#**citation needed but I have faith in the person I heard this from that it's probably true and why would someone make that up | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theprettyinthemundane · 4 years

Text

Who’s right about the myths and what does it mean to be culturally Christian? (using Pan as an example)

Thanks to @will-o-the-witch for looking over the part on Judaism!! : )

Disclaimer:

The ancient world was incredibly diverse and ideas about the gods themselves and the myths varied a lot across space and time, which is something I’ll be mentioning again later. I feel like it’s important to have a better understanding about the myths since they’re so prevalent in culture. Essentially, while many people today may tend to think there’s only one “right” way to see the myths or a god this was and is not the case for many faiths. To show this, I wanted to use Pan and his parentage as an example. This also connects to a broader idea: cultural Christianity (which isn’t “bad” or “good”, it’s just something to be aware of). This isn’t about Christians either, just about how cultural Christianity can affect peoples’ perception of other faiths. Whether or not someone is Christian themselves, growing up in a Christian place can incorrectly inform how they learn about other faiths which can lead to misinformation being spread. Sometimes it can (even accidentally) reinforce very harmful ideas that can contribute to bigotry like antisemitism, which we have to fight against! (Seriously, bigotry sucks! Also I hope the way I word all this makes sense because it’s something I care a lot about!)

So, who are Pan’s parents and who’s right?

Pan is often known as Hermes’ son, even the Homeric hymn to Pan says so (1). Hermes is widely known as the “second youngest Olympian”, which would make Pan among the very youngest if this genealogy is considered (2).

However, that isn’t the genealogy everyone in the ancient world used to describe Pan. There are many variations on his parentage, and I think it’s worth going over because of how interesting it is. Who Pan’s parents are often changes depending on who you ask or where you ask it. For example, at times he has been called the son of Hermes (1, 3: pg90,151), if you ask 5th century Athenians he is the son of Chronos (3: pg42, 88), he was also known as the son of Zeus and twin of Arcas’ (3: pg43), the great grandson of Pelasgos who was a mortal, bother or foster brother of Zeus (3: pg113) and in Thebes he was believed to be the son of Apollo (3: pg180). He was also called Son of Aix (the solar goat too bright to look at, equated with Amalthea nurse of Zeus) (3: pg100). There were likely other variations too that were lost to history.

One thing worth noting is that Pan originated in Arcadia and before the Battle of Marathon in 490 BCE, his worship was mainly preformed here and it was only after that battle that his worship spread widely to the rest of Greece (4, 5). So, the myths of Pan from Arcadia are typically older and reflected older views that worshipers held of him. One example is that Pan helped Zeus in the war against the titans and these myths point to Pan’s father being Chronos (or at least placing him before Hermes’ birth):

Pan has been described as “the source of that "panic" fear with whose aid he helped the gods in their war against the Titans …” and the son of Cronos and a she-goat (3: pg42). In fact, Aeschylus believed Pan to be two gods: both of which had the power of panic and one of them fought against the titans with Zeus (3: pg42) this is interesting because in other myths Pan was able to split up into a swarm of pans, so Pan being a multiplicity of gods and also a single god isn’t unheard of (3: pg100). Overall, most people understood him to be one god (like we do today), but this just shows how much diversity there was in how people saw him.

And in Egypt he was viewed similarly to the Pan who fought in the war with the titans (as one of the oldest gods):

“…the Egyptians Pan is considered very ancient and one of the eight gods said to be the earliest…(6)”

Here he was identified with the Egyptian god Min, which may seem a bit problematic to some because otherwise they were revered as different gods (6). However, the practice of identifying gods with other gods (aka syncretism) was not uncommon in the ancient world; Hekate-Artemis, Selene-Hekate, and Selene-Artemis were identified with each other commonly (7, 8). Other syncretisms were between Isis and Demeter, Isis and Persephone, Isis and Aphrodite, and Isis and Venus (9: pg 20). I am not a classics student, but what I have taken away from this is that the identity of the ancient gods is somewhat fluid and many worshipers could have differing and even contradictory views without either of them being “wrong”, even though some likely did argue or disagree to some extent (6). I’m not claiming there wasn’t debate in the ancient world about the gods, there definitely was. What I’m saying is that people did not fight to discredit new or different ideas just because they conflicted with already established ideas. There was a great deal of variation in how people worshiped and most weren’t interested in a one “right way” to do things.

This isn’t only an ancient practice: it still happens today in Shinto in general and with the kamisama* Inari Ōkami (稲荷大神), who has been portrayed as a group of kamisama, as masculine, androgynous, and feminine (10). So in general this practice of seeing kamisama (or supernatural beings, or gods) in many different ways with acceptance is more common than one might expect (10, 11). This also happens today in Judaism, where debate is very common:

“Nevertheless, the general trend throughout Jewish history is to value debate and not to stifle it, and the history of Jewish texts supports that trend. (12)” Some examples of this are how many Jewish people debate the Talmud (a religious text) and how there are many different sects of Judaism.

One important thing for people who are interested in this subject and were raised in a Christian culture (even if they aren’t religious) is to not overextend the characteristics of Christianity onto other religions ancient or modern (this is often accidental, which makes it even more important to be aware of it). This is relevant to both ancient and modern religions such as Shinto and Judaism because misunderstanding these faiths can contribute to terrible things like antisemitism and xenophobia (more so with Judaism). So, we need to guard against bigotry like that by being open to learning and changing our opinions when they are wrong both for learning and fighting bigotry.

In fact, one scholar noted that even in Arcadia Pan’s cult and myth were not standardized although what I have mentioned before was certainly the more popular (13: pg 63) So, even though Herodotus heard from people in Egypt who worshiped Min, it is not unheard of or unreasonable to understand that some people did understand him that way. To answer the question I asked earlier: each myth about Pan’s parentage has some element of truth to it and none of them are completely “right” or “wrong”. For example, Hermes being Pan’s father echoes the fact that both of them are liminal deities and usually are shown being close to mortals (3: 178).

Conclusion:

Pan is commonly considered the son of Hermes, however there was immense variation in how others saw him, both across space and time. One specific idea- that Pan helped Zeus in the war against the titans and that he is among the eldest of the gods- would contradict the Hermes genealogy and was prevalent in some areas. This is the case in Egypt where he was conflated with the local god Min. While this could seem confusing to modern readers (both the Min thing and the various genealogy thing), many faiths both ancient and modern do not push for one “right way” of seeing things and this is important to understand when learning about these things.

Another way of looking at this concept is the idea of cultural Christianity. It does not matter if a person is religious or even Christian, by growing up in a culturally Christian place their assumptions about other faiths are automatically informed by Christianity, which does not reflect most other faiths. This is not good or bad, it’s just something to be aware of and work around so that we can better understand these other faiths. It is especially important to keep in mind today as misunderstandings about religions can contribute to dangerous bigotry like antisemitism, which we must stand against!

*In Shinto kami (or kamisama) are supernatural beings who inspire awe, they are the main object of worship in Shinto. Please don’t call Shinto kamisama “gods”, it’s inaccurate and doesn’t represent how people see them. Due to how Shinto and Japanese mythology are different from Western mythology we need to take care when talking about it to keep it in its original context.

Citations:

1: Hymn 19 to Pan Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Ed. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=HH+19

2: da Costa Martins, P. A., Leptidis, S., & De Windt, L. J. (2014). Nuclear Calcium Transients: Hermes Propylaios in the Heart. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.010675

3: Borgeaud, P., & Atlass, K. (1988). The cult of Pan in ancient Greece. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 13: 9780226065953

4: GARTZIOU-TATTI, A. (2013). GODS, HEROES, AND THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, (124), 91-110. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/44216258

5: Haldane, J. (1968). Pindar and Pan: Frs. 95-100 Snell. Phoenix, 22(1), 18-31. doi:10.2307/1087034

6: Griffiths, J. G. (1955). The orders of Gods in Greece and Egypt (according to Herodotus). The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 75, 21-23. Doi: 10.2307/629164

7: MANOLEDAKIS, M. (2012). Hekate with Apollo and Artemis on a Gem from the Southern Black Sea Region. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 62, 289-302.

8: E. Hijmans, S. (2012). Moon deities, Greece and Rome. In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (eds R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.R. Huebner). doi:10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17276

9: Witt, R. E. (1997). Isis in the ancient world. JHU Press. ISBN-13: 978-0801856426

10: Smyers, K. (1996). "My Own Inari": Personalization of the Deity in Inari Worship. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 23(1/2), 85-116. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/30233555

11: Lya. 2015. Interview with Gary Cox - Inari Faith International (VO) https://www.equi-nox.net/t10647-interview-with-gary-cox-inari-faith-international-vo

12: Mjl. Conversation & Debate. www.myjewishlearning.com. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/conversation-debate/

13: Ogden, D. (Ed.). (2010). A companion to Greek religion. John Wiley & Sons. Print ISBN:9781405120548 |Online ISBN:9780470996911 |DOI:10.1002/9780470996911

#pandeity #hellenic gods #cultural christianity #i hope i worded this well enough because i really care about this issue #happy to hear other peoples' thoughts too!#greek mythology #hellenic polytheism

56 notes · View notes

banditthewriter · 5 years

Text

Best You Ever Had - Billy Russo - 4

Part four! I hope you guys are enjoying this story!

Future parts will have trigger warnings. Feel free to shoot me a message or ask off anon if you have questions or concerns!

Tags are at the bottom. Let me know if you would like to be added to one of my tag lists! Enjoy!

*****

It was the night before the conference actually started and you were nervous. You’d already gotten a cautionary email from your dad that essentially said “don’t fuck up” in business lingo.

He’d told you that he wouldn’t be there, that he had to have faith you’d make the company proud. You couldn’t help but wonder if he meant for you to make him proud.

Too excited to sleep, you paced your living room as you read over the file in hand. Some of the papers were covered in your penmanship, but there was one that had a handwriting you barely recognized. Billy had laid out a few changes for his men for the optimal coverage.

He was good at his job; you’d known that from day one. It was one of the things that drew you to him. He was good at his job and he was charming.

You should have seen through the facade. You should have been able to see the fact that that man wasn’t made for a relationship. Or maybe you had known it but you had just ignored it out of the hope that maybe you were wrong.

Even though you were alone, you still looked around as you went to the hall closet. There at the top was a nondescript white cardboard box.

Carefully you lifted the box out and carried it over to the couch. Your fingers played with the edge of the lid before you lifted it.

The top layer was made out of items you had collected over your relationship with Billy. Movie ticket stubs, pressed flowers, cards that had come in said flowers. Those were all on a sheet of cardboard and you lifted that up so that you could see the things underneath.

Photos of the two of you looking happy and in love. The mere thought made you want to laugh. He’d never been in love with you. You don’t hurt the person you love like he hurt you.

Pressed into the corner of the box, half covered by a photo of you and Billy asleep on a couch in the mountains with his friends, was a velvet box about the size of your palm. Your fingers brushed the lid before you pulled it out and flipped it open.

Inside were two necklaces. One was a gaudy thing that you were pretty sure his niece had gotten out of a gumball machine. It was in the shape of a B with fake rhinestones pressed into the malleable metal. The other consisted of two interlocking circles that had diamonds going around the edge of one of the circles. It was expensive and you’d only worn it twice since he’d given it to you.

You should give it back to him. Maybe not the B necklace, but the circle necklace was probably expensive. Although from what you’d heard about Billy and Anvil in the time since your split, he’d been doing well for himself.

You needed to get over Billy. You needed to get rid of this secret stash of memories; you needed to get rid of anything that reminded you of him and the time you had shared. It was past time to get over Billy.

There wasn’t anything that he could do that would change your mind about him.

------

There was a knock on your door and you frowned as you looked at the clock over the stove. It was late; way too late for you to have an uninvited visitor.

You made your way to the door, fully ready to call Billy if you needed to. He lived close enough that he could be there in less than ten minutes.

Through the peephole you saw Billy. He looked strange through the distorted tiny window but when you opened the door, you could see that it wasn’t the peephole that was the problem. He looked angry, looked frustrated.

“Babe? What’s wrong?”

He came into your apartment with a shake of his head, his eyes darting to your face and then away.

“I just had a conversation with… it's nothing,” he said instead, running a hand through his hair before he turned to you. “I just wanted to see you.”

You smiled and reached out to pull him in for a hug. It wasn't often that he let you see this side of him and you were determined to offer whatever comfort you could.

“It's late. We should go to bed.”

It was said as an invitation for more, hoping he could hear the suggestiveness in your tone. The look in his eyes told you that he probably did.

But he hesitated instead of agreeing immediately.

“I'm gonna take a shower first. Get rid of some of the frustration.”

You leaned up to press your lips against his.

“Not all of the frustration I hope,” you teased as you stepped back away from him.

You'd never seen the man take such a fast shower before.

------

You still had an hour before you needed to be at the hotel but you were on your way anyways. You'd stop by the little cafe on your way in to grab some coffee or tea if there wasn't a line, but you wanted to get to the hotel early.

The buzz of your cell phone made you jump. You pulled it out of your pocket and frowned at the name that pulled up.

Anvil, Russo

It was the only way you could put his name in your phone without wanting to break the device.

He was usually on top of things but a phone call this early?

“Hello?”

“Hey Y/N. There's been a new threat on some of the members. It was sent to their offices and we just got the call from their security details. I'm going to up the security here since they'll start arriving soon but your father said we might have to look into canceling the conference.”

You weren't sure why it was a surprise that Billy had already talked to your dad about the situation as a whole.

You huffed out a breath as you spotted the cafe you meant to stop at. No coffee for you. Not yet at least.

“I'm almost there. I'll contact the people who are hosting the conference once I'm fully briefed on the threat. It'll be up to them as long as the threat isn't imminent.”

“It's not,” Billy promised, but his voice sounded strange. “There's something that doesn't feel right about it, but there wasn't any indication that the conference or the hotel is a target. I'll show you what I have when you get here.”

He was already at the hotel? That shouldn't surprise you either but it did.

“I'm just passing Laurenti’s. I'll be there in a moment.”

You heard him make a soft noise in the back of his throat.

“I picked up some coffee from there on my way in. I poured one into a travel mug for you. And I even grabbed a bag of breakfast croissants if you're hungry.”

It was so familiar that your steps stumbled a bit. How many times had he done that when the two of you were together?

“Thanks,” you said slowly before you turned down the street where the hotel was. “Wow it looks like a war zone out here.”

You could see Billy outside of the hotel with his phone to his ear. When he saw you, he waved and ended the call, tucking his ear piece back in before he crossed the barriers to where you were.

“This is what we consider upped security,” he said as he waved off someone who was approaching to probably check your ID. “We have a three man team out here, a guy outside and a guy inside each exit, and I've got a few mobile sentries just in case.”

Your eyes were probably as big as dinner plates as he guided you into the hotel.

“Wow,” you repeated for lack of anything better to say. And before you could censor yourself, “You're really good at this.”

You didn't miss the pride on his face and the way he stood up just a little straighter at your words. He gestured with an arm to a small table where a white paper bag and a travel mug sat.

“Here's breakfast if you're interested,” he said as he grabbed the travel mug.

You should draw a line. This was a professional setting and breakfast wasn't on your approved itinerary.

Instead you accepted it from him gratefully.

It didn't mean anything. It was just extra. It wasn't like he got it especially for you.

You took a sip of the coffee and bit your lip as the familiar taste hit you. It was your usual order when you went to Laurenti’s.

Let me know if you want to be added to my Permanent Tag List @hermioneshandbag @onebatch--twobatch @smiley-celine @blackcoffeeandgreenteaforme @starless-skyox @youveseen--thebutcher @citation-is-here @mightymelly @realduckvader @1550kilogramsofsilver @hxbbit @rockintensse @missphanosaur18 @thepuffyeyedpuff @kararanae23 @yessy2012 @gingerstarlight @siriusement @marauderskeeper @xinyourdreamsx @wickidlady @sassygirl25 @maraudereestauderelb @rainyboul @cutie-bug @random-quartz @holamor @lea----b @heyitslexy @detectivebourbon @coffeenmoscato @presstocontinue @elisemockingbird @assbuttwithwings @geeksareunique @siriuslovesmarlene @witch-of-letters @delicatelilyflower @l-l-c-m-w-b @whovianayesha @hiddenprincess @yannii04 @jeanettexkillian @brighteststarinthesky @kilyra @gallxntdean @sweetvengeancee @lady1505 @thedarklightwithinus @ateliefloresdaprimavera @siriuslyimmoony @elodieyung @fudgeflyss @madamrogers @thatwrestlingfan91 @teranya @sophiabulbu69 @delusionsofnostalgia @effielumiere @mamaraptor @hot-and-spiceyyy @i-padfootblack-things @aya-fay @fcavalerro @sithskywalkers @raquelbc2003 @nildaebony @iwishyoucouldbekissed @lostinthoughts23 @tamanamohain @newtstarmander @suchatinyinfinity @blushingskywalker @queencocoakimmie @funerals-with-cake @love-dria @arrowswithwifi @swiftyhowlz @cheyfleur @dark-night-sky-99 @margot-black @celestegolden @king4thesirens @beautifuldesastre @ashkuuuu @luminex3 @nerdypinupcrystal @iblogabout-stuff @curlyhairedblueeyedangel @myplaceofheavenorhell @cafeconsoya @kryyta @russosprettydiamondnow @dorkybryan @mahalobro @yesixoxo

Let me know if you want to be added to my Billy Russo Tag List @something-tofightfor @piink-magnolias @hoodedhavok @aylinnmaslow @musingsofbanana @bluebird214 @rileyblues @nerrdstark @that-bwitch @ethereal-heavcns @queenisabella789 @colddecember-night @j-finco @arthoeaesthetixbs @tomhiddlestonsbeard @mischiefs-never-managed @romanceyour-ego @evyiione @drinix @sweetheart-im-the-boss @thebabblingbook @katieswinforddiaries @benbarnesfanforever @releasethekracko @itsjustmylifeconfessions @nostalgic-uncertainty @aveatquevale- @clarasworldofwonders @ladyblablabla @thehanneloner @hellostarposts @girlwhoisfearless @maria-beretta @friendlyneighbourhoodweirdo @marcelskittel @fictionwillneverdie @avipshamitra @hysteriadarling @living-on-rice @hello-la-v-en-rose @tiredofthisgeneration @marveliskindacool @giggleberts @stateofloveandvedder @encounterthepast @ironstank @spettrocoli @xserenax-13 @sleepwalkingelite @dreamingofonceuponatime @supernaturalcat7 @rosebunnie @damagelove @petersunderoos96 @dylanobrusso @littlemermaidprobz @agent-scully-182 @editboutique @fireeyes-on-teller-dixon-grimes @ania2603 @screwmesiriusblack @figlia--della--luna @balladblood @cloudywithachanceofcupcakes-blog @jessicahh @flightoftheflightrisk @slamharder @roschele

#billy russo #billy russo x reader #billy russo imagine #billy russo fanfic #my writing #best you ever had

237 notes · View notes

yuki-yozora · 4 years

Text

Variables - fanfic ( Underswap Papyrus x Reader ) (Chapter One)

: !!: Author's notes ◌ °: !!:

﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎

Hello darlings! ‧ ₊ ° “

If you don't want read the note, please, roll this part.

As I mentioned in the prologue, it's my first time doing an underswap fic, so I'd like your opinion. ˚ ˚ *

I'm doing it the way I think it would be Au if it was complete as well as the fangame, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% following its original forms. ‧ ₊ ° “

That said, I will do my best to stay faithful and make writing interesting and fun. *

The cover image was edited by me, I know it's not the best, but I tried. ° ⸼ ⊹

If I get the link or names of those who created the images I will make available. °

Remembering that I have profiles in tree communities of Undertale in pt br, if you see an Vivinare, something ( skeleton, boned or skelly) with the same post, it's me, don't be scared. ˚ ˚ *

· · ✦ · · · · · · · 1 Notices · · · · · ✦ · · · · · · ·

Fic will follow many of its original creator's ideas with some interpretations and theories of mine. Here's the link about the creator: Popcorn (His profile no longer exists, he made another and left Au, she belongs to fandom, basically)

CENSOR:

Not for fragile hearts.

CONTAINS

(in general): violence, bullying, subliminal jokes, slight depression.

GENRE:

Adventure, Drama, Comedy, Thriller & Romance

˚ ˚ * In this fanfic ⁺ ˚. *

1 Chara is a boy;

2 Has original characters.

˚ ˚ * This chapter presents ⁺ ˚. *

1 slight violence;

2 Citation to depression;

3 drama.

Attention:

Big chapter ahead.

﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍﹎﹍ A year has passed… No news ... No trail ... not even false leads. (That fill us with hope just to take care of us.)

We.

I haven't used those words in so many days when referring to my life. Just one in the back, my brother was kidnapped. Chara was taken from me and taken where no one can find him. Your friends' parents shout accusations, as if I could hurt a single hair on your head:

"- It was certainly the oldest. After all, it's not the first death of the family. -"

Heh. People can be cruel.

We were four. He, the only boy and middle brother, only ten years old. The other oldest, Bianca, and the youngest, Daisy, were murdered by someone we trusted. Bianca's boyfriend, Elric, was on the Wizards Order. And to be accepted, the fire had to be fed with a precious commodity. He spent years fooling us into doing this… so that I could do that to him… That was two years ago. I tried to overcome my sadness, Elric was already under arrest, there was a Chara to be comforted. Gradually, our somewhat lonely new routine took shape. He made good friends who didn't judge him as many citizens: relatives of the children killed by the weirdo. Affectionate surname. We finally started to straighten up ... Until one day a couple broke into the house, terrified Doug, Chara's best friend, while frantically attacking me and the other taking my brother out of me in the blink of an eye. Despite my success in containing who attacked us, the other simply disappeared without a trace ...

It was like magic.

The search began in a human pursuit. All in vain. Police dropped the case in the fourth month, new ones were emerging. And there's no way to blame them for that (in a small, old town near the mountains, Ebottown had its high dose of violence.) The neighborhood avoided me as if infected with the plague and made a point of emphasizing how much I was despised. Escape, death. I thought of all this. But the spark of hope that he could come back kept me from leaving. And for that, I tolerate. All the antagonistic attitude of the neighborhood took me from my daily work. It just wasn't working, and my colleagues got angry every time my presence disturbed their eyes. To ensure basic survival, I accepted the night job offered by Luka, (The intimidating woman, the neighbor of the front house. Tall and powerful, with flawless black skin. Wearing her full hair or brightly colored turban, but there was always a vibrant purple, almost neon. His style of clothing was almost Gothic, spiders reminded me, for a strange reason.). The job was in a very elegant night bar serving colorful drinks and a space for parties or 'dances'. All the darkness and the bright alcohol made it difficult for people to recognize me, and anyone who dared to bother me was quickly arrested by the other bartenders or Luka, who was responsible for security. Strange to say that I felt more comfortable there than in my own home… loneliness ails me. Like now, a rainy day, with strong winds. Typical of the city. Interestingly on my day off. No strolling around, (Y/N).

* The rain outside is cold as your feelings and you know you don't deserve it.

A sigh and a roll of his eyes. I was annoyed myself. This whole situation, as if childhood turbulence was no longer enough, made the most frequent episodes of self-deprecation. Now it wasn't just my huge thighs or scars until I said enough. Or having tires in place of a perfect waist, or my abdomen getting easily swollen. No ... That's what I said, how I said it, how I breathed ... I probably needed help:

* But no one will come ...

I got. Luka was a good person, but I couldn't pour that much on her… I'm not worth it. With a flick of my tongue, I got up from the flowered carpet, centered in a bedroom entrance. I just went in there to clean, other than that, I watched the empty beds by the entrance, in silence. I closed the door carefully, looking back out of habit before going to the bathroom. A few gray floors peeled off the wall (cheap workmanship), the sink still full, but there were leaks in the pipe, the toilet was so bad it clogged up with the urine flush, the boxing was tiny, as if someone was trapping you in the closet while bathing you in cold water. Yes, the shower burned. At least I still have cute cabinets and a mirror….

Ah…

I looked into the mirror.

* After all, it's still you.

Long, curly hair, very messy and (h/c), with all the broken hair floating around (better known as fritz and he was too thin to be soft), reddish brown eyes (which weren't as red as Chara's) were probably the only things I liked about myself. Then we have my skin (s/c) very pale due to lack of sun exposure, random acne spreading, not in excess but bothering, deep dark circles, decorated with today's tear marks. A humorless laugh escaped my lips, his hand moving almost on its own, turning on the tap, rubbing the water over his face carefully. This is kind of dangerous, being alone with my sad thoughts.

" Finally. " I sighed, wiping my face on the nearest towel, hands then, as a painful smile crossed my face. " I have that." I tapped my side pocket of shorts where a deck of cards accompanied me everywhere.

It was like an extra part of me since Luka gave it to me, along with three other never-missing items: the black lipstick that Bianca wore when she came out with us, always in a pocket, the yellow ribbon of Daisy's hair on my head. her hair may look like a rattlesnake's nest, but she was always there.) and the weird book of basic flirtations that featured Chara as a pun and that he liked more than necessary (though small, no longer fit into pockets, so the his usual place next to my hip, between underwear and skin.)

I took advantage and wet my hair a little, as if he wasn't coming back to it later. Finishing up and getting some of the apparent melancholy from my face, I managed a hesitant smile at my reflection, but it returned to the cold look when something seemed to burst in the distance and the light went out. A blackout… when all I have to eat is frozen spaghetti and I'm out of gas.

So ... so ... perfect.

Worthy of a rainy day, which seemed to get stronger by the moment. Making a loud, unfamiliar sound, I emerged from the bathroom downstairs, using instincts to move without breaking anything. A kind of mind map danced in my mind, the matches in the cutlery and candles in the open closet seemed to light up like object-hunting games. I lit three candles that had already been used, then looked at the plate of food waiting to be warmed. Shaking my head gently, I put it in the fridge, even though it had no light to keep it intact, and pulled a jar of yogurt in place. This will be my dinner. Sitting at the round table with a prepared spoon, I began setting up the cards to play solitaire when I heard another noise. Much closer than the last. Slowly I took the cards from the table and stuffed them in my pocket, frowning.

A bang ... Coming from the room. Walking carefully, I approached, looking slowly out the door. My coffee table was split in half, the iron baseball bat stuck in the wood seemed to be the murder weapon. That stick was from Luka ...

More noise came from upstairs, my door still seemed to be closed. A kind of cold rose in my veins. This was strangely familiar. I looked around the room before going to the club and pulling it carefully.

* The Metal gave you a shiver of premonition.

I climbed the stairs, knowing exactly where to step so as not to make noise, but when I reached the top floor, I relaxed. The noise ceased. All doors remained closed, my room being the only exception. I peered through the door and, as I thought, he fled, as he had a year ago. The room was ruined, as if it had been a break-in party. The bed broke, the mattress was torn, as were my papers and the wardrobe on the floor, some scattered clothes, a strange substance staining the rug and writing on the wall: - You know where to find me. - My camping backpack, which I used during the research, and a book on the history of the city were in the center of the room. The open book, an image of Mount Ebott circulated there.

"... All right, all right. "

I grabbed the backpack and the book, going down and putting on my neon blue wellies before leaving. I looked at Luka's house and the staff in hand, then ran, just pushing open the door. I didn't have to walk much, she was in the middle of the room, which had several broken things. Concerned, I knelt beside her, almost panicked, but relieved when I saw her breathing. I used your phone to call the police, but decided not to wait. Finally, I have a clue. A chance to catch him. I needed to do this. I laid her on the couch and left a small note, leaving before I changed my mind.

* You are full of justice.

It was night when I started to cross the forest. The rain persisted above, making the cold run down my back. Sharp branches and thorns scraped my skin and ripped my clothes, but now I barely cared. I needed to continue. It wasn't long before I reached the clearing in front of the mountain, the place that started it all. Immaculate gray dust lay where the eternal fire lay. Not washed by rain, not carried by wind. Right there, waiting. I wiped something hot from my face and turned, the cock getting colder against my skin.

* You need to move on.

Gradually, I felt scratches burning, but I made sure they wouldn't be long enough to stop bleeding. As expected, climbing was not an easy task. The soaked, sloping ground was almost a waterfall of mud that made me slip and lose my balance as I stepped on the loose rocks. My hair, my legs, my clothes had mud on everything. I dropped to my knees as I reached one of the peaks, breathing hard as I looked into the dark cavern not far away. Lightning roused me from the trance I entered, so I started to get up, feeling someone watching me.

- It is not bad. -

With one hard blow, I tried to hit him behind me, a whistling noise was all I could get. My muscles tensed automatically with the evil laugh. " Not bad. " He sneered behind me again, his dark red cloak flapping violently in the wind, mocking his hands saluting me.

" What you want? " I growled. He started to laugh, part of his mouth visible, a large scar on the left side of his face, lips and chin. " Foolish child. You have no idea what you did when you attacked that wizard, do you? Knights are so ignorant. " He shook his head, like I was a lost cause. A gold stick with a ruby top appeared in his left hand. " So we agreed that you should be eradicated, like monsters. But you multiply like rabbits." His voice was thoughtful. " Anyway, it's trivial in our day ... But, how you attacked us ... A massacre is inevitable! " Another laugh followed.

* You have no idea what he is talking about, but decide to face him anyway.

" Does not matter. " I took a deep breath, making a decision. "I don't want to know your motives now." I watched the ruby light up with its magic. " Still ... You must be punished. "

With a speed I didn't know, I advanced and hit the club in his ribs, pushing it aside and giving him a breathlessness. A sigh of pain was all I heard before something moved away from him and fell to the muddy ground. I felt discomfort in my chest and arm, but got up without difficulty. Once again, I set off to attack, but dodging a red sphere he threw. It surprised me and the rodeo was not so successful, it scraped my arm and burned my skin. Others came and it was hard to get rid of them, the mud at my feet making me slip all the time. Adrenaline took over my body and I felt even faster, confident, almost enjoying fighting, the steady pace: side, side, spin, jump, run, roll, attack, lose. It wasn't long before I hit his face, an uncomfortable, muffled sound sounded around us, something that looked like a tooth flew away from him. He withdrew closer to the cave, making me follow him cautiously. That smile sent mixed emotions in my core. Suddenly, many spheres formed and advanced against me at high speed, barely leaving room for evasion. One of them hit me in the belly and the pain I felt was masked by the lack of mobility. No matter how much I moved, I couldn't leave the place.

" Finally. " He hardly seemed to have such a hoarse voice that he seemed. " You slippery trash. " He approached, holding his stomach, sweat mixed with rain, some blood dripping from the corner of his mouth. " Now. " He gripped my face tightly, the team being torn from me and thrown into some dark corner. " Come . " My body began to float, following it to the cave. " Com'on, not look at me like that. I'll tell you a secret. " He laughed. It wasn't too deep, there were flowers scattered all over the floor, all golden flowers, I think, a smaller hole in the ceiling where the rain fell and a larger, very dark hole in the floor. On the walls, several inlaid crystals gave the lighting a mystical feel. Suddenly I was hurled, slipping on the floor and ruining some flowers, stopping right at the edge of the hole. Barely able to move, I lifted my face to face him. I was completely defenseless. There was a macabre smile on his face, his now visible eyes glowing with blood red. "Your brother is just waiting." He whispered. " Go get him. -" And a kick threw me in my death. Soon, only darkness painted my world.

*It's the end.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · End notes

My english is very beginner, so i'm using the help of google translator. If anyone with available time can help me review, I appreciate it. (Y/N) - your name (h/c) - hair color (s/c) - skin color More legends will be added in the future! Word Count: About 2,880 If i use any images similar to the game can be found on the Gamejolt website. They do not belong to me.

#undertale #underswap #undertale au #reader #fanfic #neutral route #chara dreemurr #mages #magic #underswap x reader #swap papyrus x reader #swap papyrus

3 notes · View notes

pinelife3 · 5 years

Text

Mindhunter: No Magic

I’ve been reading the book Mindhunter. You might have seen the Netflix/David Fincher TV show (or read the book?) - it’s based on the life of FBI agent John Douglas, the guy who pioneered criminal profiling, especially of serial killers, in the 70s, 80s and 90s. An interesting element of Mindhunter is how many cases Douglas worked on where the police consulted a medium. I kid you not! In tough, high-profile cases where the local police needed a breakthrough, they would sometimes call a psychic to ask for confirmation on their leads, hoping that the medium could magically intuit something about the case that the cops had missed (where does the killer live, what does he look like, what’s his line of work, etc.). It doesn’t sound like Douglas himself ever called a medium, or put much faith in their psychic intuition, but he does mention that they were around and contributing to cases he worked on. It seems like in the early days of profiling, people had a similar opinion of Douglas’ work: that it was superstitious, unscientific, unreliable - this even extended to his testimony and analysis as an FBI expert sometimes being inadmissible in court:

Though I’d already been qualified as a crime-scene analysis expert in several states, the defense referred to me as a “voodoo man” for the way I came up with my interpretations, and the judge ultimately ruled that I wouldn’t testify.

In “Killing Types”, a post on this blog from January 2016, I compared two accounts of how the criminal psychological profile of the Butcher Baker was developed. One account was from Wikipedia, and the other was Douglas, who personally developed the profile:

The serial killer in question was Robert Hansen AKA the Butcher Baker (everything I’m gonna write about him is via Wikipedia. You should just read their article if you want a more detailed account as I’m just summarising here). He was a very shy, skinny young boy with acne and a stutter. He was horribly bullied and the cute girls in school didn’t like him. Wikipedia doesn’t have a citation for this, but apparently: because he was “shunned by the attractive girls in school, he grew up hating them and nursing fantasies of cruel revenge.” As he grew up, Hansen became an adept hunter. Like many serial killers, Hansen was also a thief and an arsonist. From 1971 to 1983 he murdered at least 17 women ranging in ages from 16 to 41.

Hansen’s typical move was to abduct women (usually sex workers) and take them to his cabin near Anchorage, Alaska. There he would rape them and then set them loose so he could hunt them in the woods. Of his confessed murders, many of the bodies have not been found.

By 1982, three bodies had been found in shallow graves in the woods and the Alaska state troopers called in the FBI to assist in putting together a criminal profile. According to Wikipedia, FBI agents put together a profile for a person with the following characteristics:

Experienced hunter

Low self-esteem

History of being rejected by women

Would keep ‘souvenirs’ from his murders

A stutter

...[Douglas] devotes a chapter to Hansen, and the way he describes what happened is actually kind of different from Wikipedia’s version of events. Wikipedia makes it sound like the FBI turned up and pulled the profile out of thin air just based on looking at the crimes, whereas Douglas says that when he and his boys rolled into Anchorage, Hansen was already a suspect. So what they were doing was comparing what they knew about Hansen to what they knew about the crimes and seeing how things matched up and if he was a likely suspect. So the profile they put together did include the bullet points above and, yes, some of that would have been speculation (such as the self-esteem problems, the history of rejection, and the souvenir keeping), but the rest (such as saying he had a stutter) were based on the fact that they knew Hansen and it was completely fucking obvious he had a stutter and acne scarring. Anyway, Douglas describes his profile and process as follows:

“[Hansen] was short and slight, heavily pockmarked, and spoke with a severe stutter. I surmised he had had severe skin problems as a teenager and, between that and the speech impediment, was probably teased or shunned by his peers, particularly girls. So his self-esteem would have been low… And, psychologically speaking, abusing prostitutes is a pretty standard way of getting back at women in general.

“I also made much of the fact that Hansen was known as a proficient hunter… I don’t mean to imply that most hunters are inadequate types, but in my experience, if you have an inadequate type to being with, one of the ways he might try to compensate is by hunting or playing around with guns or knives… I was betting that Hansen’s speech problem disappeared when he felt most dominant and in control.”

So I think we can call that another case closed: it is not possible for an FBI profiler, no matter how gifted, to look at a crime scene or a string of murders and miraculously determine that the killer has a speech impediment.

As you saw above, my read of the passage from Mindhunter was that Hansen was a top suspect, that Douglas made some additional speculations about Hansen, but essentially just endorsed the guy the local cops already suspected. So specific details in the profile that seem like magical inferences weren’t as magical as Wikipedia made them seem. In January 2016 I hadn’t read Mindhunter, but I looked up what I thought was the relevant section on Google Books and that was the basis for the above section of my blog post. (If you’ve never tried to read things online for free, you may not be aware of this, but Google Books provides previews of lots of books, but you have to buy the book to read the whole thing - so back in 2016, I just looked at the pages of Mindhunter that Google had made available for free.)

Now I’m finally reading Mindhunter in full, my take on the process of profiling has changed: I do believe that Douglas and co. could have inferred that the killer had a stutter or bad skin without knowing Hansen (a man with a stutter and bad skin) was the top suspect. Indeed, Douglas tells a number of stories where he and his team correctly made similar inferences - for example, in the profile they wrote up on the Trailside Killer (not covered by Wikipedia but chronicled elsewhere). On the process of developing the profile of Hansen, Douglas writes:

We didn’t profile Hansen or devise a strategy to identify and catch him according to our usual procedure. In September 1983, by the time my unit was called in, Alaska state troopers had already identified Hansen as a murder suspect. But they weren’t sure of the extent of his crimes, or whether such an unlikely individual, a family man and pillar of the community, was capable of the terrible things of which he was being accused...

Even though the police had a suspect before I heard about him, I wanted to make sure my judgement wouldn’t be clouded by the investigative work already done. So before I let them give me the specifics of their man during our first phone conference, I said, “First tell me about the crimes and let me tell you about the guy.”

They described the unsolved murders and the details of the young woman’s story. I described a scenario and an individual that they said sounded very much like their suspect, down to the stuttering...

In a sense, this was the opposite of what we normally do in that we were working from a known subject, trying to determine whether his background, personality and behaviour fit a set of crimes.

Is he a wizard? How’d he do that? How could Douglas know from the description of the crimes that Robert Hansen had a stutter?

The truth is common, ordinary, sensible: he had seen, heard about and worked on cases like this many times and had developed an impression of the kind of person who is capable of hunting women like animals in the woods. He’d spoken to serial killers in prison about their crimes, observed them up close, understood their motivations (control, domination, power, punishment, lust, rage). He’s a walking database of crimes and correlations, which allows him to mentally compile the information he’s received, query it against similar cases and then make what seem like totally uncanny inferences. In terms of demystifying something that seemed arcane and inexplicable, I don’t think I’ve ever read a book as satisfying and steady as Mindhunter. This guy isn’t magical - he’s just fucking sick at his job. He knows his shit. He’s a towering obelisk of professional competence.

That’s not to say they got everything right. For example, Douglas and his unit saw a big difference in lust killers who raped their victims vs. killers who masturbated at the scene. If a killer doesn’t rape his victim but masturbates over her, Douglas and co. would infer that the killer lacks confidence, that he’s inexperienced with women, he’s single, anti-social, probably has a shitty job or no job at all, and because of that he likely lives at home or with a relative, he feels he lacks control, etc. This type of analysis was often correct, but did sometimes lead them down the wrong path (which Douglas acknowledges in the updated foreword for the 2017 reprint of Mindhunter). Since the publication of Mindhunter in the 90s, a number of prominent non-rape lust killers have been caught and it turns out they were married with kids, they were upstanding members of their community, they were homeowners who worked decent jobs, and they seemed normal around women in social settings (see: the BTK Strangler). They simply weren’t the conspicuous, twitching deviants Douglas and his unit imagined.

Mindhunter feels like a book from a different time. Douglas is vociferously pro-death penalty. He’s more sympathetic and vengeful when the victim was a cute lil blondie than a street worn whore. He is interested in the psychology of killers, but is unmoved by their troubled backgrounds: Douglas acknowledges that practically every serial killer he studied had abusive parents, never felt loved or safe, were victims themselves in many ways - but he’s pretty indifferent towards that angle. This perspective would probably get more play in a book on criminals written today - modern writers might be interested in a holistic view of criminality and suffering as cyclical. Douglas does say the number one thing we could do to prevent the development of serial killers and psychos is love our children more and have more resources available to intervene when kids seemed to be headed down the path of darkness... but, look at Douglas’ description of a guy they were looking for in Illinois:

Like so many of these guys, this one is a real loser with a poor self-image. He may come across as confident, but deep-down, he is extremely inadequate.

The UNSUB is a real loser!

One of the key sources of information for Douglas is the killer’s signature. A signature differs from a modus operandi (MO) in that the MO is how the crime is carried out (e.g. killer surveils house for weeks in advance, cuts phone line during the night, breaks in via a window, uses the victim’s tights as a ligature, etc.) while the signature is what the killer does to get off: posing the body, keeping trophies, torturing the victim, taking photographs. Douglas says a killer’s MO may change over time based on failed crimes, stressors, changes to police work, etc. but a signature will remain steady. For example, when Bundy was at his most desperate after escaping from prison (for the second time!), he went on a poorly planned spree. By now, Bundy knew it was all over. The police knew who he was, what he’d done, and were searching for him - it was a matter of time until he was recaptured. The electric chair was waiting. Bundy’s MO had developed with experience and he was typically an organised killer who used a kit, props, and had the skill to lure his victims, but when he knew the net was closing in, he became disorganised - his MO changed. Instead of approaching a pretty girl on the street, luring her to his car and then taking his time to torture/kill her, he broke into a sorority house in the middle of the night and attacked the residents in their own rooms in vicious, quick attacks. Interestingly, this methodology was similar to his original technique when he was younger and less experienced. When he was under pressure, he regressed. Via Wikipedia:

Bundy's modus operandi evolved in organization and sophistication over time, as is typical of serial murderers, according to FBI experts. Early on, it consisted of forcible late-night entry followed by a violent attack with a blunt weapon on a sleeping victim. Some victims were sexually assaulted with inert objects; all except Healy were left as they lay, unconscious or dead. As his methodology evolved Bundy became progressively more organized in his choice of victims and crime scenes. He would employ various ruses designed to lure his victim to the vicinity of his vehicle where he had pre-positioned a weapon, usually a crowbar. In many cases he wore a plaster cast on one leg or a sling on one arm, and sometimes hobbled on crutches, then requested assistance in carrying something to his vehicle. Bundy was regarded as handsome and charismatic by many of his victims, traits he exploited to win their confidence.

For Douglas, an MO is not a reliable way of tying crimes together - because an MO can change. But a signature (which is often at the crux of why the crime was committed) will remain relatively static and is a good clue that two crimes carried out in different ways may be related. The MO may tell you some practical details about the killer (he owns or has access to a car, he’s a local who’s familiar with the back roads, he was known the victim because he was able to gain access to the home without a struggle, etc.) but the signature is driven by behaviour - and that’s what reveals the pits inside a person.

What’s been revelatory for me in Mindhunter is how there is a real, meaningful link between private behaviour and the surface-level details a person. We like to think that our interiority is private and inscrutable to others, that we’re boxed canyon mysteries with rich inner lives and motivations that are inconceivable to the people around us, that our true selves transcend superficial things like how we look or where we work - but Douglas can tell whether a guy will get a haircut after he’s killed someone. He knows if the killer was drunk at the time of the crime. He can tell if they were in the military or not - and if they were, whether they had a dishonourable discharge. How old the killer is. His race. Whether he’ll want to talk to people about the crime. The chances of him owning a German Shepherd. Whether he finished high school. If he keeps a journal. Whether he’s ever been married - and if it was a happy marriage. Most of these are visible details of ourselves that we display to the world, and feel safe displaying because they don’t give too much away: you don’t think people can accurately read anything serious or private about you based on something like how old your car is or whether you watch the nightly news. But all these insignificant details do reveal something. Maybe it is kind of magical.

#Trailside Killer #david carpenter #robert hansen #Butcher Baker #John Douglas #Mindhunter #David Fincher #FBI #Ted Bundy

1 note · View note

wetwareproblem · 5 years

Text

@diagnosis-prognosis-psychosis Frankly this is taking up way too much real estate on my blog so... this is what you get.

I was drafting an extremely lengthy point-by-point response to this, explaining all of the many, many, many, many things you misunderstand about every religion other than your particular flavour of Xianity, and Judaism in particular. I sunk probably an hour into it.

Then I got to your point 4.

4. You’re right, I am. My faith demands that I find a model of Judaism that fits Christian teachings, and that model is the model that Christ and his apostles preached. That is what my faith considers the true model of Judaism - a model wherein evangelism was only prohibited by the first covenant due to the circumstances of Israel at the time.

That’s... that’s a show-stopper on the religious-education front.

You are never going to find that model, because it doesn’t exist. There is no “version of Judaism” preached by the followers of Oily Josh, because that religion is Xianity. Judaism is, in fact, its own distinct entity with its own distinct history. A history that includes over a millenium of Xian evangelists being the first step toward murdering us.

So yeah. We take a dim view of evangelism.

I’m done talking religion with you; you are just too completely, willfully ignorant to even make sense of it anyway.

That leaves us with the rather disturbing politics you’ve been fed.

9a. You don’t seem to be taking the cute snarky hints, so let me be explicit: The things you are saying? Are made up by racists.

Kid, I have lived over twice as long as you. This means, among other things, I’ve got way more life experience than you. Don’t give me that “if you lived in a small town you’d know” bullshit. I have lived in many places in my time, from cities of millions to a community that still numbers less than 100 people total.

The divide you’re painting does not exist. There are urban communities (and let me come out and say outright what you keep dancing around: communities of coolour) that are tight-knit and vibrant. There are rural “communities” in name only, stretches of road where you might see your neighbours once every couple of months and never know their names.

You have been fed a racist myth, kid. I’m sorry.

9b. [citation needed]

9c. You’re about ten seconds from launching into a diatribe, I can tell. But... riddle me this:

You claim government is evil.

You claim government is beholden to corporations.

You claim corporations are not evil.

How are corporations not responsible for what their minions do?

9d. No. No it is not. You see, unlike you, I lived through the 90s. I personally witnessed the way “urban” was used in that time. Remind me, when was he apprehended again?

You are talking racially-tinged politics whether you know it or not.

9e. “I never defended their actions, I just said they’re not a problem and we shouldn’t really do anything about them.” Now who’s playing semantics? What you are doing provides cover for their actions because - get this! - if we don’t do anything about them THEY ARE FREE TO FUCKING ACT.

Re the FBI stuff: See point 9b.

Kid, the alt-right literally marched under the slogan “Jews will not replace us” before murdering someone I would have been proud to call a comrade. They routinely talk about how they want to kill us all off, threaten us, beat us, and shoot up synagogues.

So yes. The alt-right do, in fact, see me as Them. They see me as a traitor and collaborator, and they have shown that at least some of them are ready to kill over it.

Have you ever heard your sources talking about ZOG? (If not, please remember this when it happens. Because it will happen.) What that refers to is the “zionist-occupied government,” a common belief in alt-right circles that Jews have infiltrated the government and are the reason it is bad. They will never ally with me against the evil government, because they think I’m the reason the government is evil.

“Is one point of difference enough to condemn your greatest ally against-” When that “one point of difference” is whether I and people like me should be alive or not, then yes, that is enough to condemn anybody who differs from me on that point as an enemy and a would-be murderer.

The rest of that paragraph is racist bullshit that somebody fed you because if you thought that Black people were the cause of everything bad you wouldn’t notice while they picked your pockets. I’m sorry this happened to you, but now you have an opportunity to do better - to show righteousness.\

I will not engage further with racist diatribes, and they will not get reblogged here because there’s no way I’m giving them a wider audience.

10a. So... where are all of the people shooting up white churches in the name of nonwhite people? Have you got a list of 100 people murdered by antifa? ‘Cause... I was able to find that kind of evidence of a problem on the alt-right side in like 30 seconds tops, and frankly I know it’s being awfully conservative with that body count.

One side in this debate has a list of murderers and gunmen who were specifically motivated by common ideology. The other does not.

Why are you pretending these are equal? Why is it important to you to see “murderers” and “not murderers” as the same?

I don’t care about political registration. That’s one of those clever distortions fed to you by people who want to feed you a story. What I care about is actual motivation, as demonstrated in statements preceding these incidents, documents left by the people, the people themselves when they’re around after the fact, things they said and did while attacking people, etc.

You know, the things that show what their reason for resorting to violence was.

That strikes me as a little more important than a piece of paperwork that they had to fill out once upon a time because your political system is deeply weird.

🚩: Saying that having the “wrong” hormone levels for your gender is bad is something that will always splash on trans people, who literally always naturally have the “wrong” hormone levels for our gender. So yeah. Transphobic. Saying that abnormal hormone levels mean you are irrational and should not be listened to is wildly transphobic.

🚩: See the bolded line in point 9e.

11. I don’t care what your original motivation was for repeating right wing myths. I care that:

You’re repeating right-wing myths as facts, and You are doing so specifically to cover up for the actions of Nazis. Oh, and also: In doing so, you are playing into very old antisemitic conspiracy theories. Eventually, the people you’re listening to are going to use your belief in this myth to convince you that actually Jews are just oppressing ourselves.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous when I put it that way. But there is a direct path from A to B that these people use all the time. I’d lay it out here but frankly I’m not sure you won’t believe it because you are in just that vulnerable and ignorant a position.

I desperately hope you find more honest and less manipulative sources before it’s too late. But... I’ve seen enough kids like you that I’m very, very worried you won’t. Hell, TBH I’m not sure it’s not too late already.

This is an important lesson: It doesn’t matter whether you intended to say bigoted things or not. You did say bigoted things, and now you need to own that. You screwed up; fix the mistake.

You have a model of what you think about Jews, but... I’m afraid that model has some holes in it.

If you don’t think less of us, why do you think that we - people who live and breathe Judaism every single day - know less about it than you, an outsider who literally only knows what other outsiders have told you? Do you think we’re that ignorant of our own history, customs, and culture? Or do you think that you’re just naturally that much more knowledgeable than everybody about everything?

You might not hate us. But you’re spreading falsehoods that have a very ugly and violent history, and that put us in danger. If you don’t hate us, if you don’t want us endangered, that should concern you.

Your perspective is coloured by your faith - and that faith, unfortunately, is stained with a history and undercurrent of bigotry and harm toward Jews. That’s not saying it’s irreparable, but you have to understand that that context is there and it shapes interactions between our cultures. Some of the remnants of that historical bigotry are still there. Some of the less obvious forms of it are still routinely practiced. I don’t expect you to know and recognize all of this - how could you? It doesn’t affect you, after all! - but please, please show us enough kindness to listen when we talk about how it affects us.

#WWP: Ayin #antisemitism #racism #dogwhistles and false narratives #nazis

17 notes · View notes

ultranos · 6 years

Note

what do you mean about an 'actually appropriate' use of the song 'hallelujah'?

Friend, you are the greatest because I have goddamn citations.

So I would be entirely remiss in not stating the obvious, that being that “Hallelujah” was written by Leonard Cohen, a Jewish man. And that Superman was also created by Jewish men and that Kryptonians in general are basically space-Jewish.

Okay? Okay.

So using it in Supergirl is already like 1000x better than other times it’s been misused (Shrek, I’m looking at you). As the link says,

Whatʹs fascinating about all this is not simply the songʹs ubiquity on TV dramas‐‐itʹs that itʹs used in the exact same way every time. Songs can be used sincerely, ironically, as background shading, as subtle comment, as product placement. ButʺHallelujahʺalways appears as people are being sad, quietly sitting and staring into space or ostentatiously crying, and always as a way of tying together the sadness of different characters in different places. In short, itʹs always used as part of aʺsad montage.”

“But nos”, you might be saying, “Supergirl did kind of use it in a sad montage”. To which I say “INCORRECT”. (Well, actually I say “why are you talking at a computer screen, I cannot hear you, random internet person”). For a depressingly rare-use, the show actually fit it line-by-line and verse-by-verse into an appropriate context.

“Hallelujah” is an incredible contradiction. It weaves together faith and doubt, the sacred and the profane, religion and sexuality. It’s literal and layered at the same time.

(If you think I’m lying, look at the first verse:

It goes like this, the fourth, the fifthThe minor fall, the major lift

and the music [chord progression] is literally doing exactly that)

It’s about King David, it’s about losing faith, of trying. It’s about arguing with god and wrestling with spirituality.

Cohen himself said:

"I filled two notebooks with the song," he told a British newspaper in 2008.

"And I remember being on the floor, on the carpet in my underwear, banging my head on the floor and saying, 'I can't finish this song.'"

When he did finally finish it in 1984, three years and over 70 verses later, his record company turned it down.

This is why I will swear by the versions sung by Cohen himself, because there something about Cohen’s hard voice that speaks of experience that adds weight to the words. (k.d. lang’s is also incredible for this reason) I cannot stand the overly-polished versions of Buckley and especially Wainwright because they just seem to lose that sense of experienced, tired desperation.

The show really only only got two verses, so I’ll tackle that before I go onto OTHER VERSES THEY COULD HAVE CHOSEN AND IT’S STILL GREAT.

Your faith was strong but you needed proofYou saw her bathing on the roofHer beauty and the moonlight overthrew you

Well, that first line is basically what the entire plot of the damn episode was, so good job there.

She tied you to a kitchen chairShe broke your throne and she cut your hairAnd from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

Again, episode. Broken power and all that’s left is faith.

Now, the really interesting thing is some of those verses that DIDN’T show up. I offer up the next verse, which basically seems like Alex’s arc this season in six lines

Baby I have been here beforeI know this room, I've walked this floorI used to live alone before I knew youI've seen your flag on the marble archLove is not a victory marchIt's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

Actually, the next verse does too

There was a time you let me knowWhat's really going on belowBut now you never show it to me, do you?And remember when I moved in youThe holy dove was moving tooAnd every breath we drew was Hallelujah

Oh, and look both Kara:

You say I took the name in vainI don't even know the nameBut if I did, well really, what's it to you?There's a blaze of light in every wordIt doesn't matter which you heardThe holy or the broken Hallelujah

and Alex

Maybe there's a God aboveBut all I've ever learned from loveWas how to shoot somebody who outdrew youAnd it's not a cry that you hear at nightIt's not somebody who's seen the lightIt's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

And then we can sum up pretty much EVERYONE’S current arc

I did my best, it wasn't muchI couldn't feel, so I tried to touchI've told the truth, I didn't come to fool youAnd even though it all went wrongI'll stand before the Lord of SongWith nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah

Look, this song is so often misused as overly saccharine or as cheap emotional shorthand for “sadness”, but the show used it correctly, not only using the music to reinforce character themes in the episode and season thus far, but they also played it over scenes of Kara and J’onn returning to the faiths they thought they lost. And that’s why it also worked perfectly with Alex going to bed with Maggie, because at this point, we know that Alex isn’t going to get that “victory march” and all that’s left is the cold and broken hallelujah.

An essay from 2010 puts it well:

One reason that “Hallelujah” appeals is that it gives voice—and song—to the spiritual hunger of millions who find it difficult or impossible to identify with orthodox expressions of their longings. This song expresses their human fragility and their desire to be released from the shallowness of our age, which offers substandard spiritual fare. They search; they desire to reconnect with the transcendent, even though their search is often handicapped by an astonishing spiritual inarticulateness. The danger is that a lack of spiritual anchors will condemn them to aimless drifting or submersion in the inescapable sameness of a culture for which all forms of spirituality are of equal indifference, a culture not rooted in the definite contours offered by religious faith.

“Hallelujah” does not end with neatly packaged answers. Instead it is content to stay with the rawness of an open wound, though allowing a sliver of hope to shine through. We can only hope if we can let loss run its course, without giving in to the compulsion to end its discomfort prematurely. There is a beauty in this kind of acceptance, a wisdom hidden in the knowledge that even when we suffer, there is still light. This illumination ennobles us even as we labor to find vindicating words and reasons. There is a transfiguring dimension to our struggles, because our nights are pierced by a divine light. We can learn to recognize hidden springs of water gushing from what seems to be only a desert.

And if that wasn’t the theme of the episode and the current season thus far, I don’t know what is.

#nos answers things #supergirl #music #hallelujah #Anonymous

257 notes · View notes

lily--tomlin · 7 years

Note

Do you think Bill knew/knows that Hillary deserves a better partner? Do you think Hillary ever recognized that she deserved and could have better?

Well… I think the answer to this question depends on the answer to the “Big Question” about the two of them. I’m not going to put this under a cut, but I guess I’ll prepare for a bit of a shit-storm for diving into this. [I should have, this is very long].

I’ll preface this (I do that a lot) with a few points. (1) This won’t be cited with sources and references, so you can basically throw it all away if you want to. I’d respect that. I’ll likely write up another post with some of the same points, but with some citations for each scenario if there’s any interest. (2) There are a lot of feelings about this on all sides from folks in this “fandom”. That’s fine. But, while there are feelings, we need to acknowledge that, (3) aside from the information we all have access to, there is no one who really knows the answer to this question - the heart of the heart of it, all the depth and nuance - except Bill and Hillary. I myself have made a decision to (generally) accept reality as they present it. Generally. But I will discuss things contrary to that below, so… brace yourself.

Skip to the end for the actual answer to this anon’s question, if you’d like.

So, before I can answer whether Bill thinks Hillary “deserved better” than him, or if Hillary believes the same, you have to decide on your own answer to the question: What is the true nature of their relationship?

And let’s be clear here, just one more time. Aside from interpreting the words of HRC and WJC, and the outside observations of both friends and critics, no one knows the answer to this any more than anyone else looking from the outside in. We all have access to (most of) the same information, but I must emphasize that truly, only Bill and Hillary can ever answer these questions to the absolute nth degree of certainty. We are outside observers, and our knowledge is based on the whims of the storytellers, and the story they want to present to their audience - for good and for evil.

So. There are a few “ranges” to consider when you form your own opinion on “The Big Question”:

Does Bill Clinton love his wife - including romantically?

Does Hillary Clinton love her husband - including romantically?

Did they marry out of love or as a political partnership?

Did Hillary permit his infidelity, or forgive it?

On any of the above - is the answer to that question at the beginning of their relationship the same as it is today? Additionally, each of these questions are not a black and white, yes or no. There’s a spectrum. It’s up to outside observers to review the evidence, and then formulate an opinion.

Let’s walk through some possible scenarios. For the record - I believe #1. Don’t burn me at the stake for this, okay?

The possibilities:

#1. Hillary and Bill have a conventional marriage, and they love each other deeply - a romantic love included within that. While Bill has cheated on her, likely beginning in the 1980′s (it’s worth noting that Hillary does not mention anything about his infidelity in the 80′s, even in Living History - despite that fact that at the time of her writing it, the truth about his affair with Flowers had been exposed), it was relatively rare and not “meaningful”. Rumors about vast numbers of sexual partners are overstated/lies, and the cheating that did occur was due to some personal issues for Bill (how he was raised, issues in his childhood, self-control issues, sexual addiction, etc.), and not due to a lack of love, affection, or attraction to his wife. These instances of infidelity caused significant pain in their marriage, and they may have come close to divorcing over it in the late 80′s, but ultimately worked through it together. Hillary was genuinely shocked and devastated by the truth that came to light about Monica - not just because of the bad publicity, but because she was personally betrayed. They have since been through therapy together and Bill dealt with his demons, and has remained faithful since.

This is the closest to what has expressed as reality by both Hillary and Bill - aside from the general exclusion of commentary by both of them regarding his infidelity in the 1980′s in their memoirs and in general (not surprising, even though the Flowers’ affair was something he ultimately admitted to, etc.). There is plenty of evidence to support this version of reality.

#2. All the same as above, but his cheating was as often as has been rumored by their critics and some supporters (i.e. Trooper-gate, hundreds of women, allegations of affairs post-Monica, etc.), either due to personal demons, or because he lacks romantic attraction and affection for his wife, or some combination thereof. Hillary was personally hurt and betrayed by this, but has chosen to stay with him because she loves him and forgives him. She may or may not know the extent of his infidelity.

There is some evidence to support this. There is also a lot of extremely unreliable sources which muddy the water. Some allegations have been proved false outright. Hillary’s reason for staying is as she has presented it. To rationalize this reality, you must believe that either (1) She didn’t know the extent of the cheating and forgave him for what she did know, or (2) she knew the extent of the cheating and forgave him anyways.

#3. All the same as above, but Hillary has chosen to stay at some point for political optics and not love.

Some supporters and critics alike have suggested this is the reason she stays with him. It is contrary to the reason Hillary herself has presented for staying with him, as noted above. To rationalize this reality, you must believe that Hillary herself is lying about why she remained in her marriage.

#4. They have a purely political relationship. While they may have had some attraction early on, they ultimately decided to marry for a partnership of minds rather than romance or romantic love. Hillary agreed that Bill was free to seek sexual relationships outside of their marriage.

This is contrary to what has been presented by both Bill and Hillary, as well as their close associates. Anonymous sources have suggested this is the case. To rationalize this reality, you must believe that Hillary has lied about… basically her entire adult life, on every platform she has been given to discuss it.

Now, to answer your question.

Do you think Bill knew/knows that Hillary deserves a better partner?

Do you think Hillary ever recognized that she deserved and could have better?

Let’s apply those to the scenarios above, in reverse order.

If you believe #4 in the list above, the questions you pose don’t apply. His cheating wasn’t something that wronged her - it was part of the agreement. The only thing for him to feel bad about was that he didn’t do a good job hiding it. Likewise for Hillary.

If you believe in #3, perhaps yes for Bill, and certainly yes for Hillary - to the extent that she remains with him only for political purposes and not out of love, which he no longer earns.

If you go with #1 or #2, then we start getting a bit closer to what I think is reality, and the questions are interesting to explore.

Do you think Hillary ever recognized that she deserved and could have better?

Now, my answer isn’t going to be a popular one. I honestly just don’t believe that she thinks this way. I’ve never read or heard anything from her that indicates these feelings. Now to be fair, if she had these thoughts at any point, it’s very unlikely that they would be expressed publicly. However, even shortly after the cheating with Monica came to light, here’s Diane Blair’s summary of their conversation on the topic:

He has been her best friend for 25 years, her husband for 23 years, they’r [sic] connected in every way imaginable … ever since he took office they’ve been going thru [sic] personal tragedy … and immediately all the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them … she didn’t realize the toll it was taking on him. … She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles to realize the price he was paying.

That sounds like a woman who took on much of his failings as some of her own - not one who was thinking about what else she deserved or could have had with someone else. I am not saying that this way of thinking is right (in fact, I find it heartbreaking) - but that is HRC’s own presentation of the situation at the time to a close friend. She may have come to change her thinking since then, but she wasn’t exactly a spring chicken at the time of the conversation, and this wasn’t the first brush with Bill’s infidelity. (Let’s also address, for a moment, that this could have been total B/S on her part and she just wanted to present this reality to Diane - depends on whether you think HRC is a liar or not. If you believe in #3 or #4 above, you might.)

In terms of better - I think it depends on what better means. I’m sure she’s aware that she could have had someone different, someone who didn’t cheat. But she made her choices, and I believe with full agency. I think she had a good idea of the trade-offs of being with Bill, but felt the good in him outweighed the lacks and failings. Different? Sure. But “better” is relative. More on that in her words to Diane:

Bill has done brilliant things as president, she believes in those issues and causes and will continue to fight for them. … So – she’s in it for the long haul … mostly because she knows who she is and what her values and priorities are and she’s straight with those – she really is okay.

And then there’s Hillary’s own explanation for why she stayed with Bill. In Living History, it comes down to “a love that has persisted for decades.” Not just the accomplishment or the politics - but love. And a lifetime of it. What she perceives as a lifetime of love.

When I think of the partnership between the two of them, I think it was forged out of both deep love and admiration, and a knowledge of what they could accomplish together. I think Hillary always saw the bigger picture - it was never about who could be “better” for her, personally. It was about the fact that the two of them could change the world, even if he did fuck up all the time. That trade-off was worth it, and she was willing to forgive his weakness in order to make their impact on history. And she loved him, still.

Do you think Bill knew/knows that Hillary deserves a better partner?

I do. There are many things he’s said to indicate this. Here’s a quote that I think encapsulates it - and one of my favorites from him:

I always loved her a lot, but not always well.

He knows.

#anonymous #history of hillary #oh god this is long i'm sorry

123 notes · View notes

gracedman · 4 years

Text

The Law and the Prophets

Matthew 5:17–18 (ESV)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

It has recently struck me with a new force, concerning in these verses that the Lord Jesus Christ did not say that he came to fulfill “it,” a single agency called the Law. But he came to fulfill both the Law and also the Prophets. I was always taught that this phrase “the Law and the Prophets” was the common Jewish way to refer to their Bible or the Old Testament. Such a view is certainly supported from these passages from Luke and John:

Luke 24:44 (ESV)

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

John 1:45 (ESV)

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

But what if this teaching was masking a further spiritual reality that Jesus was trying to convey here in Matthew. What if Matthew were saying something far more profound to the ears of those listening to him speak. These listeners knew the Law and would be threatened by any who would seek to overthrow it or damage it. But what if someone came and knocked the rust and superficiality from their understanding of their Law and raised a new and penetrating view of our need to have it applied to our lives. What if here in Matthew, the word, “prophets,” referred not to a scroll or part of the Old Testament but to a person? One Greek dictionary puts it this way: “In the NT prophḗtēs corresponds to the person who in the OT spoke under divine influence and inspiration.” What if Jesus were saying that he came to give absolute credibility to the truth of the details of the law but also as a prophet from God who would speak under divine influence and inspiration to the specific needs of the moment in our walk with God. Have we really heard what Jesus was saying to us in this passage? Doesn’t he point out the insufficiency and inadequacy of the Pharisaical system of teaching and practice in the next several verses?

Matthew 5:19–20 (ESV)

Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Doesn’t Matthew quote more from the Old Testament than the other gospels? I believe so. A highly regarded author says this of Matthew’s gospel:

“He has fifty-three Old Testament citations and more than seventy allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures. Thirteen times, the book emphasizes that Jesus’ actions were a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.”

So, Matthew has a high regard for the written words of God. He has an emphasis upon the fulfillment of every “jot and tittle” of the Old Testament. The smallest detail of the Old Testament was and will be fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ. As John stated: he is “the word who became flesh and dwelt among us.”

But he is also the Prophet whom Moses spoke of:

Deuteronomy 18:15–19 (ESV)

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

Matthew 5:18 launches the first of the five times in the sermon on the mount, where Jesus stands up as a prophet and brings a fuller clarification of the Law. Jesus Christ tightens the law and stiffens its requirements, and intensifies its examination of our heart’s thoughts, motives and intentions. All to show what Paul will summarize later:

Romans 9:30–31 (ESV)

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.

Romans 10:4 (ESV)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

It takes the law and a prophet who will show us our true need. One, who will help us to see our complete depravity and lead us into Christ’s complete provision and total deliverance through his cross and his gracious salvation.

Lord Jesus, thank you for the work of the law in our ears and hearts. But help us to receive those whom you have sent to preach and teach your precious words of grace as well. May they not be strangers to our lives. Amen!!!

#the law and the prophets #the Law #the prophets #grace

0 notes

lesliepump · 4 years

Text

The Motion to Compel: Think Tactically & Keep it Simple

If you practice commercial litigation like lots of members of our Lawyerist Insider and Lawyerist Lab communities, it’s likely that one of the first motions you’ll argue is a motion to compel. We want to help small firm lawyers develop their lawyering skills to effectively represent clients.

When to File a Motion to Compel Discovery Production

Knowing how to effectively bring and defend a motion to compel is important because civil litigation can turn on which party bests its opponent in discovery disputes.

So how can lawyers successfully handle motions to compel? It’s easy—think tactically and keep it simple.

Judges Hate Discovery Disputes

When it comes to motions to compel, lawyers must accept three truisms: Judges are busy—and often impatient—people. Judges hate discovery disputes. And what judges hate even more than discovery disputes is having to settle discovery disputes.

Judges will do almost anything to avoid becoming immersed in discovery squabbles.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re in state court—where the district court judges usually decide discovery disputes—or in federal court—where Article III judges fob off discovery matters to their magistrates—judges will do almost anything to avoid becoming immersed in discovery squabbles.

So given these truisms, lawyers must think tactically before bringing a motion to compel. Lawyers considering a motion to compel must weigh the cost of irritating the judge by elevating the discovery dispute with the reward of potentially getting the discovery they need to prove their claims or defenses.

If, conversely, a lawyer faces the threat of a motion to compel, he must consider what will happen if he loses the motion and is ordered to produce more discovery than he would have had to produce if he would have initially produced enough discovery to avoid the motion.

Meet and Confer in Good Faith, But Don’t Get Played

Judges’ preference for avoiding discovery disputes is so strong that the state and federal rules of civil procedure generally require parties to meet and confer before bringing a motion to compel. The meet-and-confer requirements vary depending on the court, but, generally speaking, they all seek to discourage motions to compel.

In federal court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 requires that a motion to compel “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action.”

But there’s no bright-line rule for what constitutes a good-faith attempt to meet and confer.

The discovery process in general, and the meet-and-confer process in particular is a game—a dance between the non-producing party and the party requesting the discovery. In this discovery game playing, the non-producing party will do its best to delay producing the discovery or not produce the discovery at all.

For example, the non-producing party might initially agree to produce the discovery, and then, at the last minute, renege on that promise. Or the non-producing party might agree to produce the discovery, but then only produce some of it and claim that the meet-and-confer process must begin anew. Or the non-producing party might attempt to delay the meet-and-confer process itself by not agreeing to meet and confer until its attorneys’ schedules permit.

New lawyers are particularly susceptible to falling for these tactics of obfuscation and delay, especially if opposing counsel is experienced in using these tactics.

But all lawyers must recognize the game for what it is.

If the non-producing party is violating its discovery obligations, or its obligations to meet and confer, or both, the party requesting the discovery should put an end to the game. I’ve never seen a judge deny a motion to compel because the parties failed to adequately meet and confer, much less where one party is using these tactics to obstruct the discovery process.

After all, judges know how the game is played too.

Omit the Details, But Know The Case Inside Out

Legal briefs supporting motions to compel should be as concise as possible. A motion to compel isn’t a motion for summary judgment, and the judge doesn’t need to know the minute details of the case to decide the motion. In most cases, if the facts section in a brief is more than 2–3 pages long, it needs to be cut.

But being concise in a brief doesn’t mean that lawyers preparing to argue a motion to compel shouldn’t learn the case inside out. If a new lawyer is pinch-hitting for a partner on the motion (because the partner is too busy or the client can’t pay for the partner’s time to brief and argue it) the new lawyer must get up to speed on the entire case to adequately prepare for oral argument.

There’s simply no way to predict what minor factual or legal issue might come up at the hearing. And no new lawyer wants to have to explain to the supervising partner why he lost the motion by not taking the time to learn the case before oral argument.

Limit Citations to Legal Authority

Despite the importance lawyers might place on a motion to compel in a particular case, the fact is it’s probably the most routine motion decided by judges. So for the ordinary motion to compel there’s no reason to include voluminous legal authority to support basic legal propositions.

A federal magistrate judge, for example, doesn’t need three cases to understand that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) permits a party to discover “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” or information that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” A citation to the rule usually suffices to support basic legal propositions.

Besides not burdening the judge with unnecessary or redundant legal authority, lawyers should avoid citing cases from other jurisdictions in motions to compel. There are exceptions to this rule, but in most cases, judges don’t care a whit about how another judge in another jurisdiction has ruled on a previous motion to compel.

If there’s a case from another jurisdiction that’s particularly relevant to the motion—because, for example, the case involves unique facts or a specialized area of law—lawyers shouldn’t hesitate to cite it. But in general, citing unnecessary or redundant legal authority only wastes printer ink.

Eschew Tu Quoque and Ad Hominem

Discovery disputes can get acrimonious. When things get testy between litigants, their lawyers also seem to default into the playground tactic of personally attacking their opponent, while at the same time protesting that they’re on the side of the angels.

Personal attacks in discovery disputes often take the form of tu quoque and ad hominem fallacies. The tu quoque fallacy, translated from Latin, means you’re another and goes something like this: “My client shouldn’t have to produce the discovery because the other party hasn’t produced its discovery.”

The ad hominem fallacy, translated from Latin, means personal attack, and often takes the form of: “My client shouldn’t have to produce the discovery because the other party lies, cheats, and steals, and, for that matter, its lawyers are dishonest, too.”

Because judges have heard these arguments many times before, they treat tu quoque and ad hominem fallacies as distractions. So when lawyers see their opponents trotting out these fallacies, they should take advantage of them by pointing out to the judge that they’re an attempt to distract from the issues presented in the motion.

Don’t Sweat the Minor Issues

When I practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia, I had to argue motions to compel in the discovery court of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

What was unique about discovery court was that lawyers who wanted to move to compel discovery didn’t file their motion papers before the hearing. Instead, they had to bring their motion papers to discovery court on the day of the hearing.

When the clerk called their case, attorneys had to physically hand their motion papers to the discovery judge and begin to argue the motion. Because the judge knew nothing about the case, and also hadn’t read the motion papers in advance, attorneys had to quickly educate the judge and make their arguments concisely and forcefully.

What discovery court taught me is that lawyers win motions to compel by selecting, briefing, and arguing their three or four most important discovery issues. Above all else, what judges deciding motions to compel want to do is understand the principal disputed issues and decide those issues in a fair and expedited manner.

So lawyers shouldn’t sweat the small stuff on a motion to compel. They probably won’t get everything they want anyway.

A Motion to Compel Can Prepare the Battlefield

The military uses the term “preparing the battlefield” to describe the limited actions an army can use to prepare for broader military engagement in the future. Smart lawyers, too, can use motions to compel to prepare the battlefield for the larger litigation war.

Lawyers can tactically (and ethically) use motions to compel to achieve a variety of litigation ends.

A motion to compel, for example, can create an impression with the judge that the opposing party is sloppy or unethical. A motion to compel can influence the judge’s view of the facts in advance of a motion for summary judgment. A motion to compel can keep an opposing party off balance and distracted, and force it to deplete its resources defending the motion. The possibilities for tactically using motions to compel to achieve other litigation objectives really are limitless depending on the type of case.

Granted, these tactics can backfire. And to be clear, I’m not advocating that lawyers violate their ethical obligations by filing motions to compel for an improper purpose. But attorneys can be faithful to their ethical obligations and still be smart about using motions to compel to prepare for battles yet to come.

Originally published 2012-10-31. Revised 2017-01-27. Republished 2019-11-05.

The post The Motion to Compel: Think Tactically & Keep it Simple appeared first on Lawyerist.

from Law and Politics https://lawyerist.com/blog/motions-to-compel-keep-it-simple/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#Legal #law

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 4 years

Text

The Motion to Compel: Think Tactically & Keep it Simple

When to File a Motion to Compel Discovery Production

Knowing how to effectively bring and defend a motion to compel is important because civil litigation can turn on which party bests its opponent in discovery disputes.

So how can lawyers successfully handle motions to compel? It’s easy—think tactically and keep it simple.

Judges Hate Discovery Disputes

Judges will do almost anything to avoid becoming immersed in discovery squabbles.

Meet and Confer in Good Faith, But Don’t Get Played

But there’s no bright-line rule for what constitutes a good-faith attempt to meet and confer.

New lawyers are particularly susceptible to falling for these tactics of obfuscation and delay, especially if opposing counsel is experienced in using these tactics.

But all lawyers must recognize the game for what it is.

After all, judges know how the game is played too.

Omit the Details, But Know The Case Inside Out

Limit Citations to Legal Authority

Eschew Tu Quoque and Ad Hominem

Don’t Sweat the Minor Issues

When I practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia, I had to argue motions to compel in the discovery court of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

So lawyers shouldn’t sweat the small stuff on a motion to compel. They probably won’t get everything they want anyway.

A Motion to Compel Can Prepare the Battlefield

Lawyers can tactically (and ethically) use motions to compel to achieve a variety of litigation ends.

Originally published 2012-10-31. Revised 2017-01-27. Republished 2019-11-05.

The post The Motion to Compel: Think Tactically & Keep it Simple appeared first on Lawyerist.

from Law https://lawyerist.com/blog/motions-to-compel-keep-it-simple/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

sammy24682468 · 4 years

Text

Lesson 13 Sabbath School

Lesson 13

"Memory Text: “Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Romans 14:10)."

"Romans, the book from which the Protestant Reformation was born—the book that more than any other should, indeed, show us why we are Protestants and why we must remain that way. As Protestants, and especially as Seventh-day Adventists, we rest on the principle of sola scriptura—the Bible alone as the standard of faith. And it is from the Bible that we have learned the same truth that caused our spiritual forefather, centuries ago, to break from Rome—the great truth of salvation by faith, a truth so powerfully expressed in Paul’s epistle to the Romans."

"Perhaps the whole thing can be summarized by the pagan jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30). In Romans, we got the answer to that question—and the answer was not what the church was giving at the time of Luther. Hence, the Reformation began, and here we are today."

"In Romans 14:1-3, the question concerns the eating of meats that may have been sacrificed to idols. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) ruled that Gentile converts should refrain from eating such foods. But there was always the question as to whether meats sold in public markets had come from animals sacrificed to idols (see 1 Cor. 10:25). Some Christians didn’t care about that at all; others, if there were the slightest doubt, chose to eat vegetables instead. The issue had nothing to do with the question of vegetarianism and healthful living. Nor is Paul implying in this passage that the distinction between clean and unclean meats has been abolished. This is not the subject under consideration. If the words “he may eat all things” (Rom. 14:2) were taken to mean that now any animal, clean or otherwise, could be eaten, they would be misapplied. Comparison with other New Testament passages would rule against such an application."

"We tend to judge others harshly at times, and often, for the same things that we do ourselves. What we do doesn’t seem as bad to us as when others do the same thing. We might fool ourselves by our hypocrisy, but not God, who warned us: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?” (Matt. 7:1-4)."

"The citation from Isaiah 45:23 supports the thought that all must appear for judgment. “Every knee” and “every tongue” individualizes the summons. The implication is that each one will have to answer for his or her own life and deeds (Rom. 14:12). No one can answer for another. In this important sense, we are not our brother’s keeper."

"The subject is still foods sacrificed to idols. The issue is, clearly, not the distinction between the foods deemed clean and unclean. Paul is saying that there is nothing wrong per se in eating foods that might have been offered to idols. After all, what is an idol, anyway? It is nothing (see 1 Cor. 8:4), so who cares if some pagan offered the food to a statue of a frog or a bull?"

"In Romans 14:17-20, Paul is putting various aspects of Christianity into proper perspective. Although diet is important, Christians should not quarrel over some people’s choices to eat vegetables instead of flesh meats that might have been sacrificed to idols. Instead, they ought to focus on righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. How might we apply this idea to questions of diet today in our church? However much the health message, and especially the teachings on diet, can be a blessing to us, not everyone sees this subject in the same way, and we need to respect those differences."

"Have you heard someone say, “It is none of anyone’s business what I eat or what I wear or what kind of entertainment I engage in”? Is that so? None of us lives in a vacuum. Our actions, words, deeds, and even diet can affect others, either for good or for bad. It’s not hard to see how. If someone who looks up to you sees you doing something “wrong,” he or she could be influenced by your example to do that same thing. We fool ourselves if we think otherwise. To argue that you didn’t force the person is beside the point. As Christians, we have responsibilities to one another, and if our example can lead someone astray, we are culpable."

"In this discussion about not judging others who might view some things differently from the way we do, and not being a stumbling block to others who might be offended by our actions, Paul brings up the issue of special days that some want to observe and others don’t."

"Which days is Paul speaking about? Was there a controversy in the early church over the observance or nonobservance of certain days? Apparently so. We get a hint of such controversy in Galatians 4:9, 10, where Paul berates the Galatian Christians for observing “days, and months, and times, and years.” As we noted in lesson 2, some in the church had persuaded the Galatian Christians to be circumcised and to keep other precepts of the law of Moses. Paul feared that these ideas might harm the Roman church as well. But perhaps in Rome it was particularly the Jewish Christians who had a hard time persuading themselves that they need no longer observe the Jewish festivals. Paul here is saying: Do as you please in this matter; the important point is not to judge those who view the matter differently from you. Apparently some Christians, to be on the safe side, decided to observe one or more of the Jewish festivals. Paul’s counsel is: let them do it if they are persuaded they should."

"To bring the weekly Sabbath into Romans 14:5, as some argue, is unwarranted. Can one imagine Paul taking such a laid-back attitude toward the fourth commandment? As we have seen all quarter, Paul placed a heavy emphasis on obedience to the law, so he certainly wasn’t going to place the Sabbath commandment in the same category as people who were uptight about eating foods that might have been offered to idols. However commonly these texts are used as an example to show that the seventh-day Sabbath is no longer binding, they say no such thing. Their use in that manner is a prime example of what Peter warned that people were doing with Paul’s writings: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16)."

"Paul ends his letter in a glorious ascription of praise to God. God is the one in whom the Roman Christians, and all Christians, can safely put their trust to confirm their standing as redeemed sons and daughters of God, justified by faith and now led by the Spirit of God."

"“I was shown the danger of the people of God in looking to Brother and Sister White and thinking that they must come to them with their burdens and seek counsel of them. This ought not so to be. They are invited by their compassionate, loving Saviour to come unto Him, when weary and heavy-laden, and He will relieve them. . . . Many come to us with the inquiry: Shall I do this? Shall I engage in that enterprise? Or, in regard to dress, Shall I wear this or that article? I answer them: You profess to be disciples of Christ. Study your Bibles. Read carefully and prayerfully the life of our dear Saviour when He dwelt among men upon the earth. Imitate His life, and you will not be found straying from the narrow path. We utterly refuse to be conscience for you. If we tell you just what to do, you will look to us to guide you, instead of going directly to Jesus for yourselves.”—Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, pp. 118, 119."

"“We are not to place the responsibility of our duty upon others, and wait for them to tell us what to do. We cannot depend for counsel upon humanity. The Lord will teach us our duty just as willingly as He will teach somebody else. . . . Those who decide to do nothing in any line that will displease God, will know, after presenting their case before Him, just what course to pursue.”—The Desire of Ages, p. 668."

"“There have ever been in the church those who are constantly inclined toward individual independence. They seem unable to realize that independence of spirit is liable to lead the human agent to have too much confidence in himself and to trust in his own judgment rather than to respect the counsel and highly esteem the judgment of his brethren.”—The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 163, 164."

0 notes

mwsa-member · 5 years

Text

MWSA Interview with Nancy Panko

Date of interview: 19 January 2019

Based on actual events, Nancy Panko’s award winning novel, Guiding Missal, is narrated by a small Catholic prayer book carried in the pockets of three generations of servicemen, beginning in 1942 during WWII and ending in 1993 with the Battle of Mogadishu during Blackhawk Down. It is a tale of faith, family, patriotism, and miracles both on and off the battlefield. The book began as a result of efforts to re-create her father-in-law’s military history as a birthday present for her husband, Butch, on the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. As she held the Military Missal in her hands, Nancy thought, “If only this little book could talk.” In her novel, she gives the prayer book a voice.

The making of Guiding Missal was a May 2017 segment on WRAL-TV’s The Tar Heel Traveler. Nancy and her book participated on Robby Dilmore’s WTRU radio show, Kingdom Pursuits. The Military Writers’ Society of America presented Guiding Missal with the 2017 Silver Award-for Historical Fiction. Guiding Missal has over two dozen five-star reviews on Amazon and has been lauded in the Raleigh News & Observer in Cindy Shaffer’s Book Beat column.

Nancy is a retired pediatric nurse and a twelve-time contributor to Chicken Soup for the Soul and Guidepost magazines. She is a member of the Cary Senior Writing Circle, The Light of Carolina Christian Writers’ Group, and The Military Writers’ Society of America.

She and her husband migrated from Lock Haven, Pennsylvania to North Carolina in 2009. They have two children and four grandchildren. They love being in, on, or near the water of Lake Gaston with their family.

MWSA: How did you find out about MWSA?

Nancy Panko: My Publisher, Wally Turnbull of Light Messages in Durham, NC, sent me an email saying he thought I ought to enter my novel, Guiding Missal, in the 2017 contest as a Historical Fiction contender. He continued, ""I think it could win a medal."" I joined MWSA, entered the contest, and won a Silver Medal for Historical Fiction.

MWSA: What was your inspiration for your book?

Nancy Panko: A pocket-sized Catholic Military Missal was returned to my husband in 1994 after having been carried in the pockets of three generations of service members over a 50-year span. It had given guidance and solace to the men who carried it in their pockets during The Battle of the Bulge in World War II, the cold war and building of the Berlin Wall in the 1960s, and during fighting in the dusty streets of Mogadishu, Somalia during what became known as ""Blackhawk Down."" As I held the fifty-year old military missal in my hands, I thought, ""If only this prayer book could talk. I think it was then that the seed was planted to write about it’s journey.

MWSA: What writing projects are you working on these days?

Nancy Panko: I had my tenth submission to Chicken Soup for the Soul published in a January 9, 2019 release, Messages From Heaven. Presently, I'm working on a second novel about a guardian angel who comes into the human realm with a newborn baby and stays to protect the child until her days are done. It is a generational story beginning during the World War II era on a dairy farm in central New York State. I continue to submit short stories to Chicken Soup based on my personal experiences in hopes of reaching the magic number of 20 contributions.

MWSA: Now that you've finished writing and publishing Guiding Missal, what do you know now that you wish you had known before you started?

Nancy Panko: I wish I had had more education in the writing process. When I started Guiding Missal I had only taken a Creative Writing class in my Senior year of high school. I learned that I had some talent to write but life took some twists and turns. As a Registered Nurse, we had training on how to write clear, concise nursing care plans. Twenty-three years of care plans and charting gave me a backgroud of proper grammar and use of the English language, the rest was desire to tell a story. I learned as I went along with the help of great editors, through participating in webinars, and taking advantage of free writing classes at our local colleges and universities. It was a process but I had a lot to learn. The payoff was that I was first published with Chicken Soup for the Soul at age 71 and published my first novel at age 74!

MWSA: How did becoming a Silver Medal Winner help promote your book?

Nancy Panko: The prestige and honor of being recognized by MWSA was respected by folks who looked at my book and made it more likely that they would buy it. The Silver Medal sticker on the book was always an attention getter. I believe being an award-winner has resulted in more speaking engagements. We live in an area populated by military and former military families and the book is very popular with them. I have affiliated myself with a local organization, Military Missions in Action, attending events selling books with a portion of my proceeds going to this worthy cause of helping vets and their families. Everyone always wants to know about the Military Writers' Society of America.

MWSA: How did you get started writing?

Nancy Panko: I loved English, literature, reading and wrote stories and poems for special occasions for my family from the time I was a school aged child. I tried my hand at submission to Reader's Digest Humor In Uniform in the mid 1990s and was accepted. It was only a 400 word count submission but they paid $400! I thought I was ""hot stuff."" The next evening our water heater exploded and it cost us $475 to replace it. I learned quickly not to get too ""puffed up"" because the deflation isn't worth it. Years later, after my nursing career of twenty-three years, I was relating a story of a patient who changed my life. My friend encouraged me to write the story in the hopes that it could help someone reading it. I did. It was published in a magazine in California then in Chicken Soup for the Soul, and finally under a different title in Guidepost Magazine. I had the writing bug from that point on.

MWSA: What was the most interesting part of your writing journey?

Nancy Panko: In order to begin Guiding Missal I had to re-created my father-in-law's military history. Everything he'd brought home from his Tour of Duty, including citations and medals, was gone. A fire in the Army records center in St. Louis, Missouri had destroyed his section of records. After unsuccessfully trying the court house and other leads, I felt defeated.

A week later, a phone call changed everything. My brother-in-law, Pete remembered Dad receiving a yearly newsletter from the secretary of the 289th Cannon Company. He had kept it! It had names, addresses and phone numbers. I felt like I’d won the lottery.

I contacted the gentleman who sent the newsletter. He encouraged me to call others on the list, giving me names. These men had served with Dad and knew stories no one in our family had ever heard. I began personal interviews and received letters from members of the company, men in their eighty’s, who were eager to tell their stories, as well as Dad’s. They gave life to Dad as a soldier. One man sent a booklet of the history of the 289th Cannon Company. Others sent actual war maps detailing their trek across Europe, driving the Germans out of France, the liberation of concentration camps and the surrender of the Germans.

A long letter from Uncle Joe, Dad's brother, gave me much more information and some very funny stories. Both Dad and Joe were serving in the ETO (European Theater of Operations.) It was 1945 in France, and the brothers had not seen each other for two years. As fate would have it, they were reunited when they literally ran into each other in a tent. Both were marking time while waiting to be shipped back to the States. Uncle Joe added humor and laughter with page after page of stories of their antics.

Without the volume of material these men provided, it would have been impossible to tell Dad’s story. I began to compile the information in a notebook. That single notebook grew to three notebooks.

MWSA: What would like us to know about you and/or Guiding Missal?

Nancy Panko: Guiding Missal - Fifty Years. Three Generations of Military Men. One Spirited Prayer Book was an honor for me to research and write. I spoke to many heros and listened to their stories. In tribute to all who served, I needed to get this story right because men died serving our great country. The story is historically correct but the human element also had to be authentic. The men I interviewed made it all possible. Receiving validation from MWSA was a great honor. I am happy to say that through this validation, Guiding Missal has been recently approved by the U.S. Army to be featured in a book signing event at the 82nd Airborne Museum in Fayetteville, NC to be announced.

MWSA: How is your book, Guiding Missal available?

Nancy Panko: It is available in print, digital and audio formats. Through Amazon, Audible.com, and iTunes."

0 notes

eyeofhorus237 · 6 years

Link

The name of God most often used in the Hebrew Bible is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH יהוה). It is frequently anglicized as Jehovah and Yahweh and written in most English editions of the Bible as "the Lord" owing to the Jewish tradition increasingly viewing the divine name as too sacred to be uttered. It was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lords”), which was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures.[1]

Rabbinic Judaism describes seven names which are so holy that, once written, should not be erased: YHWH and six others which can be categorized as titles are El ("God"), Eloah ("God"), Elohim ("Gods"), Shaddai (“Almighty"), Ehyeh (“I Will Be”), and Tzevaot ("[of] Hosts").[2] Other names are considered mere epithets or titles reflecting different aspects of God,[3] but chumrah sometimes dictates special care such as the writing of "G-d" instead of "God" in English or saying Ṭēt-Vav (טו, lit. "9-6") instead of Yōd-Hē (יה, lit. "10-5" but also "Jah") for the number fifteen in Hebrew.[4]

The documentary hypothesis proposes that the Torah was compiled from various original sources, two of which (the Jahwist and the Elohist) are named for their usual names for God (YHWH and Elohim respectively).[citation needed]

Seven Names of God

The seven names of God that, once written, cannot be erased because of their holiness[5] are the Tetragrammaton, El, Elohim, Eloah, Elohai, El Shaddai, and Tzevaot.[6] In addition, the name Jah—because it forms part of the Tetragrammaton—is similarly protected.[6]Rabbi Jose considered "Tzevaot" a common name[7] and Rabbi Ishmael that "Elohim" was.[8]All other names, such as "Merciful", "Gracious" and "Faithful", merely represent attributes that are also common to human beings.[9]

YHWH

Main articles: Tetragrammaton, Yahweh, and Lord § Religion

The name of God used most often in the Hebrew Bible is YHWH[n 1] (י ה ו ה), also known as the Tetragrammaton (Greek for "four-letter [word]"). Hebrew is an abjad, so the word's letters Yōd, Hē, Vav, Hē are usually taken for consonants and expanded to Yahweh in English.

In modern Jewish culture, it is accepted as forbidden to pronounce the name the way that it is spelled. In prayers it is pronounced Adonai, and in discussion is usually said as HaShem, meaning “The Name”. The exact pronunciation is uncertain because—although there is nothing in the Torah to prohibit the saying of the name[11] and Ruth shows it was being pronounced as late as the 5th century bce[12][n 2]—it had ceased to be spoken aloud by at least the 3rd century bce during Second Temple Judaism[14] and vowel points were not written until the early medieval period. The Masoretic Text uses vowel points of Adonai or Elohim (depending on the context) marking the pronunciation as Yəhōwāh (יְ הֹ וָ ה, [jăhowɔh] (listen)); however, scholarly consensus is that this is not the original pronunciation.[15] (For a discussion of subtle pronunciation changes between what is preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures and what is read, see Qere and Ketiv.)

The Tetragrammaton first appears in Genesis[16] and occurs 6828 times in total in the Stuttgart edition of the Masoretic Text. It is thought to be an archaic third-person singular imperfect tense of the verb "to be" (i.e., "[He] was being"). This agrees with the passage in Exodus where God names Himself as "I Will Be What I Will Be"[17] using the first-person singular imperfect tense.

Rabbinical Judaism teaches that the name is forbidden to all except the High Priest, who should only speak it in the Holy of Holies of the Temple in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur. He then pronounces the name "just as it is written".[citation needed][18] As each blessing was made, the people in the courtyard were to prostrate themselves completely as they heard it spoken aloud. As the Temple has not been rebuilt since its destruction in 70 ad, most modern Jews never pronounce YHWH but instead read Adonai ("My Lord") during prayer and while reading the Torah and as HaShem ("The Name") at other times.[19][20] Similarly, the Vulgateused Dominus ("The Lord") and most English translations of the Bible write "the Lord" for YHWH and "the Lord God", "the Lord God" or "the Sovereign Lord" for Adonai YHWH instead of transcribing the name. The Septuagint may have originally used the Hebrew letters themselves amid its Greek text[21][22] but there is no scholarly consensus on this point. All surviving Christian-era manuscripts use Kyrios [Κυριος, "Lord") or very occasionally Theos [Θεος, "God"] to translate the many thousand occurrences of the Name. (However, given the great preponderance of the anarthrous Kyrios solution for translating YHWH in the Septuagint and some disambiguation efforts by Christian-era copyists involving Kyrios (see especially scribal activity in Acts[23]), Theos should probably not be considered historically as a serious early contender substitute for the divine Name.)