting way to put it, because to some degree, it circles back around to the idea that every character in ndrv3 is a liar. Every single one of them is hiding things from themselves or from others, and this ties in with all the underlying themes of deception and duality.

Things often come in pairs meant to be juxtaposed in ndrv3. We have the characters’ pre-game selves juxtaposed with their in-game selves. Many characters have two talents, or at least more than one. Characters like Tsumugi and Ouma have multiple façades they present to the group, and either one can be thought of as “two-faced” as a result. And as with all pairs of opposing ideas or factors in ndrv3, the answer is often not that one or the other is “correct” or “the right one,” but rather that both are right to some degree. The middle ground is almost always the right way to go in ndrv3.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

...your question is why Jews wanted a specifically Jewish state, rather than another state in which they were a minority yet again? I get not agreeing with how it was done, but it kind of confuses me that people would ask *why* so many of us believe/d it has/had to be done.

here is what I wrote. “ My question being why did they have to establish an ethnonational exclusivist Jewish state in order for them to do that?” my question was mostly rhetorical, you see.

i’m very aware that many jews supported the creation of israel due to antisemitism and fled to israel for the same reasons and that being a minority in other countries was dangerous for them and etc etc history tells the rest. but there’s the thing. even if you believe it has/had to be done, you cannot merely agree with the way it was done. that was what i was asking and it seems contradictory to support one but oppose another because at the end of the day a specifically jewish/jewish majority state means the ethnic cleansing of palestinians and i think that’s fairly evident.. i mean it’s straightforward. what’s done was done. 

my anon’s question was about the present/future of palestine. my question was a hint towards that kind of? like okay you believe it has/had to be done back then but the continuation of israel pretty much means the same thing. ethnic cleansing of palestinians, no right of return, palestinian citizens of israel are second class citizens, a possible maintenance of settlements and military occupation. it was more a nod to “why not establish one state where both groups can honour their culture and heritage” and it does seem like a very rosy view but we can work towards that.

so, im gonna try and peice together remnant's history and lore...

Hello guys, I’m gonna attempt something stupid. This is gonna be a long post, and I’m on mobile so, no readmore. I’m sorry. Press J, if you don’t wanna read, or scroll really fast. Anyway:

As the fandom politely pointed out: there are two conflicting stories on how the world of Remnant was made.

In Volume 1, Episode 1, it is mentioned that man was born from dust. Hence, why the substance that they saw as the saviour of their species is also called ‘dust’.

Then, in Volume 4, Episode 8, Qrow tells RNJR about the gods of Remnant, the two brothers: God of Light and God of Darkness. And these are the two gods who created humans as a symbol of peace after deciding to end their dispute. Qrow mentions that these gods also 'left’ Remnant. Whatever that may mean. The gods also gave gifts to the humans, the four relics: knowledge, creation, destruction, and choice.

The difference in between these two is easily explained.

According to Qrow, it was Ozpin who claimed that humans were made by the God of Light and the God of Darkness. The other claim is that humans were born from dust, a claim made by the narrator, who was revealed in Volume 3, Episode 12 as Salem.

“If you believe Ozpin…” -Qrow Branwen, Volume 4, Episode 8

In other words: the differences in the myths can be attributed to the fact that they were made by/believed in by two opposing people, Salem and Ozpin.

From both the myths, it can be gathered that the grimm have been there even before humans were. When humans appeared on Remnant (regardless of whether it was from gods or from dust, although note that gods could’ve made man from dust) they were constantly terrorized by the grimm, and was on the brink of extinction until they discovered a naturally occuring energy resource, described as 'nature’s wrath’, which humans then named 'dust’.

The origin of dust and grimm are unknown, but when dust was discovered, humans were suddenly able to fight back against the grimm, and as a result, they were able to develop larger communities, and better technology.

For some reason, neither of these myths mention faunus at all, but according to the World of Remnant episode on faunus, faunus have been around about as long as humans have been, possibly even longer. Racial discrimination against the faunus have existed even then.

Four powerful relics are apparently hidden in the hunter schools of Remnant, but since those were mentioned only recently, I won’t elaborate on it.

Another only recently mentioned thing in the World of Remnant are the silver-eyed warriors. According to Qrow, Ozpin told him that long ago, before kingdoms, people born with silver eyes became warriors feared by grimm. As seen in the show from Ruby’s display, silver-eyed warriors have a certain aura/magic -based power. The extent of this power is unknown, only that it these warriors had great skill on the battlefield. But it can be gathered that long ago, possibly even before dust, humanity’s line of defence against grimm were the silver-eyed warriors.

Something happened later on that drove these warriors from reality to the realm of myths and legends. From Hazel’s comment in Volume 4, Episode 1, it is hinted that they might’ve been hunted down.

During an unknown age, magic existed. It is unknown how many people were able to use it, but one recorded in a fairy tale (that Ozpin says is true) is a wizard, who spread his powers to four young women, creating the Maidens of Remnant.

A long time ago, according to Glynda Goodwitch in Volume 3, Episode 6, Maidens were common knowledge. Until people started actively hunting them down in hopes of inheriting their powers. So an organization was formed to protect and hide the Maidens. It is unknown when these events took place. Presumably it was long before the war, but after the kingdoms were made aware of each other.

The War then occurs 80 years before the events in the current timeline. Mistral and Mantle go up against Vale and Vacuo, and they fight over the preservation of the expression of individuality and art. Mistral and Mantle lose, and they congregate on the island of Vytal to discuss peace.

Presumably, this is when Atlas, in place of the defunct kingdom Mantle, offered to create the Cross-Continental Transmit Sytem and also when the four kingdoms decided to 'concentrate faunus population in Menagerie’ (Bartholomew Oobleck, Volume 1, Episode 12)

Sometime around this period was the Faunus Rights Revolution. I am unsure when this happened. I am unsure if this war was because faunus were mistreated before the war, or if it was because they were still being mistreated after being promised equality.

The White Fang was founded shortly after. Starting out as a organization advocating faunus rights led by Ghira Belladonna, they attempted to peacefully promote equality among races, but it soon became clear that this wasn’t working, and the faunus population started to want more radical means. Ghira steps down, and a more radical leader took over (unsure if its really Sierra Khan) the White Fang started to become more violent.

And that concludes what we know about Remnant’s history and myths. So far, nothing about this is contradictory, though it is a bit convoluted, but then again according to Salem from Volume 1, Episode 1:

“Legends, stories gathered through time. Mankind has been quite fond of recounting the exploits of heroes and villains, forgetting so easily that we are remnants - byproducts of a forgotten past.”

Everything on Remnant is shaped by fairytales, myths and legends, as is RWBY’s theme. I would think it was fitting for such a world to have an abundance of legendary creatures, powers, and items.

So uh, let me know what you all think, and feel free to ask me about things I might’ve missed here, and tell me if I made a mistake anywhere. Thanks 👍

Imagine (25) - The Flash

zbvbblehi: so I absolutely love your blog and I’d be honored if you wrote a one shot off of a request? basically, the reader (girl) is best friends with Barry and they secretly like each other but never do anything about it bc they don’t want to ruin their friendship. anyway, one day Barry finds bruises on her and he finds out that they’re from her bf and he gets really angry and goes and beats him up, then the reader has to calm him down and they finally admit their feelings for each other? angst and fluffy please? THANK YOU LOVE!!!

Always pleased to write a Barry Allen piece. Modified it a little to save myself from writing too much. I hope you enjoy this because you have no idea how much effort i spent trying to write this ;’) Happy New Year all, may your new year be filled with happiness, rainbows and unicorns :)

(not my gif)

Barry Allen

Have you ever met someone that surprised you? Meeting this person, and no attention was given to them. You may not even find them attractive at first but as you got to know them, you find yourself falling for them.

Meeting Barry Allen was by fate.

“Iris, time travelling is possible. All that is needed to make time travel actually happen is needing to find something faster than the speed of light. We have technology, which could be programmed to help travel just even that tiny bit faster than the speed of light!” You heard someone exclaiming when you stepped into Jitters to grab your daily dose of Macchiato.

“That’s great to hear Barry, but I’ve got to get back to work now. See you after work,” the waitress shook her head and chuckled before getting back to her duties.

Being a physics fanatic, you couldn’t help but to give your opinion on this hot topic.

“Sorry, I couldn’t help but to eavesdrop on your conversation about Time-travelling?” You asked after approaching the table where he was now sitting alone.

“You’re a believer of Time Travelling too?” He asked, eyes glistening upon hearing ‘Time Travelling’.

“Ummm..” You uttered, terribly afraid of crushing his hopes.

“Honestly, I doubt it’s possible but even if it was, I don’t think it could change anything,” you took a deep breath and said, unsure whether he would have felt offended by your opinion. You’d seen what strong believers of science could do to those with opposing views; it wasn’t pretty at all.

To your surprise, he didn’t seem angry at all, just a tad disappointed.

“Please, do explain,” he gestured you to take a sit.

“Hypothetically, if you traveled back in time to change historic events, there would be no change to the existing timeline. Rather, only a change in the new timeline you caused. For example, you went back in time to kill someone as a child. If you did that in the past, there would be no reason to time travel from the present to the past anymore. I guess the only way two contradictory states can exist is if they exist on different timelines. To people of this timeline, it would seem like you just got disintegrated without any affect on history,” you explained.

He took a few seconds to digest what you had said, before giving you an amused look.

“That’s a very convincing argument, but then again, the possibilities are endless,” he flashed a smile and took a sip of his coffee.

“That I agree on,” you replied and returned an acknowledging smile.

“Barry Allen,” he reached his hand out for a handshake.

“Y/N L/N,” you said.

Being Barry Allen’s best friend was by choice.                                              

Ever since that fateful conversation, you had exchanged contact details with Barry and it’d snowballed from there.

You were always there for Barry, always reliable.

He was so comfortable around you and trusted you so much. He told you everything from his family problems to his work life and even his darkest secret, being The Flash.

He wouldn’t even hesitate to say that he was willing to die for you.

Similarly, Barry Allen has always been there for you.

When you were crying because you’d lost your scholarship, he bought you your favourite Ben and Jerry Speculoos Core flavoured ice cream and accompanied you through the night watching your favourite chick flicks.

When you were happy because you had attained another scholarship, he cheered the loudest and even made the biggest fan board during the prize-giving ceremony.

When you were misunderstood by fellow friends for bribing your way to the top of your career, Barry chose to believe in you and stood by your side amidst the rumors.

Making a hundred friends isn’t a miracle. The miracle is to make a single friend who will stand by your side even when hundreds were against you. Barry was that single friend.

But falling in love with Barry Allen was completely beyond your control.

You’d never expected yourself to fall for that one guy whom challenged your views towards time-travelling. This person that was once average to you has perhaps become one of the most important person to you. It’s just funny thinking back because you’d definitely never saw something like that coming. It kind of just… happened.

You didn’t know how it happened, or when it even happened. Somewhere between those laughs, long talks and lame jokes, you fell in love.

They say the best love story is when you fall in love with the most unexpected person at the most unexpected time, but they left out the part where there’s always a risk in falling in love with your best friend.

What if Barry also felt the same way? Then there’s a risk of you breaking up and let’s face the truth, your friendship will never be the same again.

What if Barry had never felt the same way? Then there’s a risk of having nothing but awkwardness between you and Barry.

Either way, you’d lose Barry Allen as a best friend. That was why you’d decided never to be romantically involved with Barry and instead, got a boyfriend in hope of moving on. You simply couldn’t overcome the fear of losing Barry in your life.

Unbeknownst to all, there were still sleepless nights and nights that you cried so hard because Barry Allen is your best friend and that’s all he’ll ever be.

And ultimately, if love is meant to be, it will always find its way.

“Harrison Wells from Earth-2? You’ve got to be kidding,” you gasped after Barry had told you about how the singularity had caused breaches between worlds that’d led to Harrison Wells coming back.

“And apparently, an evil speedster named Zoom is after me,” Barry sighed at the thought of his new nemesis.

“You’ll defeat him Barry. You always do,” you gave him an assuring smile and attempted to change the topic.

“So, how are things with Patty? I heard she’s given you her number,” you said, happy that he’s met someone, but deep down, you were struggling to withstand the heartache.

“She’s uh- one of a kind,” Barry said, not knowing how to respond to your question.

“How about Max?” he added.

“I’m happy,” you said. That was a lie. The truth was, there were so many times  you’d quarrelled with Max regarding Barry, sometimes even resulting in physical fights. Simply put it, he was jealous that he could never replace Barry as your best friend and your number one priority.

“Good to hear,” replied Barry. You were so caught up in your lies that you didn’t notice the tinge of sadness that had flashed upon Barry’s eyes.

“In fact, I’m meeting him for afternoon tea in a minute. Catch you later?” you said.

“Oh-, sure, sure,” Barry enveloped you into a hug before letting you leave.

When you were at the parking lot, you were greeted by Max, who was crossing his arms and staring at you with his cold, piercing eyes.

“Barry Allen again?” he asked, causing you to sigh.

“Not again? How many times must I-”

“As many times as you continue to hang out with him,” Max clenched his fist and said.

“Max, I-” you tried to calm him down but was cut off with his sudden grip.

“I’m not stupid!” He shouted, voice full of rage.

“Let me go,” you said. He was gripping you so tightly that it started to hurt.

The tension was further heightened with Barry’s coincidental arrival.

“Y/N?” uttered Barry. His smiley expression instantly changed into a fearful one once he caught sight of Max’s angered expression and his grip on you.

“Stay out of this Allen,” he angrily said, refusing to release you.

“I said let me go!” You finally lost it and struggled free, immediately giving Max a tight slap.

“Bad move,” he gave you a dirty smirk and aimed his fist right at you. You closed your eyes as his fist inched closer and closer towards you until-

“Enough,” Barry said calmly as he stood right in front of you, grabbing Max’s fist and pushing him off, causing the monster to fall on his feet and grimace in pain.

He walked closer and closer to Max and grabbed him by his collar, preparing to give the man the biggest lesson of his life.

“Barry, don’t. He’s not worth it,” you said, trying to persuade him to free Max.

It took Barry a few seconds to finally calm down before releasing Max.

“Don’t think about coming closer to her ever again!” shouted Barry, sending the monster away.

You heaved a sigh of relief. Who knew what would happen if The Flash was arrested and charged for assault?

“How is this being happy?” Barry turned to look at you, eyes full of concern and confusion.

“You don’t understand,” you replied, avoiding his fixed gaze on you.

“Then help me understand Y/N! Help me understand why you’re with some over-possessive douchebag when you could be doing way better,” Barry raised his voice.

“Way better? The only person that I could be doing way better with is with you!”  You exclaimed, thoughts coming out faster before you could even filter them.

“What did you say?” asked Barry. It wasn’t because he hasn’t heard every single word that you’d said, he actually did. It’s because he couldn’t believe those words.

“It’s- It’s nothing, I’ve got to go,” you replied, words starting to shake with emotion. You started running away from Barry, tears falling down your cheek. You’d thought that finding a replacement would allow you to move on from Barry but the truth was, you could never stop loving him.

Sadly, being The Flash has its perks because within seconds, Barry was standing right in front of you.

“You left without hearing what I’ve got to say,”

“Barry, just leave me alone this time round, please,” you pleaded.

“I-I love you” uttered Barry, causing you to freeze in position. Did you hear correctly?

“What?” You uttered and by the next time you blinked, Barry was standing behind you. Not too far, not too close, just enough for you to hear his voice.

“You heard me, I’m in love with my best friend more than I ever was with anyone else!” He exclaimed. Although you couldn’t see him, you could tell that Barry was trembling in fear.

“You’re only saying that to console me!” You shouted back.

“Y/N, I’ve spend more than half of my life trying to get my dad out of prison. I’ve spend most of my nights trying to track down evil metahumans that’s out to kill me and I’m now spending most of my days trying to defeat another evil speedster while protecting my friends and family,” he said, running his fingers through his hair. He had never planned on saying those words to you, but what he’d seen and heard acted like a push for him to finally say out these heartfelt unspoken thoughts.

“You? You’re someone who wishes nothing more than to lead a simple civilian life. Man, you don’t even know how much it hurts for me when I realise that the truth is I will never be good enough for you,”

“And I’m afraid. I’m afraid that if I tell you that I love you, everything will change. You’ll start realising all my flaws and there’ll be nothing for you to love and that I’ll probably lose you in the end,” he said.

“Barry Allen, you silly fool,” you cried as you ran towards him- too late, you were already in his arms before you could even reach him. Darn it, him and his super speed.

“I can’t believe you would ever think that you aren’t good enough for me. Barry, you’re more than I ever could ask for. You’re a superhero, my superhero. The truth is, my relationship with Max was always bogus because my heart was never satisfied. It was always you,” you said.

“I don’t care for a simple civilian life, I only care about living a life with you so stop thinking that you will never be good enough for me. I’d choose you in a hundred lifetimes, in a hundred timelines, or in any other earths. I love you,” you said and leaned in for a kiss which Barry kindly returned with the same intensity. It was something you’ve been wanting to do for awhile now.

After a good five minutes or so, both pulled away and you stared into Barry’s eyes with Barry doing the same thing to you. You were proud that you could finally call your best friend, your lover.

“So, about Patty…” you said.

This is like no other love story. This one has no end.

The Depths of Kaname’s Manipulations in the Deep Dark Forest

So I’ve heard that there are so many indecent and poorly written analysis that sound as if someone is on crack in the VK and Zeki tag, so I figured I’d put some decent analyses in, because some people should just be put on a leash, but I digress.

I always found the belief that Yuuki always chose Kaname over Zero as quite hilarious, really. The obvious lack of attention between Yume’s communication clearly shows a lack of understanding behind characters interests and motivations.

So, I thought, I’d do something I never thought I’d do and analyse the first volume in the second arc of VK, volume 11.

But before I do, I want to point out the first time Kaname showed his true colours, back in volume 9. It is the first time in which he uses guilt on Yuuki to manipulate her decisions and destroy her own perception of herself. 

In 50th Night Yuuki first senses Rido’s eyes on her whilst in the presence of her best friend. She is immediately filled with the desire to protect Yori and her day class friends. She’s under the illusion that Kaname would agree, since ‘Cross Academy in his home’, but is surprised when his arms tighten around her and he’s adamant that he will just take her away. Her surprise escalates when he says “You cannot escape my arms… You are defenceless what can you do here?’ and forces Aido to take Yori to safety and away from her. Yuuki’s shock leads her to note that ‘[the arms she knew] so well… seem like the arms of a stranger’, noting that Kaname isn’t the person she thought he was. She gets so upset as she cries for him to let her go that her distress triggers her newly awaken pureblood powers and she causes a fissure on the Rose in Resin, indicating the stain his actions are putting on their relationship, and hinting at what will happen if it continues. 

Kaname then says ‘I can force you to come with me’, which leaves Yuuki to say that she’d ‘never forgive’ him. Realising that this tact will not work on her, he lets her go, but reminds her ‘that she can no longer continue living as a human’, subtly enforcing the notion that the life she had before, the life she had with Zero, is no longer within her reach. When she doesn’t melt to his subtle touch, and still clings to the person she is, he gives her one last final attempt to strip her of her personality and determination by eliciting guilt by saying “I allowed us to be parted once, would you sentence me to the pain I suffered those ten years again’. It is these words that finally cracks Yuuki’s determined demeanour and has her beg for him to stop and not ‘look like that’, before promising to ‘return to his arms’. This then forces her to believe that ‘the sins she has committed have been carved into her chest’, that by living the life of a human she has hurt Kaname, but also deceived Zero, and that her being a Vampire was a sin she could never atone for. Between this, and Zero pushing away, assuring her that without her, he’d be alright Yuuki felt obligated to go with Kaname. 

This is the first time that Kaname has guilted her into his side.

After Yuuki has gone with him, Kaname decides that he no longer wants to hold secrets from Yuuki, something that seemed like a grand gesture at the time, but actually held little thought since he kept a lot of other things hidden to the point that Yuuki felt she ‘knew everything about Zero and nothing about Kaname.’

Before he has her enter the Kuran manor, Kaname confesses his more recent sins to Yuuki, but also expresses that he understands that her heart is torn between him and Zero. This may be due to her solemn and rather morose goodbye to Zero at the end of volume 10 when he tells her its time to leave and she catches Zero’s eye and whispers goodbye, or the fact that he drank her blood moments after she told Zero that the one she truly needed was Zero, or it may have been the fact that he always thought they were so radiant together, but essentially Kaname knew where Yuuki’s heart truly lied, long before she even knew herself. 

When he confesses his sins to Yuuki, she naturally responds with tears. She’s upset with him, because she doesn’t condone it, and she’s forced to see Kaname as someone she never thought he was. However by now his guilt has whittled away most of her fierce determination and so, when asked she says ‘my current feelings are a mixture of sadness and anger.’ She doesn’t go with him, she’s facing the opposite direction and is cold and aloof. At this point in time she is ready to go separate ways as echoed in the manga spread. However Kaname says: ‘since i’ve decided to live countless years with you… i wanted you to know my sins. Even if i cannot touch you having you by my side is enough.’

The moment he says: ‘since i’ve decided to live countless years with you’ he plays on Yuuki’s vulnerability and fear of her own immortality and the meaning of living ‘forever’. He then says ‘having you by my side is enough’, which causes Yuuki to think ‘What am I doing? All I can do is make him sad.’ The emotion of ‘his sins’ reminds Yuuki, yet again of her own and she thinks of Zero and her parents and believes that she is the ‘root’ of everyone’s sadness. Again, he uses this guilt and self deprecation to turn Yuuki’s view point around and focus on him. Therefore Yuuki completely does a 180, and throws herself at Kaname as to not make him sad, commenting that she too ‘has committed a sin that she cannot atone for,’ by living a life of deceit and hurting Zero, while remaining blissfully ignorant and hurting Kaname, prompting her to think ‘what kind of world has he been forced to endure all alone’ through her actions of remaining human. 

This causes her to consider herself someone who deserves to ‘descend to the bottom with [him].’ Note that she doesn’t want to find the light with him and atone, no, instead she thinks so little of herself through his words that she is willing to fall from grace and become something that she would internally hate because she feels she deserves it.

This was the second time in which he guilted her to stay by his side.

The next time occurs after Yuuki ponders what it means to live forever. She scared about having to live alone for eternity. She then thinks about Zero and her thirst gets out of control. When she’s confronted by Kaname she admits that her heart is tied to Zero, which is why her thirst cannot be quenched by Kaname. Realising that Kaname is not the man she loves with her whole heart, she asks whether she should even be with him [”should I even be here with you”] and declares she doesn’t deserve a kiss from him. She walks away from him when Kaname grabs her and calls her out on her contradictory behaviour. She says one thing, like wanting to be by his side, and yet her actions, like running away from him, not wanting to use her fangs on him, and being unable to quench her thirst through his blood, tells another story.

He calls her a terrible fiancè and when she tells him to let her go, her words are layered so heavily with a metaphorical meaning that Hino is hinting that it is Kaname’s hold on her that keeps Yuuki chained to his side, not Yuuki’s actual desire to be with him. The metaphor is then echoed through Kaname’s answer, ‘No, I will never let you go again. If I were to let you go I’d rather kill you myself or have you kill me.’ This then causes Yuuki to get frustrated by him treating her as a child and not taking her ‘seriously’. He then takes advantage of her thirst and opposes himself on her by telling her to only drink his blood and giving her a ‘way out’, knowing that to only have his blood would be a punishment for the fact that she thirsts for another. Again, Yuuki thinks so little of herself at this stage, that she gladly accepts the punishment and continues to fall to the very bottom with him. Not only that but as she drinks his blood Kaname shows a glimpse of his ‘troubled’ past, that completely averts her focus on something else and garners sympathy for him.

This was the third time he inflicted guilt on her to make her stay.

However, after the event between Yuuki and Zero, in which Yuuki nearly bites Zero, he realises that his hold on her is not complete, and that their ‘love’ shouldn’t be as hard as it is, and so, instead of guilting her to stay, he chooses to leave like the selfish spoilt brat he is. Again, he made the choice, not Yuuki, because at this point Yuuki was never truly given a choice to do whatever she wanted with her life, until Zero gave her the opportunity to decide how she wanted to live it. Kaname however leaves her to feel guilty and blame herself.

In addition, the most pivotal moment in which Kaname uses guilt to bind Yuuki to him, comes in chapter 93, in which, after throwing his heart to the furnace, he has Yuuki blame herself for existing. The fact that she wishes she was never born, and not giving her the opportunity to accept that his actions were his own fault, is what tied Yuuki to him even in death, and lead her to give up her life to free him of the thirst she couldn’t quench when they were together. The thirst that caused him to go mad with jealousy in the first place.

This was the last and final time he guilted her and ‘bound him’ to her from the ‘beginning of her life to the end’, as stated by Zero in the bonus chapter ‘Life’.

Considering all this, Yuuki was never really given a chance to choose. She was always guilted into staying with Kaname, because of the ‘sins she committed in ignorance’ against both Zero and Kaname, which made her feel so poorly about herself that she felt she didn’t deserve to be with Zero, and left her obligated to be with Kaname because of the pain she inflicted on him in her absence.

Truth or Denial – Facing the Age of Information Overload

A lot of people are getting more frustrated than ever with either trying to wake people up, or just witnessing the apparent absolute ignorance of those not willing to notice what’s really going on around them. There are many reasons for this, and it’s an age old problem.

In today’s world, it appears it’s because things are crystallizing so fast and the flow of changing information coming at people is so massive it can barely be processed anymore by the lower density mind. That’s true to some extent.

But that doesn’t hold up when it comes to consciousness.

Keep reading

Matt Ruins Feminisms Shit

Whichever feminist purveyor came up with the idea to make feminism synonymous with equality is a genius. They figured out a way to “Trojan horse” nonsense down otherwise reasonable peoples throats.

What I will never understand about feminists is that they claim to be all about equality, they say this is the fundamental basis for their feminist beliefs; yet will get upset and argue till they are red in the face with someone who also claims to support equality but simply does not think that feminism is really about equality. What always prompts this is me simply saying I support equality but am not a feminist. To which they will cite a made up definition of feminism as though that proves me wrong. You can say the KKK is all about racial tolerance by saying KKK noun- A group advocating the equality of races and the celebration of difference. Convinced? Me neither, this made up definition is meaningless because the actions and ideas of the group are in contradiction with the supposed definition. In the same way simply saying feminism is the same as supporting equality doesn’t make it so. If you want to know what feminism is all about look no further than the name. It’s feminism… it’s not called egalitarianism equalism or humanism. Feminism is the advocacy for the social, political and economic rights of women, period.

 Now some of you might be thinking Matt you’re just nitpicking the terms who cares what we call ourselves as long as we all support equality. You would be absolutely right if feminism itself were at all consistent with your assertion that it is about equality and did not actively promote contradictory policy and ideas. The only thing equality based about feminism is that all feminists claim that feminism is about equality. You could write a book of just end-to-end examples of ideas put out there by feminist writers and philosophers that are not consistent with the ideals of equality. Whenever I point these ridiculous ideas out to feminists they all have the same reply, “they aren’t real feminists then.” Or they say these are just “radical feminists.” Which is some real convenient mental gymnastics reasoning that begs the question… How many times can you really say that before it starts to feel like the feminists who do support equality really believe things that are not consistent with feminist reasoning? Once? Twice? Thirty Times? What about 50% of the time, 51% of the time? If the vast majority of your feminist thinkers are found to display ideas inconsistent with an egalitarian world-view should that not be enough to abandon the school of thought if what you really support is equality? This “not a real feminist” argument that’s so popular with feminists is a textbook example of the no true scotsman fallacy. Look it up if you don’t already know about it. I’ll get to some examples to illustrate my case that feminists do not support equality later. If feminism were really all about equality the concept of its abolishment and replacement shouldn’t seem so threatening. If feminism is replaced by egalitarianism and you’re a feminist because you support equality then what’s the problem? 

As a man my criticism of feminism will always be met with cynicism because of the persisting idea that men fear feminism out of a desire to protect their patriarchy and to continue to oppress women. However I honestly believe feminism (not equality) is terrible for both men and women. For example feminism typically manifests as an attempt to show that women can do the same things men can do. Which of course they can, but this also sends the message that to be valuable a woman needs to be like a man. More often than not I find that feminism berates things that many women deem feminine and praises women for doing things and acting in a way most deem to be masculine. Yes women can be masculine but do they need to be in order to be valuable? I don’t think so but this is the message “feminism” sends. It is not shameful to be feminine and women who are feminine are not less valuable, yet this is the subtext of feminism.

Another criticism I seem to get from feminists is that I’m a male rights activist. It is nearly impossible to be a man that opposes the feminism of today without being called a MRA. Even though if you followed my logic for even a moment you would realize this is an assertion entirely inconsistent with my views. I also oppose in theory the school of thought dedicated to a male only worldview and male only advocacy. Its funny how quickly feminists could identify that men’s rights wasn’t about equality but refuse to think that female advocacy (feminism) isn’t as well. Last time I checked it was feminists who were the ones pulling fire alarms and protesting any speaker who wished to simply discuss mens issues. Seriously look online at some of the protests feminists have staged against anything related to mens issues. Watch them and see for yourself the hatred and bile feminists spew at people (men and women) for simply having another view. As long as feminists exist they necessitate the existence of a mens rights movement. The more they try to shut them down the more feminists just prove that point for me. This is the point of the argument where feminists claim that female only advocacy makes sense because society already largely favours men. While this is true in some ares it is not true in all areas, however even assuming this were completely true there is still a huge problem with this logic. It is the social political equivalent to asking a parent to break your siblings toy because yours was broken. It’s immature, it’s irrational and it is horribly inconsistent with an egalitarian worldview. Not to mention that if you do get your way and a parent decides to do what you want, your sibling (men) will then begin to resent you. Which further hurts feminisms own supposed agenda. If the goal is equality then anything that divides men and women should be considered harmful. And an entire school of thought dedicated to one gender that blames the other does this by definition. Another problem with this reasoning is that it implies that feminists are vigilant and know exactly when to back off in every area of influence. For example do custody hearings still require female only advocacy? This is an area today where society favours women with an 84% win ratio. 

Think of it like this society is like a pendulum when it is to the left society favours men and to the right it favours women. In the middle (pendulum not moving) is equality. Historically the pendulum has been to the left favouring men. What feminism does is it pushes the pendulum free but provides no stopping point (equality) so the pendulum swings and heads in the opposite direction, swinging with great momentum toward the right, a society that favours females. Are men and women equal in everything no of course not. But feminism saturates just about every facet of our society and still exists and is applied to all areas including the ones where equality has already been achieved. I wouldn’t claim female favouritism is where we are as a society at all. I claim only that feminism is the forward motion driving us to that point and there are some clear signs that confirm this hypothesis. There are already examples of areas of female favouritism and privilege,It’s an indication that the place feminism will eventually take us is not equality. For example men are highly disadvantaged in the courtroom. they receive harsher punishments than women, are awarded custody far less often and are far more likely to have their claims of assault and harassment ignored altogether. My argument here is not that society is fine and everything is equal so feminists should go away. My argument is that if feminism is the driving force equality will pass by quickly in the rear view mirror. It will eventually and inevitably give rise to a female favoured society. If you support equality the prospect of an oppressive matriarchal society should be just as distasteful as a patriarchal one. If it isn’t you are a hypocrite and you should stop claiming to be in favour of equality right now. However if egalitarianism is the driving force and the stopping point, the pendulum stops moving and remains fixed at a state of equality.

I said earlier I would talk about examples of feminist thinkers promoting inequitable ideas so here are just a few of them. One feminist writer stated that women are actually better than men because women can give birth and men cannot. The implication here being that a woman can do anything a man can do but a man cannot do anything a woman can do. The word better is always a real good indicator of an egalitarian view right? Another writer states that the only way to be a true feminist is to be a lesbian. Only by being with another woman can you truly be free of male oppression. This is typical of the–you don’t need anything from men mentality that feminism will never truly shake. How can any straight woman support an idea like that? Now feminism wants to deny the need for companionship for most women? That sounds like an idea that is incredibly harmful for women. Another writer claims that social institutions like marriage exist only to oppress women. It’s even taken so far as to claim that vital aspects of society like medicine also exist only to subjugate women. By painting perfectly legitimate institutions as being instruments of men to oppress, you further alienate men while also turning women away from things that should benefit everyone. Nobody wins with ideas like this.

The weight of an idea is not what it says it wants but the effect it has. These next examples are not ideas started by feminist philosophers to my knowledge but were started by everyday feminists who applied the principles and subtext of feminist thinkers. One idea is that men are to be feared or hated and treated as antagonists. The idea to castrate has even become a mainstay for people who think like this. This has given rise to a concept called Shrodingers rapist. The idea being that all men are potentially rapists and should be treated as such for the safety of all women. This idea is one that a reasonable feminist will say is ludicrous and should not represent what real feminism is all about. Is it really so much of a stretch though? With the endless harping on the evils of patriarchy and the male oppression of women. Along with the principle of a strong female push back in order to balance the scales of history this is really not such a long jump in reasoning. It also fits nicely in line with feminists who advocate lesbianism. It sends the message that men are so horrible and dangerous that you should not even be fraternizing with them. The feminists who support the reasoning that leads to these ideas but reject the application out of a misunderstanding of what they are supporting are like someone saying that Mein Kampf is a great book everyone should read; then are horrified by the holocaust.

Another erroneous feminist idea that promotes misandry is the popular feminist concept of rape culture. RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) has come out saying that the idea of rape culture is not only a myth but it’s a harmful myth for both men and women. Rapists are responsible for rape not culture, blaming patriarchy and an entire gender for the evil of some of its members is idiotic and plain wrong. It would be like me judging all women for the stupidity of feminism. the idea of rape culture diminishes male victims and some supporters of the idea even deny that males can be victims. If equality is all you really want then what are you trying to preserve by refusing to abandon feminism? If it’s in favour of something that also promotes equality but is without the hateful and disillusioning/misleading militant backdrop of misandry then what’s the issue here? Could it be that you don’t support it because of equality? Could it be that you simply believe that it is a benefit to you so it should be supported despite its logical and ethical problems?

And let’s be honest even the older form of feminism that did good things for women isn’t needed anymore in North American society. In North America women have a right to: Vote, drive, dress how they want, go to school, marry who they choose, get divorced, own property, go out alone, be uncircumcised, have a career and get help when abused. While we’re on the subject of the rights women have– don’t give me that tired nonsense about women making less money for the same work. Yes there is a wage gap but it has nothing to do with gender discrimination. No company in their right mind is paying someone less solely because they are female. Show me any example of a man and a woman who do the same job for the same company, with the same amount of time put in with equal levels of seniority where the woman makes less money. It doesn’t happen, there are many reasons for the wage gap, none of which are discrimination. One reason is that more women work less hours in order to care for children. Another reason is that men tend to pursue more financially rewarding careers than women do. Do some research before prattling on about imaginary barriers that many women seem to have bypassed without trouble. If women could be payed less just for being women there would be no men in the workforce if a company could use that as an excuse for cheaper labour then they absolutely would. Anyway I digress, people who continue to support feminism because of the accomplishments of the past are like Germans who still support the Nazi party because of all the things Hitler did for the German economy. Accomplishments of the past do not make up for the hate of the present. Feminism is not what it once was and should not be supported like it is. Feminists here cry oppression whenever someone disagrees with them or they feel disrespected in any small way. Try living in a country where women are burned and tortured and have to continue to live with and make nice with their attackers. That is true oppression and a true violation of basic human rights, stare rape and the irrational fear that you might be attacked by a man at any moment is not. The modern North American feminism trivializes real victims and real societal issues by trying to make all women the victims of all men. Feminists have blatantly created a new us and them mentality by making patriarchy and by extension men the scapegoat for all of societies problems. If that strategy sounds familiar at all you should then see why the term feminazi is so applicable to modern feminism.

I support equality and I will never be able to believe that you do if you also support feminism. You don’t need to be pro feminism to support women. Being pro people should be enough, last time I checked people includes women. Feminism is a cultural hydra and it’s wishful thinking to think it will ever die completely. But hopefully one day reason will prevail and people will be convinced to be a little more critical and really take a look at what is being taught. Hopefully one day the only people who will claim to be feminists are the hateful irrational people who embrace the inequity of its ideas. To the rational people who do support equality and claim to be feminists it might be time to jump ship and board one that is actually heading where you want it to go.

School of God | Anonymous

Every day except for Sunday, the BOE (which stands for Official State Bulletin) is published in Spain. It is the official gazette of the Government of Spain and its content is authorized and published by Royal Assent and with approval from the Spanish Presidency Office.

It’s not something I’d usually read but this past week, I saw a friend of mine share something that caught my eye on Facebook:

The BOE of this past Tuesday 24 of February spends 23 pages to explain the details of the curriculum of the subject of Religion for the primary and secondary school (School and high-school in Spain). In these 23 pages, “God” is mentioned 168 times and “Jesus” 73 times. Other words like “religion” and “Catholic” appear 65 and 51 times respectively but that’s not what caught my eye, no. What really caught my attention was one of the quotes that appeared in the evaluation criteria to pass the subject: “To recognize the incapacity of human beings to reach happiness by themselves”.

Keep reading

Fi - Mistress Mary Quite Contrary

or The Spirit of Perversion. A bit of meta on Fi, when it’s stressed (mostly in reference to INFP’s and/or Fi-doms, but also some general things.).

One of the main characteristics of Introverted Feeling is that it doesn’t like to talk about feelings. They are intense and only make sense on the inside - getting them out distorts them and they become something else, much like a creature of the night turning to ashes in daylight. Fi also wants to deal with an emotional problem (or any problem at all, though it will be more ready to share when it comes to a practical problem) on its own - the natural reaction will be to retreat and mull things over until a solution is found. Of course this doesn’t work every single time.

My example here stems from own experience, in which Ne is under-engaged, thus leading to the notorious Restlessness, wonderfully depicted in a passage of Jane Eyre:

I could not help it; the restlessness was in my nature; it agitated me to pain sometimes. Then my sole relief was to walk along the corridor of the third story, backwards and forwards, safe in the silence and solitude of the spot, and allow my mind’s eye to dwell on whatever bright visions rose before it—and, certainly, they were many and glowing; to let my heart be heaved by the exultant movement … and, best of all, to open my inward ear to a tale that was never ended—a tale my imagination created, and narrated continuously; quickened with all of incident, life, fire, feeling, that I desired and had not in my actual existence. It is in vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquility: they must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it.

If one function doesn’t get enough or too much to do, all other three will fall into imbalance too. Ne-restlessness is particularly tricky for an INFP, because the tertiary function (=comforting function) is Si. Si will automatically kick in and try to comfort, but it will only make matters worse, because it is, in many ways, the opposite of Ne and embodies everything that makes it restless (routine, sameness, safety, nostalgia). Fi, as the dominant function, will try to solve things and also feel responsible for the whole mess. Nevertheless, it will be affected too, especially if there’s no fast and/or easy solution.

In despair, Fi will very much be like a wild animal biting itself, if there’s no vent (something I like to call The Fi-State. It can be triggered by being among people for too long without a chance to retreat (for introverts), or mostly by values being attacked.). Together with Ne, it will bottle feelings up until they explode (Fi doesn’t want to talk about feelings and shuns conflict, as said, and Ne will always see a possibility of excusing someone else’s actions). Together with Si, it will inevitably become bitter over past hurts. I observed there’s something weirdly satisfactory and self-righteous about bitterness. I have been wronged, therefore I am in the right.

When forced or brought to share about a problem, Fi will fiercely cling to the sacredness of its emotions. There is something that feels like loosing a part of yourself (or possession of yourself) when you open up. Especially with a Fe-user, Fi will feel like its own emotions are being diffused. Something mostly experienced as positive and calming in my personal view. Interesting enough though, it irritates me when I’m angry. My Fi goes: “No, you don’t understand, because you’re not me. No, this is not trivial and easily solved. No, stop being so calm. I want to be angry. I’ve got reason to be angry.” Which reminds me of one of my favourite chapters from Harry Potter (The Lost Prophecy in OotP). As Phineas Nigellus puts it somewhat cynical:

“You see, Dumbledore?” said Phineas Nigellus slyly. “Never try to understand the students. They hate it. They would much rather be tragically misunderstood, wallow in self-pity, stew in their own-”

So yes, Fi can act like it wants to be troubled. It can be persuaded by Ne to ask someone for help and end up telling them all the reasons why there’s absolutely no point to discuss this. Another contradictory part is that it has a huge need to feel understood, but rarely can believe this when expressed, because emotions are experienced as so intense and individual - two things that are most sacred to Fi (emotions and individuality). Fi also is naturally mistrusting of any outside influence, be it meant well or not. Independence must be maintained. On top of that usually comes a strong sense of pride.

All of this can be very frustrating of course, but there’s nothing inherently bad about it. Fi is self-sustaining, and it can depend on itself. It knows itself inside out and usually knows very well what it needs to heal. Anger is an energy that will lead to action and not stagnation. Fi is too stubborn to give up. (Please note: none of this is about depression. That is an illness, and just like a broken leg, you can’t overcome that by will power.)

Not to mention that Fi embodies the spirit of opposition (Minority by Greenday anyone?), whether it’s angry or not. It may want to oppose, just because (on light matters mostly, it wouldn’t fake an opinion on something it takes serious (which is a lot)). This can also serve as excellent motivation (“You’ll never get that done!” Fi: “I’ll get that done, if it’s the last thing I do.”). Which is especially helpful when inferior Te usually is hard to kick into action.

And the last words go to Mistress Mary (ISFP, same as Harry):